Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #595229 > unrolled thread

Proper time and relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-12 09:42 +0000
    Re: Proper time and relativity Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-12 11:19 +0100
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-12 10:24 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-12 13:28 +0100
      Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 03:13 -0800
    Re: Proper time and relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-12 10:26 -0800
      Re: Proper time and relativity "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:53 -0800
      Re: Proper time and relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-12 12:09 -0800
        Re: Proper time and relativity Erasmo Sparacello <aale@lrclcoaa.sa> - 2022-11-12 20:58 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-12 15:32 -0600
    Re: Proper time and relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 15:10 -0800
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-12 23:42 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-13 12:49 +0200
          Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 12:34 +0000
            Re: Proper time and relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-13 11:38 -0500
              Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 16:51 +0000
                Re: Proper time and relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-13 11:57 -0500
                  Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 08:58 -0800
                  Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 17:13 +0000
                    Re: Proper time and relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 13:05 -0800
                    Re: Proper time and relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-14 00:29 -0500
                      Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 23:33 -0800
                      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-14 14:13 +0000
                        Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 06:34 -0800
                        Re: Proper time and relativity Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 12:16 -0800
                          Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-14 20:29 +0000
                            Re: Proper time and relativity Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 15:54 -0800
                              Re: Proper time and relativity Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-11-15 07:19 +0100
                              Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-15 12:35 +0000
                                Re: Proper time and relativity Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-15 06:18 -0800
                                  Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-15 07:57 -0800
                                    Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-15 17:30 +0000
                                      Re: Proper time and relativity Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-15 11:47 -0800
                            Re: Proper time and relativity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-15 13:30 +0200
                              Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-15 12:55 +0000
                                Re: Proper time and relativity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-15 17:44 +0200
                        Re: Proper time and relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 02:12 -0500
            Re: Proper time and relativity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-14 13:13 +0200
              Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 03:16 -0800
          Re: Proper time and relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-11-13 14:48 +0100
    Re: Proper time and relativity Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-12 23:05 -0600
      Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 00:11 -0800
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 12:09 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-13 10:38 -0800
        Re: Proper time and relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 13:03 -0800
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 12:13 +0000
    Re: Proper time and relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-13 09:45 +0100
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-13 12:26 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-13 21:55 +0100
          Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-14 00:59 +0000
            Re: Proper time and relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-14 13:29 +0100
              Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-14 14:21 +0000
                Re: Proper time and relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-15 10:26 +0100
    Re: Proper time and relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-14 10:47 +0100
      Re: Proper time and relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2022-11-14 14:16 +0000
        Re: Proper time and relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 15:19 -0800
          Re: Proper time and relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 22:28 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#595229 — Proper time and relativity

Hachel's principle.

"If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical 
paths, their proper times will remain equal."
 
It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
 
Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#595231

On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Hachel's principle.
> 
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>  It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>  Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.

Baez crackpot index:

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about 
the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595232

Le 12/11/2022 à 11:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>> Hachel's principle.
>> 
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>  It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>>  Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> 
> Baez crackpot index: 
> 
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
> 
> 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about 
> the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

If you knew how much I don't give a damn about Baez's bullshit, who 
whistles well, but never sings.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595236

On 2022-11-12 10:24:07 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 12/11/2022 à 11:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> 
>>> Hachel's principle.
>>> 
>>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
>>> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>> 
>> Baez crackpot index:
>> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>> 
>> 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about 
>> the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
> 
> If you knew how much I don't give a damn about Baez's bullshit, who 
> whistles well, but never sings.

That's why no one will ever take your handwaving seriously.


> 

-- 
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595234

On Saturday, 12 November 2022 at 11:19:52 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 09:42:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said: 
> 
> > Hachel's principle. 
> > 
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
> > identical paths, their proper times will remain equal." 
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct. 
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> Baez crackpot index: 
> 
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 

And don't forget to add your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
for every word he writes in capital letters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595247

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> Hachel's principle.
> 
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> 
> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> 
> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> 
> R.H.

There is only one proper time, ...

de other guys watch don't count.


If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595249

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 10:25:54 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > 
> > Hachel's principle. 
> > 
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical 
> > paths, their proper times will remain equal." 
> > 
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct. 
> > 
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world. 
> > 
> > R.H.
> There is only one proper time, ... 

No. There is more than one time at a black hole.
Time ends and starts over...

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> de other guys watch don't count. 
> 
> 
> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time? 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595250

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Hachel's principle.
> >
> > "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
> > paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> >
> > It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
> >
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
> >
> > R.H.
> 
> There is only one proper time, ...
> 
> de other guys watch don't count.
> 
> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?


In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times, and I'm traveling in identical
 paths, which watch has the proper time?


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595252

The Starmaker wrote:

> In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times,
> and I'm traveling in identical paths, which watch has the proper time?

the other one. Here you have, for instance, a lying polaker bitch in 
*8_seconds*. A lying polaker before the entire world, on record. These 
modrafaka bitches had *extermination_camps* on their territory, before 
Hitler entered the shithole.

The host of Poland vote at the Eurovision Song Contest shouted ＂Slava 
Ukraine!"
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/ICcmHmYyz3qr/

here's how these inbreed nazis has to be treated like. Putting a nazi flag 
before the flag of the country, you nazi pigs.

