Re: [SR] Why?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: [SR] Why?
De : r.hachel (at) *nospam* wanadou.fr (Richard Hachel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 19. Jun 2024, 21:03:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <RPvLJWuw8z32lAq2KSr5n_u6nII@jntp>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 19/06/2024 à 20:55, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
>
One of the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity, To²=Tr²+Et², probably even one of the most beautiful in all of science,
 will however pose a small problem for a few months to the greatest theorist of our time: the doctor Richard Hachel.
 Hachel failed to define his terms, so that's neither fundamental nor
beautiful.
 
A problem will appear to emerge in the development of uniformly accelerated frames of reference, because if we set x=(1/2.a.Tr²+Vr.Tr)
it no longer works.
 If the first equation is relativistic, the second surely is not.
It is.
Je n'ai pas écrit:
x=(1/2)a.To²+Vo.To
but:
 x=(1/2).a.Tr²+Vr.Tr
Cette dernière équation est relativiste.
Mais j'ai précisé qu'elle était relativiste, mais fausse.
Et j'ai demandé si on comprenait pourquoi?
R.H.
Date Sujet#  Auteur
19 Jun 24 * [SR] Why?13Richard Hachel
19 Jun 24 +* Re: [SR] Why?6gharnagel
19 Jun 24 i`* Re: [SR] Why?5Richard Hachel
20 Jun 24 i `* Re: [SR] Why?4gharnagel
20 Jun 24 i  `* Re: [SR] Why?3Richard Hachel
20 Jun 24 i   +- Re: [SR] Why?1gharnagel
20 Jun 24 i   `- Re: [SR] Why?1Maciej Wozniak
21 Jun 24 `* Re: [SR] Why?6Felierix Orbán Ping
21 Jun 24  `* Re: [SR] Why?5Richard Hachel
21 Jun 24   +* Re: [SR] Why?2gharnagel
22 Jun 24   i`- Re: [SR] Why?1Sordo Campana Peng
21 Jun 24   +- Re: [SR] Why?1T.J." Bogdán
21 Jun 24   `- Re: [SR] Why?1Wilkins Kalakos

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal