Re: Accelerated frame and Tau Ceti problem

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
I recall the subject of the post, a fundamental subject as often with Hachel but on which we spit, because always always always humans want
to mark their moronic territory.
>
Reread my post, go sit in an armchair, breathe deeply, digest the
content, and respond with interesting things.
>
R.H.

I didn't see any interesting things in your original post.  Here's the
crux as I see it:

When we move to level 3 ly, the local watch marks: 3.8345 years
When we move to level 6 ly, the local watch marks: 6.8852 years
When we move to level 9 ly, the local watch marks: 9.9050 years
When we cross Tau Ceti (12 ly), the local watch says: 12.9156 years
>
We have therefore just verified experimentally that the equation is correct.
>
It seems very simple, but we now know Richard Hachel, and we know what

 

kind of madness attacked his neurons.
>
We will then say: What is the observable time that exists between the

 

passage in (3ly) and the passage in (6ly)?
>
Or again: And between the passage in 9 ly and Tau Ceti?

Well, 6.8852 - 3.8345 = 3.0507 and 12.9156 - 9.9050 = 3.0106.  So what?
You're not using quite the correct values. but it's close enough for
gov't. work.  I get 3.84764, 6.8999, 9.9203 and 12.9313 using 9.82
m/sec^2
and 1 light-year = 31557600 seconds.  The problem is that you haven't
said
what time is observed by whom.  The time you posted and I posted are
the
times that would be observed by observers stationed at 3, 6, 9 ad 12
L-yrs
from earth and stationary wrt earth.  If you're thinking of something
else,
why are you expecting others to read your mind?  After all, we're not
as
smart as someone who has collected three Nobel prizes :-)