Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist (that's
me) wrote:
"If two different observers travel an identical path in equal observable
times,
then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
The no less immense, incomparable, and fantastic international Python
critic refutes.
And yet, the idea is very simple.
Let's set up a Galilean frame of reference, in which a Galilean mobile
moves from left to right on the x axis.
When it goes to O, in R, we click.
When it passes x, let's say 12 al, we click.
For example, we obtain To=12.915.
Or a speed of Vo=x/To=0.9291c
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=4.776
Let us pose another body, but this time in uniformly accelerated motion,
and whose speed will be specially chosen so that To=12.915.
This means that in R, if they leave together, they arrive together (even
if they do not have the same speed between them).
This is where the problem lies with Mr. Python.
He will immediately assert that the proper times will not be equal, and
that to write this is to contradict the relativist concept, and,
inevitably, to be mistaken.
But let's take a moment at the level of mobiles.
For the mobile at constant speed, the point to be joined, that is to say
which will return to it,
is at x'=x.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)] and it moves with a speed of
Vapp=Vo/(1-Vo/c).
For the accelerated mobile, the acceleration is only constant in its
frame of reference (it is he who accelerates)
and we have in each part of the path, dTr=dx'/dVapp' or
dTr=dTo/sqrt(1-Voi²/c²)
However, the integration of this, practiced at real speed, leads to
Tr=To.sqrt(1+Vrm²/c²).
That is to say again at Tr=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) where Vo is the same
speed as in the other Galilean frame of reference.
We come back once again to:
"If two different observers travel an identical path in equal observable
times,
then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
Jean-Pierre Python then asserts that this is absurd, because there is
acceleration of one of the mobiles in relation to the other.
Except that there is also an acceleration of the other in relation to
the one.
And when placed on the same equal footing, we cannot differentiate the
total proper time of one from the total proper time of the other.
The fact that different observers experience acceleration between them
is not an admissible objection, because let us take the case of two
mobiles each performing at the same speed over half a circumference,
one in hourly revolution, and the other in trigonometric revolution. It is
quite obvious that the proper tenses will be equal to each other
(otherwise it is immediately absurd) during their conjunction.
And yet, constantly, they will have accelerated and decelerated between
them, and at every point of their journey.
It is the same thing with the proper times of two different observers,
but covering equal portions in equal times.
Their own times will be equal.
The relativists' error consists of a poor understanding of the
calculation of the proper times of objects
in accelerated movement. They then find a proper time that is too small,
compared to the correct proper time.
They then deduce that the proper times of the two observers described
above will not be equal.
Always, always, always the same error is reproduced among them, they
consider observable speeds as real.
It's passable in Galilean RR with the artifice of mass change, with the
artifice of time skipping, and other useless and ridiculous joys.
In accelerated benchmarks, continuing with the same falsified principles
becomes cumbersome.
Hence the last criminal proposition of the physicists: "Ah yes, but
these frames of reference are more like special relativity, they are
hyperbolic, geostrategic, Remanian physics,
and transcendental.
It's not very serious when you scratch a little.
It's even a very speech full of abstract religiosity.
R.H.

Le 13/04/2024 à 08:36, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
>
>  The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist
> (that's me) wrote:
>
>  "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
> observable times,
> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.

[note : I posted a more detailed answer on fr.sci.physique]

This claim is logically ill-founded to begin with :

1. From the point of view of any frame of reference the elapsed time
between ANY pair of events has a UNIQUE value. So "equal observable
times" is a void proposition.

2. "Identical path" i.e. "same set of locations" for different
trajectories is a condition that can be verified in a given
frame of reference but, then won't be so in other frames.

A condition that depends on a choice of frame of reference (subjective)
CANNOT implies a conclusion that does not depend on it ("objective")

(except in Galilean Relativity, of course, but then all times, proper
or not are equal, but everything implies an always true proposition,
and this is not what Lengrand claims)

So Lengrand's claim is dead in the water at first read.

>  Let's set up a Galilean frame of reference, in which a Galilean mobile
> moves from left to right on the x axis.
....
>  Let us pose another body, but this time in uniformly accelerated
> motion, and whose speed will be specially chosen so that To=12.915.
>
>  This means that in R, if they leave together, they arrive together
> (even if they do not have the same speed between them).
....
>  Their own times will be equal.

This is obviously violating the principle of Relativity. It is obvious
when you describe the situation in the inertial traveler's frame of
reference. (except, again, in Galilean Relativiy)

>  It's even a very speech full of abstract religiosity.

If you call religiosity the fact that you are psychologically unable
to consider anything that went through your mind, without any sensible
justification, as wrong, this is, indeed, religiosity. This is more
correctly called "hubris".

