Re: "Time" vs "physical time"

Le 08/08/2024 à 23:25, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
neutrino perfectly equal to c.
If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
exceed it.
The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we
are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or
contradict.

 OK, thats clear.
So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
in the way of observable fact.
All it adds are words,
 Jan

I like this answer for several reasons.
First because it is sincere, and you believe what you say,
and I will never prevent someone from expressing their ideas.
Second because you do not insult for nothing (as others do when they think they are intelligent).
But there are things to correct in what you say.
You say that I do not bring anything new, that is obviously false.
You say that one cannot bring new facts, that is doubly false.
First, all of my concepts and equations form a whole (from simple Galilean, accelerated frames of reference to rotating frames of reference), and this whole is extraordinarily coherent and logical.
From a theoretical point of view, I do not have what I called "the transfer of the Langevin paradox into apparent relativistic speeds", while no physicist in the world has ever been able to stand up to me on that. They can't explain why Stella, who will live nine years during her return, can see the Earth come back to her at an apparent speed of 4c. It's beyond them all. ALL. None of them have ever been able to answer me for even one second. NONE.
Secondly, there is no experimental contradiction to anything I say. Worse, the current RR specifies like me that we cannot exceed c, but is completely silent on the possibilities of instantaneous interactions (quantum entanglements). I explained why there was no inconsistency between the observable speed limit for any particle and any law of the universe, and the instantaneous transfer of information and why the contradiction was only apparent, and purely geometric.
I am absolutely certain that in a very short time, we will be able to prove that everything I said was correct.
Physicists are making great progress in various techniques, and experimental evidence will inevitably come out like fireworks in the years to come.
R.H.