Re: Proper time differences

Le 09/07/2024 à 07:21, Sylvia Else a écrit :

 "Time dilation" is a special case of the Lorentz transform, and due to continued lack of clarity on this point in popular science media, people tie themselves in knots by trying to use time dilation in situations that do not match the special case.
 Apply the complete Lorentz transform to your problem, and any apparent contradictions will go away.
 Sylvia.

It is notorious today that physicists (no physicist in the world) do not understand the theory of relativity which is a very simple concept when we see it (I spent 40 years sometimes thinking about it whole nights).
Many idiots insult Doctor Hachel, because he doesn't think exactly like them, and thus believe he is doing a good job.
The charming Sylvia says that today there is no more paradox and falsity in the theory, she is wrong. She doesn't realize that it's just a very imperfect mathematical work, as if we were approaching the truth and the solution, but without fully finding it.
Certainly the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct, and certainly, they induce a relativity of times, and on this she is absolutely right, and we prove it both mathematically (theoretical internal perfection) and physically (experimental perfection).
But apart from the brilliant transformations of the French mathematician, the understanding of the problem becomes, for men, completely vague, and they no longer understand correctly what they are saying or saying is false.
We then enter into the behavior of the human male: denial.
The greatest of the relativist theorists today is me, and if so many idiots stopped being monkeys and listened to me a little we wouldn't be in so much darkness, and with so many cranks who want to impose concepts even more stupid than those of Minkowski.
The main errors are:
1. Physicists confuse time measurement and the internal chronotropy of watches. This is also what explains why they were never able to resolve, even remotely, the Langevin paradox, and that I am the only one who can really do it and explain it clearly.
Let's take the example of Stella and Terrence, she comes back aged 18, he is 30 years old. This is certain, we cannot contradict. But this is a criterion of the MEASUREMENT OF TIME and not of chronotropy. They do not have the same measure of time, far from it, but always, always, always, they have had the same reciprocity of chronotropy, that is to say that not a single second, for any of them , throughout the outward and return journey the chronotropy of the other continued to be weaker. For each, the internal mechanism of the other watch ALWAYS turned slower, second after second. The paradox seems obvious and likely to drive one crazy after 120 years of theoretical physics. We forget one thing: Poincaré's equations have a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is at the top and represents the effects of external anisochrony, the numerator is at the bottom, and represents the effects of internal chronotropy. If we only take the denominator (Lorentz factor) we enter into absurdity. If we take both terms, everything is nothing more than logic and fantastic mathematical beauty. But that's not all to have the full resolution of the paradox, and physicists forget a second thing.
2. Physicists, very strangely, absolutely do not understand (but absolutely not) the brilliant sentence of Richard Hachel (that's me): "There is no absolute frame of reference, and all the laws of physics are invariant (in particular the observable speed of light) by change of frame of reference; and the effects of physics are symmetrical and reciprocal by permutation of observer.
This seems very simple, even obvious, but physicists do not fully understand the meaning of the second part of the sentence. They do not understand the reciprocity of the effects of elasticity of lengths and distances by permutation of observer.
In summary, there are two major misunderstandings if only to explain the Langevin paradox.
The rest is, I repeat again, only a human religious and philosophical problem: "We do not want this man to reign over us."
For Sylvia, as she is kind, which is rare on usenet, and as she likes the gifts and the transformations of Poincaré-Lorentz, which she knows by heart, I dedicate to her the transformations of Hachel which are valid this time for rotating relativistic environments. She can learn them by heart if she wants, and even teach them to anyone she wants (if she is not afraid of being assassinated like President Kennedy). It's free.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?vlbEhM2KsIvNjpx1LgxljHsrF_k@jntp/Data.Media:1>
R.H.