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
> The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist
> (that's me) wrote: "If two different observers travel an identical
> path in equal observable times, then their proper times will necessarily
> be equal.The no less immense, incomparable, and fantastic international
> Python critic refutes.

you are a fucking fruitcake. Enough reading few words to realize you are
uneducated and unskilled like shit, in physics. Making assessments shows
you are impertinent as well. Rather no difference between you frogs and the
english pigs. Same motherfuckers with a large mouth on their face. For
instance watch a clip on youtube about cars etc, from an english pig, he
talks hours without showing anything. Fuck you, frogs.

_𝗝𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗻_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗺𝗮_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗡𝗮𝗴𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗶_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
Tokyo’s deputy UN envoy has leveraged the infamous twin atomic bombings to
blast Moscow’s “nuclear rhetoric”
https://www.%72t.com/news/595856-japan-ignore-us-atomic-bombing/

she doesn't even know who dropped the two nuclear bombs on Japan.

Check up what the Japanese did in Nanjing 1936, no nice things I can tell.

And what do they say about the jew in Kiev attacking nuclear plants, and
the jews in israel threatening to attack iranian nuclear facilities and
unleash nuclear holocausts? Is japanese bowing and scraping now being
directed at jews?

Stockholm Syndrome

How many did Japan kill in China 1936-45 ? 12 million ? 15 million ?

W dniu 13.04.2024 o 13:49, Python pisze:
> Le 13/04/2024 à 08:36, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
>>
>>   The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist
>> (that's me) wrote:
>>
>>   "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times,
>> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> [note : I posted a more detailed answer on fr.sci.physique]
>
> This claim is logically ill-founded to begin with :

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

Le 13/04/2024 à 16:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 13.04.2024 o 13:49, Python pisze:
>> Le 13/04/2024 à 08:36, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>>> Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
>>>
>>>   The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist
>>> (that's me) wrote:
>>>
>>>   "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>>> observable times,
>>> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>>
>> [note : I posted a more detailed answer on fr.sci.physique]
>>
>> This claim is logically ill-founded to begin with :
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already  learnt
> what a function is? Are you still trying to
> determine its properties applying a French
> definition of a different word?

Woz, this thread is not about your own confusions about
your own confusions.

W dniu 13.04.2024 o 16:04, Python pisze:
> Le 13/04/2024 à 16:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 13.04.2024 o 13:49, Python pisze:
>>> Le 13/04/2024 à 08:36, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>>>> Let us understand each other (a moment of optimism).
>>>>
>>>>   The immense, the incomparable, the fantastic relativist theorist
>>>> (that's me) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>>>> observable times,
>>>> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>>>
>>> [note : I posted a more detailed answer on fr.sci.physique]
>>>
>>> This claim is logically ill-founded to begin with :
>>
>> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
>> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
>> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already  learnt
>> what a function is? Are you still trying to
>> determine its properties applying a French
>> definition of a different word?
>
> Woz, this thread is not about your own confusions about
> your own confusions.

Oh, stinker Pyt is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

Le 13/04/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[same bullshit]

> Woz, this thread is not about your own confusions about
> your own confusions.

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal observable
> times,

"Observable"?
WHO is doing the observing? Presumably, an observer at earth, yes?

> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.

This is not possible.

> Let's set up a Galilean frame of reference, in which a Galilean mobile
> moves from left to right on the x axis.
>
> When it goes to O, in R, we click.
>
> When it passes x, let's say 12 al, we click.
>
> For example, we obtain To=12.915.
>
> Or a speed of Vo=x/To=0.9291c
>
> Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=4.776

This is assuming a constant velocity of v = 0.9291c, yes. The proper time
of the trip is 4.7746 years, using c = 299792458 m/s and one year equal to
3600*24*365.25 = 31557600 seconds.

> Let us pose another body, but this time in uniformly accelerated motion,

WHO sees the "uniformly accelerated motion"? The earth observer or the one
in the ship?

> and whose speed will be specially chosen so that To=12.915.

Neither the earth observer nor the ship observer sees a "specially chosen"
speed. Both will see the ship going faster and faster. An ACCELERATION
must be specially chosen.

> This means that in R, if they leave together, they arrive together (even
> if they do not have the same speed between them).

The equations are here (Equ. 6a):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)

I set the problem up using excel. For the ships to arrive together at the
same time when viewed in the earth frame, the second ship must accelerate
at 10 m/sec^2. The proper time (ship's time) will take 1.3632 years. The
constant-v ship's time is 4.7746 years, so their proper times are NOT equal.

