Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics

Le 10/04/2025 à 08:06, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?
 In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot could be accelerated.
 Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero speed and accelerate again.
 You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called 'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.
 It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that radius needed would be rather large.
 So deceleration would be mandatory.
 Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher than two or three g.
 But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely accelerated and decelerate.
 The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a round trip.
    ...
  TH

This is a thought experiment, and we assume that the effects of acceleration are not taken into account (which is also true for the measured times).
In the classic example of Stella and Terrence, which is world-famous, we assume that d=12al (Tau Ceti),
that v=0.8/c on the outward journey, during the U-turn (tangential velocity),
and during the return journey.
We assume that the U-turn takes place over a period of 24 hours of proper time, which corresponds to 40 Earth hours.
I remind you that this is a thought experiment, and not a test of the resistance of human tissue to such accelerations. Now, you absolutely must fulfill your role as a lucid poster, and it is important that you ask yourself the right questions, which are: 1. Is it true that Dr. Richard Hachel is by far the best theorist in the world today, or is he a pure charlatan? 2. If he is not a charlatan, how does he come to say that there is a tremendous elasticity of lengths and distances in SR that physicists themselves have a very poor grasp of? 3. Am I capable of understanding the tremendous intellectual upheaval proposed by Richard, and of drawing on paper something that even remotely resembles a dilation of distances of 36 ly when we only talk quickly and very poorly about an opposite contraction of 7.2 ly? Am I capable of understanding this stroke of genius by Hachel in my self-respecting theoretician's mind? That's the question.
The effects of acceleration are not part of the issue, and not even from a measurement perspective (40 hours versus 24 is negligible).
R.H.