Sujet : Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years
De : r.hachel (at) *nospam* liscati.fr.invalid (Richard Hachel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 29. Dec 2024, 19:17:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <O1HgNkR8fhOGog0hD8V6w5tAWS4@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/1.0
Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of them.
If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:
| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
|>
|> The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory frame
|> but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.
|>
|> This is called time dilation.
|>
The above is equivalent to saying:
"While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
This is called time dilation"
Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
experimentally proven?
:-D
Please do not use violence against me.
I never said that and your words are violent and stupid to try to have a hold.
You make me say: "When a proton makes one turn of the experimental system, it does it 6933 times". That's stupid.
That's not what I said.
I explained hundreds (or thousands of times) that time was relative, and that in particular, the chronotropy of durations was different when changing the frame of reference.
And that what is measured in one nanosecond for a particle could be measured as 6933 nanoseconds for a clock in the laboratory.
I said that for it, it turned 6933 times faster.
I never said that it turned 6933 times in the system while we saw it turn once.
That's absurd.
You are the one who is absurd and telling stupid things that I did not say for the sole purpose of destroying an enemy who wants to help you write more coherent and true pdfs.
I remind you that the way you integrate carrots and turnips is mathematically correct, but physically wrong.
R.H.