Re: [SR] Usefulness of real velocities in accelerated relativistic frames of reference.

Den 16.03.2024 15:26, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 16/03/2024 à 14:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Den 15.03.2024 15:39, skrev Richard Hachel:

 

So Richard Hachel's theory is identical to Newtonian Mechanics.

 Absolutely not.

Since the equations:
  Speed of rocket in inertial frame:             Vr=a.Tr
  Average speed of rocket in the inertial frame: Vrm=(1/2)Vr
  are valid _only_  in Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity,
  then the theory which is consistent with said equations
  is Newtonian Mechanics.

 Your comments are criminal.

A very lethal argument! :-D

 When I write To=(x/c).sqrt(1+c²/ax) it is not SR.

And it is not mathematical consistent with the equations:
   Vr=a.Tr
   Vrm=(1/2)Vr
so it is not Newtonian Mechanics.
But maybe you don't think that a theory of physics
has to be mathematically consistent?

 When I describe a Langevin paradox to you, it is not SR.

In 1911 Langevin discovered that SR predicted that
two twins could age differently after different journeys.
This is called the "Langevin paradox" or the "twin paradox".
And you say the "Langevin paradox" is NOT SR? :-D
I find it rather strange that it has been so many
strange attempts to "resolve" the "twin paradox",
because it follows straight forward from SR.
You can see SR's prediction for the "Langevin paradox" here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
SR's prediction is experimentally verified.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
Two twins travelling in opposite directions
around the Earth will age differently.

 All my equations relating to accelerated frames of reference are not SR.

And they are NOT mathematical consistent with
your equations  Vr=a.Tr and  Vrm=(1/2)Vr so
they are not NM.
Your equations which are not consistent
with neither NM nor SR are nonsense.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/