W dniu 13.04.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times,
>
> "Observable"?
> WHO is doing the observing?  Presumably, an observer at earth, yes?
>
>> then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> This is not possible.
>
>>   Let's set up a Galilean frame of reference, in which a Galilean
>> mobile moves from left to right on the x axis.
>>
>>   When it goes to O, in R, we click.
>>
>>   When it passes x, let's say 12 al, we click.
>>
>>   For example, we obtain To=12.915.
>>
>>   Or a speed of Vo=x/To=0.9291c
>>
>>   Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=4.776
>
> This is assuming a constant velocity of v = 0.9291c, yes.  The proper time
> of the trip is 4.7746 years, using c = 299792458 m/s and one year equal to
> 3600*24*365.25 = 31557600 seconds.

AAnd in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

W dniu 13.04.2024 o 17:46, Python pisze:
> Le 13/04/2024 à 17:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> [same bullshit]
>
>> Woz, this thread is not about your own confusions about
>> your own confusions.
>

Oh, stinker Pyt is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> AAnd in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
> measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.

The "improper" clocks in orbit keep proper time
only on earth. In orbit, or on the moon or on Mars,
they're improper. Wozzie always seems to ignore
inconvenient truths.

W dniu 13.04.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> AAnd in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
>> by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
>> always did.
>
> The "improper" clocks in orbit keep proper time
> only on earth.

Sure. Why would they do otherwise, Harrie?
Only brainwashed by The Shit morons like you,
Harrie, care about its "proper time" absurd.
Professionals from GPS surely don't.

Le 13/04/2024 à 19:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[same bullshit]

Woz, this thread is not about your own confusions about
your own confusions.

gharnagel wrote:

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> AAnd in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
>> idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
>> clocks always did.
>
> The "improper" clocks in orbit keep proper time only on earth. In
> orbit, or on the moon or on Mars,
> they're improper. Wozzie always seems to ignore inconvenient truths.

not true. In emptiest space, no gravity, it's where it's proper time
occurs. Not on earth.

Speaking to a group of Jews, Jesus says, "You belong to your father, the
devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer
from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the
father of lies." - John 8:44

𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹:_𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Tehran has launched retaliatory strikes following a deadly airstrike that
killed two Iranian generals earlier this month
https://www.r%74.com/news/595873-israel-iran-live-updates/

gharnagel wrote:

> I set the problem up using excel. For the ships to arrive together at
> the same time when viewed in the earth frame, the second ship must
> accelerate at 10 m/sec^2. The proper time (ship's time) will take
> 1.3632 years. The constant-v ship's time is 4.7746 years, so their
> proper times are NOT equal.

Sort of recall somebody writing the following once upon a time: "As it was
in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in
the days before the flood, the people were eating and drinking, marrying
and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark.…"

Ramon Airport/Eilat hit

𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹:_𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Tehran has launched retaliatory strikes following a deadly airstrike that
killed two Iranian generals earlier this month
https://www.r%74.com/news/595873-israel-iran-live-updates/

Well overdue. Iran has been incredibily tolerant of Israel's attacks.
Israel crossed a line destroying an embassy. The UN failed again and didn't
step up to condemn it.

Latest News: Israels Negev air base struck by missiles

Missiles are hitting targets... The souls of murdered children in Gaza send
their blessings

First waves of missiles are hitting targets inside Zionville.
Congratulations free thinkers, may the souls thousands of murdered Gazan
children find some justice

So Iran loses top brass in one strike, and Israel just shoots down drone
waves. Feels like something is missing...

Erdoghan crypto jew lap dog wuf wuf yeah you will do what attack syria .
Jasssous

On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.

Yes, of course.

My response differs from others because I interpret your context
differently.

Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).

Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any
observer this directly follows from them following the
same worldline through spacetime.

Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.

> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]

Tom Roberts

Le 20/04/2024 à 18:52, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
> differently.

You interpret path as a path in space-time while Hachel is considering
path in space only (so it is true in only ONE reference frame)

For instance, he claims that if two travelers would go from Earth
to Tau Ceti, one at constant velocity w.r.t Earth the other one
with a constant acceleration both will measure the same (proper)
time for their trips.

W dniu 20.04.2024 o 18:52, Tom Roberts pisze:
> On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
> differently.
>
> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity;

Sure, only The Shit and its brainwashed followers may be dumb
enough to believe that sick absurd to have any meaning and
importance.

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> Yes, of course. My response differs from others because I interpret your
> context differently.
> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
> does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
> means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
> they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
> proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).
> Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any observer this
> directly follows from them following the same worldline through
> spacetime.
> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.

i'm not sure. It looks like you think same wordline means same place and
trajectory, which is false. A same path through spacetime does not mean
that.

