Re: Langevin's paradox again

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Langevin's paradox again
De : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul.B.Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 14. Jul 2024, 19:36:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v715id$8suh$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 12.07.2024 15:44, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/07/2024 à 13:58, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
>
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
 No.
 
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
 No.
To test a theory, you must calculate what the theory
predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Then you do the experiment, and see if the values
read of the instrument are in accordance with the prediction
within the precision of the measurement.
There are two possible outcomes.
Either the measurements are in accordance with the measurements
or they are not.
In the former case, the theory is confirmed, but NOT proved.
In the latter case, the theory is falsified (proved wrong).
It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.
According to Richard Hachel (that's you) his theory predicts:
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.
You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed  6927⋅c.
The physicists who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c.
The predictions of your theory are different from the measured
values.
Your theory is falsified.

 
It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!

 The experimental verifications relate to points which are similar in the two theories (or rather in the two relativistic geometries, those of Minkowski and that of Hachel).
 For example, if we ask a physicist to calculate the time taken by an accelerated particle to travel a distance x, the physicist will immediately use Hachel's formula and he will be right.
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
If we ask him the opposite, that is to say to calculate the distance as a function of time, the physicists will still use Hachel's formula, which is the reciprocal, and he will still be right.
x=(c²/a)[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²) -1]
You cannot therefore say, "the physicists contradict you", since they use the same formulas as me, to prove a physical reality that is obvious on paper, and obvious in the laboratories.
Look.
Many (most) experiments will confirm several theories.
So it will probably be experiments which confirm both
your theory and SR.
But it takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.
The fact that the LHC (and other accelerators) work falsifies
your theory and confirms SR.
You can kick and whine and breath heavily us much as you want.
YOU ARE PROVED WRONG.

 Now, on other things, they have to correct their equations, and they have to prove experimentally whether it is Minkowski or me. On theoretical paper, it is impossible that Minkowski and his physicists can be right, what they say is not consistent and logical.
 I have corrected a few equations that are not correct among theirs, and all they have to do is verify experimentally what can only be correct both mathematically and physically.
 Example of corrections:
 x=(1/2).a.Tr²
 Vri=a.Tr
 Tr (tau) =sqrt(2x/a)
 To²=Tr²+Et²
 Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
 To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vri²/c²)
 Eg=mc².sqrt(1+2ax/c²)
 Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+2ax/c²) -1]
 p=m.sqrt(2ax)
 a'=a(1+Vr²/c²)^(-3/2)
 a'=a(1-Vo²/c²)^(3/2)
 These equations contradict the predictions of proper times and instantaneous observable velocities.
 It is therefore the experimental verification of these two values ​​that we must seek (which is not simple experimentally).
You are a bit slow, are you not?
Look at these experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
I am sure you can seek and find that some of them confirm your theory.
But that doesn't help, because several of them falsify your theory.
It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.
The HLC is such an experiment.
Your equations predict that the protons in the HLC
are moving with the speed  6927⋅c.
In the real world they are measured to always move
at a speed slightly less than c.
Your equations are proved wrong!
Keep insisting that your theory isn't falsified,
and I will keep reminding you that it is!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul 24 * Langevin's paradox again205Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Python
4 Jul 24 i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
4 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
4 Jul 24 i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again5gharnagel
4 Jul 24 i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
4 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2gharnagel
5 Jul 24 i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Emette Warszawski Wei
7 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again14Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again13Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Python
8 Jul 24 i  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Python
8 Jul 24 i  i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Athel Cornish-Bowden
8 Jul 24 i  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Athel Cornish-Bowden
8 Jul 24 i  i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Cornelio Somogyi Xing
11 Jul 24 i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Nesdy Pantelas
8 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again8J. J. Lodder
8 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Python
8 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Python
8 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
8 Jul 24 i i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1J. J. Lodder
9 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again158Thomas Heger
9 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again157Richard Hachel
9 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Python
9 Jul 24 i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Python
9 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
9 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Python
10 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Python
10 Jul 24 i i    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Python
10 Jul 24 i i    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i i    i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
10 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Thomas Heger
10 Jul 24 i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again139Paul.B.Andersen
10 Jul 24 i  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again136Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again135Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again29Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i+* Re: Langevin's paradox again22Paul.B.Andersen
12 Jul 24 i    ii+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    ii`* Re: Langevin's paradox again20Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i    ii `* Re: Langevin's paradox again19Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24 i    ii  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24 i    ii  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again17Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again16Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again14Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again11Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again10Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i      `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i       +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Stefan Ram
16 Jul 24 i    ii    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Haynh Molnár Jue
12 Jul 24 i    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again6ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
12 Jul 24 i    i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again102Stefan Ram
11 Jul 24 i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again101Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i      +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
11 Jul 24 i      +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
12 Jul 24 i      +* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Mikko
12 Jul 24 i      i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Athel Cornish-Bowden
14 Jul 24 i      i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Mikko
14 Jul 24 i      i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24 i      i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i      i i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Finis Maryanna
14 Jul 24 i      i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i      i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
12 Jul 24 i      `* Re: Langevin's paradox again90Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 `* Re: Langevin's paradox again15J. J. Lodder

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal