Re: Langevin's paradox again

Le 18/07/2024 à 21:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 17.07.2024 20:26, skrev Richard Hachel:

Your theory predicts that the real speed of the protons
in the LHC is 6947c.

 Yes, absolutly.
 Vr=6947c
 The relativistic world uses fantastic speeds.
You know that if you could move at the same speed as this proton, in interstellar space, in a little over a year, you could visit any star in a huge sphere 7,000 light years around sun?
All physicists know this.
They know about time dilation, which is a real phenomenon, so they know that at this speed, it's possible. But they also know that when we come to tell what we saw, we would have to tell it to our great-great-grandchildren.

 The real speed of the protons in the LHC is measured
to be 0.9999998c.

 No.
 Please stop.
 Observable speed in the laboratory Vo=0.99999998c
 Real Speed : Vr=6947c  You confuse the notions.

 >> You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
 >> know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
 >> gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.

 But no !!!  LOL !!!

Please keep insisting that if the speed of the protons is 6947c
and thus will move once around the ring in ≈ 13 ns,

 Tr(tau)=x/Vr

then a clock
at a point in the ring will measure that the proton passes it
every ≈ 90 μs.

 To=x/Vo

(I have a morbid sense of humour and love to rub it in.)

It's not humor, I just can't understand why you contradict everything I write on usenet.
It would appear that you are doing this with honesty, not simply to falsify the science, and with confidence in your right because you have memorized what others have said.
I now invite you to go further, to think for yourself, and to verify that things are really sometimes wrong in the interpretations that men have made of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations (which are correct, but interpreted anyhow and with an abstract, false, contradictory and absurd Minkowskian metric).
I want to lead you to understand it or at least suspect it.
Then, it will be extraordinarily easy to show you that my metric poses no problem of mathematical logic, physical evidence, or artistic beauty.
R.H.