Re: Incorrect mathematical integration

Le 19/07/2024 à 23:45, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

It seems to me that he complained properly.

The physicists (and Paul) use impeccable mathematics from Leibniz's integration work.
I could have spent years or decades looking for what didn't add up, if I didn't have at least 40 thoughts behind it on the subject, that is to say the relationships between space and time which is strictly talk about the basis of the theory of relativity.
I searched for a long time how it was that the transformations in a rotating medium were so ridiculous, how it was that an explanation of the Langevin in apparent velocities was so incoherent and impossible, how it was that to find the proper times of objects accelerated, physicists started with convoluted formulas which in the end seemed false or extravagant.
And then gradually, after 40 years of reflection, the entire theory, from the beginnings to the conclusions, finally became very clear.
Here, I highlight an extremely subtle error which is that of the relationship between the proper times and the improper times of accelerated objects.
Let's look at Paul's equation:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?gI3_J3G5ZOOsA-4uWHQIdHqk2KQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>
If we want the sum of all the small Tr (tau), that is to say of all the proper times of the particle or the rocket, we can put them end to end, and we will obtain a correct final proper time .
The problem is that we CANNOT do the same thing for improper tenses, because in his formula Paul uses (huge but well hidden blunder) Vo.
But how is Vo measured? With a watch that is in A and another that is in B, then with a watch in B and another in C, etc., up to watch Y and watch Z, and this an infinitesimal number of times.
However, all these watches do not form a coherent carpet (this is the trap), and we add lots of small segments of time that are not compatible for To.
So we have a good Tr, and a bad To.
And when physicists calculate Tr (or suppose Tr) they do so with a To that is certainly correct (since that is what they calculate) but this To is not in a mathematical relationship with Tr.
So, I told Paul that if we practice as he does, he will obtain from Tr on To much too large, and when we have to do the opposite, starting from To to find Tr, they will find a Tr much too small.
This is the example of The Traveler of Tau Ceti, where Paul calculates for Bella an observable time of 12.9156 years, which is correct, but a proper time that is much too short (the correct proper time being 4.7764 years).
Note that the departure being made at rest, we can simply use To²=Tr²+Et² or Et=sqrt(To²-Tr²)=12 light years.
R.H. --
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gI3_J3G5ZOOsA-4uWHQIdHqk2KQ@jntp>