Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean

Le 19/12/2024 à 20:39, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

We await a doable (in principle) decisive experiment
that will prove Dr. Hachel right, and Prof. Einstein wrong.
(so not a relativistic centrifuge,
 or a forever accelerating spaceship at 1 g, or...)
FYI, what we see so far on relativistic motion around black holes
favour Einstein.

When two theories clash, it is necessary to decide by experimentation.
However, for the moment, both theories seem valid and give the same experimental results (half-life of particles, aberration of the position of stars, energy of corpuscle collisions, etc.).
But that is only the basics.
Dr. Hachel's predictions are totally different on a lot of things as soon as we leave these basics.
Now, refuting Hachel poses three problems.
1. A problem of logical design (his theory is not based on a conglomerate of theory that has been put together but something compact, but resulting from a single logical thought based on universal anisochrony, the reciprocity of relativistic effects, and the dilation of chronotropies).
2. Hachel is the only one who explains both the impossibility of observing a transverse velocity faster than c, and at the same time the instantaneous transfers of information as long as we use the appropriate spatio-temporal geometry. Einstein cannot do it. This is what Professor Alain Aspect will say. It would therefore be strange if it were Hachel who is wrong.
3. Thirdly, Hachel is a theorist who uses mathematics and theories in a logical way. However, it is totally illogical to explain the Langevin paradox by sweeping the dust under the carpet and forgetting that, by doing so, we include in the reasoning a considerable absurdity. The apparent speeds are no longer reciprocal, which is absurd and contradictory with the basic postulate which is an absence of absolute reference and a necessity of perfect reciprocity of all relativistic effects (including visual ones).
4. Finally, we must respect the principle of Ockham's razor. If a theory is simple and beautiful, it has a much better chance of being true than an ugly and complex theory, full of paradoxes (Langevin, Andromeda, Erhenfest). It is not normal that we keep something that has at least three theoretical paradoxes by nature. I do not have that at all in my developments.
R.H.