Le 20/04/2024 à 18:52, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> Yes, of course.
>
> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
> differently.
>
> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
> does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
> means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
> they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
> proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).
>
> Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any
> observer this directly follows from them following the
> same worldline through spacetime.
>
> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>
>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]

J'ai rien compris.

R.H.

On 2024-04-20 22:31:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 20/04/2024 à 18:52, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
>> differently.
>>
>> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
>> does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
>> means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
>> they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
>> proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).
>>
>> Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any
>> observer this directly follows from them following the
>> same worldline through spacetime.
>>
>> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
>> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
>> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>>
>>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]
>
> J'ai rien compris.

Quelle surprise !

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-20 22:31:03 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> Le 20/04/2024 à 18:52, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>>> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
>>> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
>>> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>>>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]
>>
>> J'ai rien compris.
>
> Quelle surprise !

my friend, please no. America is the axis of evil. Everybody knows it. It
stays in the history books. Evil like shit 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙢 motherfuckers. Please
be careful. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘀_𝗪𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗙𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁_‘𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’_𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_$61_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝗶𝗱
Speaker Mike Johnson delivered the Democrats a gift and sold out the
American people on Saturday, reneging on his months-long pledge to never
pass foreign aid without first securing America’s border. House Democrats
waved Ukraine […]

𝗧𝗼𝗽_𝗢𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗙𝗗𝗔_𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗝𝗮𝗯𝘀_𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗦𝗸𝘆𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱
World renowned oncologist and professor Angus Dalgleish, known for his
cancer and HIV research, has urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
to immediately recall the “fundamentally flawed” Covid mRNA shots.
According to Prof. Dalgleish, […]

𝗛𝗕𝗢_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗠𝗮𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮
within Hollywood which he says is becoming more rampant every day. In his
closing monologue Friday on HBO’s “Real Time”, Maher admitted that […]

𝗔𝗜_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽_𝗨𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗳𝘆_𝗖𝗼𝘄𝘀_𝗧𝗼_𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Bill gates believes that artificial intelligence (AI) will have a major
role to play in fighting climate change. He thinks this will include
allowing scientists to genetically modifying cows to produce less methane
or to […]

𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗢𝗳_𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹_‘𝗪𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀’_𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗗𝘂𝗯𝗮𝗶_𝗙𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀
Leading meteorologist Johan Jaques has warned of looming ‘weather wars’
between nations if ‘cloud seeding’ gets out of hand His warning follows
after the recent flooding in Dubai sparked concerns about artificially
manipulating the rainfall. […]

𝗨𝗦_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮,_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_&_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗡𝗲𝘄_“𝗔𝘅𝗶𝘀_𝗢𝗳_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗹”
US House Speaker Mike Johnson has this week not only praised the country’s
deep state and vowed to put his job on the line to funnel billions to
Ukraine, but has also called Russia, China, and […]

On 04/20/2024 09:52 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
> differently.
>
> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
> does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
> means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
> they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
> proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).
>
> Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any
> observer this directly follows from them following the
> same worldline through spacetime.
>
> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>
>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]
>
> Tom Roberts

Can you help further explain for the rest of us why
this isn't necessarily the usual interpretation or
why it sort of doesn't arrive at the same results of
some of the usual thought experiments like the traveling twins?

Le 21/04/2024 à 15:53, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 04/20/2024 09:52 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/13/24 1:36 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> "If two different observers travel an identical path in equal
>>> observable times, then their proper times will necessarily be equal.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> My response differs from others because I interpret your context
>> differently.
>>
>> Since you mention "proper times", your context must be relativity; it
>> does not matter whether SR or GR, because "travel an identical path"
>> means they travel along a single worldline through spacetime -- i.e.
>> they are always co-located and co-moving, so of course their elapsed
>> proper times are equal (counting from any event on their worldline).
>>
>>      Your "in equal observable times" is redundant. For any
>>      observer this directly follows from them following the
>>      same worldline through spacetime.
>>
>> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
>> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
>> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>>
>>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Can you help further explain for the rest of us why
> this isn't necessarily the usual interpretation or
> why it sort of doesn't arrive at the same results of
> some of the usual thought experiments like the traveling twins?

In the twins scenario, twins does not share the same
space-time path.

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> Note this is essentially the first time I agree with Hachel. I doubt
>> that he understands why what he wrote is actually correct, because he
>> followed it with a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense.
>>> [... enormous amount of gibberish ignored.] Tom Roberts
>
> Can you help further explain for the rest of us why this isn't
> necessarily the usual interpretation or why it sort of doesn't arrive at
> the same results of some of the usual thought experiments like the
> traveling twins?

because the observer is apart from those paths through spacetime. Apart
means distance in time and space. That's what an observer in physics is.
You can make path coincide, but you have to be very careful, you fucking
imbecile.