Re: Accelerated frame and Tau Ceti problem

Le 02/06/2024 à 05:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

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 :-)

This is an intelligent statement, but unfortunately there are few of them on Usenet, and not only in the physical sciences.
It is a great fault for men to mock other men without even understanding what they are saying.
However, you still make the effort to answer me, which shows a certain courage, in a world where almost always, we get into the habit of running away with our tails between our legs as soon as good old Richard Hachel shows up at the office. ball.
So I will answer your question, and I hope, at least, that you will understand the genius of the answer, because it is not a foregone conclusion that we can understand something so unintuitive.
Please use the data I gave for the calculations, which are very simple (x=12, a=1.052).
What I present as "the traveler from Tau Ceti" is only part of the problem, we will then bring in another traveler (Bella's sister, Stella) and from two observers, we will go to three (with Terrence ).
We give the precise figures, passing in A (3 ly), in B (6 ly), in C (9 ly) in D (12 ly).
Now, the terrible warning that I repeat: be careful, in relativity, when we go very fast (particles) or when we go very far (rockets) the notions of time and speed become relativistic, and do not add up. more like commonly.
Furthermore, things are deformed and proper times are measured differently from the outside, and the observable speeds are no longer the real speeds.
Things are still present, but distorted as if through a mirror.
The big question that will arise is:
If we live in illusion, can we add the illusions together in a common and decimal way?
It seems not.
And this causes a shock to the unprepared mind (I have thought about it seriously and diligently for 40 years, and I know that it is not obvious a priori).
So, you say to yourself, that you have to do Δt=To(6)-To(3) to obtain the time taken between A and B, or even Dt=To(9)-To(6) to obtain the time between B and C.
This seems unavoidable to you, and you are absolutely certain, because it seems incoherent and stupid to you to think otherwise.
It seems absurd to you that the addition of two parts does not equal the whole.
And yet, I am the one who is right.
Just as it is very counterintuitive to say that the addition of relativistic longitudinal velocities is 0.5c+0.5c=0.8c, and not c,
it is even more counterintuitive to say that sometimes the two parts of a whole are not equal to the whole.
Now we need to explain WHY.
I'll explain why.
R.H.