Re: Relativistic definition

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: Relativistic definition
De : r.hachel (at) *nospam* wanadou.fr (Richard Hachel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 24. Jul 2024, 00:35:35
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <-UXSOeUt2AEMv4H8ZMdehy34Mko@jntp>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 23/07/2024 à 23:57, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
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.
I beg you to show a little politeness.
I know very well that this is generally false.
But that's what I say, and I don't care what other people say in general.
On the other hand, I repeat one last time: "Be careful, it does not work if the accelerated mobile already has an initial speed".

<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?
 "To" is NOT the length of a curve. It's a terrible error to belive that.  You are confusing it with the red segment, which I represented in the drawing, a segment whose module always progresses with proper time, but whose axis gradually turns, a bit like stretching an elastic band while finding it in the space?
I BEG you to understand this, because it is very important. It is not the path of the end of the elastic in space that matters, but the length of the elastic.
I beg you to understand this, or at least to make the intellectual effort to do so.

 

The length of the blue line is the length of the blue line.
 Absolutly.
 But is NOT To !!!  To is rotating during the proper time and travel grow.  Please, admet this fondamental new notion.

Sorry but
this
is simply what it is. It's not equal to any of the straight chord lines
lengths.
  It is !!!
Jan
R.H.
Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 Jul 24 * Relativistic definition9Richard Hachel
23 Jul 24 +* Re: Relativistic definition5JanPB
24 Jul 24 i`* Re: Relativistic definition4Richard Hachel
24 Jul 24 i `* Re: Relativistic definition3Paul.B.Andersen
24 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Relativistic definition2Richard Hachel
24 Jul 24 i   `- Re: Relativistic definition1Elick Tzagadaev
24 Jul 24 `* Re: Relativistic definition3Mikko
24 Jul 24  `* Re: Relativistic definition2Richard Hachel
26 Jul 24   `- Re: Relativistic definition1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal