I'm sorry, Dr. H., but Paul's equation makes perfect
sense because I can derive it for myself from first
principles, something which can't be done from
yours, which spring upon the scene as if by some
kind of bizarre revelation. As Saint Richard said,
“What I cannot create, I do not understand."
-- Richard P. Feynman
Le 21/07/2024 à 21:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
So: in an inertial system K, a clock C is in inertial motion.
t is the time in K.
No, "To" is time in K. This is chronotropy.
Every clocks in K have not the same time (t1,t2,t3,t4,t5, etc...), only
the same chronotropy.
Den 21.07.2024 22:34, skrev Richard Hachel:
I have already told you hundreds of times over the past 40 years that
it is impossible to synchronize two clocks placed in different places.
Please address what I wrote:
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone are
synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently showing GMT + 2
hour, so my clock and your clock are actually synchronous.
Le 23/07/2024 à 22:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
No comment to this, Richard?
Are you insisting that the GPS doesn't work because the satellite
clocks can't be synchronous because of the nature of space an time?
Paul
Damn Paul! I say exactly the opposite.
I say that if GPS works, it is PRECISELY thanks to universal
anisochrony.
This is what GPS measures, and it is thanks to this that, converting anisochrony into spatial metrics, they can practically give the position
to the nearest meter.
Den 22.07.2024 23:37, skrev Richard Hachel:
This "speed" is not the speed of a proton or anything else. It is.
When calculating velocities the distance and time must be measured in
the same frame of reference.
The distance in one frame and the time in another frame is not a speed
of anything if the frames are moving relative to each other.
Le 24/07/2024 à 20:45, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
Den 24.07.2024 15:08, skrev Richard Hachel:
This is a good relativistic physics question.
Have fun answering this question...
I hope you have a lot of fun.
Quite. But your jokes aren't funny the umpteenth time they are told,
It is getting boring.
We are dealing on fr.sci.* with this idiot for thirty years, go figure!
When a proton moves around the circuit once, a stationary clock in the circuit will measure the one round around the circuit to last the time T
= 90.0623 μs The proton (if it had a clock) will measure the one round around the circuit to last the time τ = 12.0727 ns
So the proton crossed the distance L = 27 km in the laboratoryBut which speed does the proton have?
reference frame in T = 90.0623 μs, and the observable speed in the
laboratory reference frame is v = L/T = 0.999999991·c
If the proton compares its own speed in respect to itself, this would be zero, because the proton does not move in respect to itself.
Le 26/07/2024 à 21:54, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Right again. This is a trivial fact, disputed by no one.But if I measure with the watch that the proton wears on his left
wrist, I will measure a time of τ = 12.0727 ns.
It is not a question of discussing what is of rare evidence in both
theories. We must remain simple. We have here two theories, and it is infinitely probable that one of the two is correct.
Den 26.07.2024 22:36, skrev Richard Hachel:
Only an ignoramus like you will fail to understand that if the speed
of the proton in the lab frame is 0.999999991·c, then the speed of the
lab in the proton frame is 0.999999991·c.
C'est ce que je dis.
No, that's not what you are saying.
Since you say "for the proton" you must mean "in the proton frame", and
in this frame the proton doesn't move, so it must be the distance AB
which has crossed the proton at the speed 7460·c. So you are saying:
"The speed of the proton in the lab frame is 0.999999991·c,
but the speed of the lab in the proton frame is 7460·c.
Another real great thing besides JWST and SLAC is the Z-Pinch, another high-energy or high-configuration experiment helping illustrate things
like "space contraction is real and linear and rotational are different"
and "the electrical field is already a standing wave" and "the fluid
models of liquid and electrical current are about opposites" and
"mathematics owes physics better and more mathematics of continuum
mechanics the mathematical physics".
W dniu 27.07.2024 o 21:25, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Why did you use so many words to say that you agree: "The proton can
only have one speed in the lab frame."
Paul, poor halfbrain, have you ever heard of quqntum mechjanics?
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 0:54:30 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But let's assume that it is only a piece of rod 9 cm long that crosses
me, and that the other end has not yet passed.
At what distance will I see the other end of the rod? Let Vo = 0.8c.
You are going off on a tangent, not sticking to the problem you posed. Furthermore, you haven't defined what you believe Poincaré's equations
are. Consequently, your deflection is merely buzz words.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 02:28:52 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,311 |