Re: Relativistic definition

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:44:59 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Here is a sentence from Dr. Hachel with which physicists do not agree at
all.
It's a shame.
When an individual disagrees with another individual on a scientific
theory or fact, it would be normal to ask the other party to sit down
and
explain why they are behaving in an outlandish-looking manner. , and why
it "thinks differently".
This would be a proof of logic and human coherence.
>
"If two mobiles, one in simple Galilean movement,
the other in uniformly accelerated movement with a start at rest,
 cross an identical space, in identical observable times,
then their proper times will be equal."

This is false in general.

Where does the physicists' error come from?

What error?

This comes from the confusion between two lines when they talk about
accelerated frames of reference.
Let's take the drawing on the left. It represents the relationship
between
proper time, improper time, and distance traveled.
This is very simple.
We have Tr(tau) on the ordinate, x/c on the abscissa, and To represented
by the red line.
>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?i6e6RaE0RxCNtGlAaSfIYZlkB2s@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
The problem for physicists is that, on the other hand, they do not
understand the drawing on the right, we always have Tr, x/c, and To.

This is basic calculus, the length of a curve. Why is this so confusing
to you?

But physicists confuse the length of the blue line (which they take to
be
To) with the red line.

The length of the blue line is the length of the blue line. Sorry but
this
is simply what it is. It's not equal to any of the straight chord lines
lengths.

They therefore consider the Tr/To ratio larger than it is.

Whatever. It makes no sense to proceed after all the errors you've made
so far.
--
Jan