Just say 'No' to Slava Ukraini and NATO (Or go team Z)
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/X3Ol7JjMFqPO/

here's another liar, probably a polaker bitch, promoting imbecility at 
home, calling their instated paid comedian actor for "president"

Standing ovation for Zelensky in the US Congress. Pelosi："Slava 
Ukraina"https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/esupg9lnTS8z/

slavic people in ukraine say say what they really think of their homo 
leader
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/VgtxqIsSByfy/
https://seed128.%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/coNcAQCZcRJy/VgtxqIsSByfy.mp4

the "government" of "uKraine", *Kvartal_95_Studio* (wikipedia)

BANNED ON YOUTUBE - SLAVA UKRANI!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/RRw97sO87Usa/

'Slava Ukraini' is a Nazi war-cry
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/mAF5585aWTPC/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595254

On 11/12/2022 2:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hachel's principle.
>>>
>>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical
>>> paths, their proper times will remain equal."
>>>
>>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct.
>>>
>>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>
>> There is only one proper time, ...
>>
>> de other guys watch don't count.
>>
>> If you're wearing two watches, which one has the correct time?
> 
> 
> In other words, If I'm wearing two watches, in equal observable times, and I'm traveling in identical
>   paths, which watch has the proper time?

It doesn't matter. Pick one and tell me why the other one doesn't
show the proper time/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595258

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:42:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Hachel's principle. 
> 
> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical 
> paths, their proper times will remain equal." 

What is "observable time"?  What does travelling "identical paths" mean?
Just the trajectories are the same?  Or the trajectories and the speeds
at every point of the trajectories are the same?

In physics proper time is the arc length of the trajectory when plotted
in the 4D spacetime.  This means proper times of the two object are only
guaranteed to be the same if their entire movement is the same (same
3D paths in space with identical speeds at every point of the path).

But this is just a generic well-known fact, not any "Hachel's principle".

> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct. 

As stated it's neither correct nor incorrect, it's actually not even wrong
due to its use of undefined terms.

> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world. 

Nobody is shocked, trust me.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595261

Le 13/11/2022 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:42:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Hachel's principle. 
>> 
>> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, identical 
>> paths, their proper times will remain equal." 
> 
> What is "observable time"?  What does travelling "identical paths" mean?
> Just the trajectories are the same?  Or the trajectories and the speeds
> at every point of the trajectories are the same?
> 
> In physics proper time is the arc length of the trajectory when plotted
> in the 4D spacetime.  This means proper times of the two object are only
> guaranteed to be the same if their entire movement is the same (same
> 3D paths in space with identical speeds at every point of the path).
> 
> But this is just a generic well-known fact, not any "Hachel's principle".
> 
>> It's a very simple sentence that I think is quite correct. 
> 
> As stated it's neither correct nor incorrect, it's actually not even wrong
> due to its use of undefined terms.
> 
>> Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the world. 
> 
> Nobody is shocked, trust me.
> 
> --

Of course it is, it's shocking, because that's not what the theory of 
relativity as taught says.

I talked about it for a long time with several people here.

They all consider that proper times will no longer be the same.

I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.

We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment), 
leaving at the same time, from the same place.

They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).

One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long treated 
here, and which is 10m/s².

Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.

The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.

They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.

Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one frame 
of reference are cojoint in all".

If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the 
observing reference frames.

If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all the 
observing reference frames.

I don't even have to explain it, it's so trivial and obvious.

I then said that the path being the same, the observable time (ie 
terrestrial) being the same, the proper times will be the same.

We come back to the dramatic error that Stan makes (because he learned the 
theory from the mouth of his teachers) and which is to believe that the 
proper times are much shorter than I say in the accelerated frames of 
reference.

The error is there.

Stan makes a conceptual error in his integration, not in the calculation, 
I always have the same answer as him no matter what I integrate.

But the problem is not there.

You can't integrate, and it doesn't work that way.

Just as one cannot add relativistic velocities together as Galileo or 
Newton would have done.

Do you understand what I'm explaining?

I'm not asking to be believed. I ask, at least that we understood 
perfectly what I wanted to say the day when the experiments will be able 
to show that indeed, certain things are wrong.

R.H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595283

On 2022-11-12 23:42:52 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.
> 
> We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment), 
> leaving at the same time, from the same place.
> 
> They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).
> 
> One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long 
> treated here, and which is 10m/s².
> 
> Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.
> 
> The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.
> 
> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
> 
> Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one 
> frame of reference are cojoint in all".
> 
> If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the 
> observing reference frames.
> 
> If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all 
> the observing reference frames.

However, their paths between those two events is not the same in all
reference frames. The first rocket travels along a curved path in most
reference frames. The second rocent travels along a straight path in
every reference frame.

Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595293

Le 13/11/2022 à 11:49, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2022-11-12 23:42:52 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>> I take the well-known example of Tau Ceti.
>> 
>> We're going to arrange for two rockets (it's a thought experiment), 
>> leaving at the same time, from the same place.
>> 
>> They start from the ground, and will connect Tau Ceti (12ly).
>> 
>> One starts according to the accelerated example that we have long 
>> treated here, and which is 10m/s².
>> 
>> Let a=1.052 ly/y² as Stan Fultoni rightly points out.
>> 
>> The other will start with a constant real speed of 2.5122c.
>> 
>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>> 
>> Don't forget what Hachel says (that's me): "events coinjoint in one 
>> frame of reference are cojoint in all".
>> 
>> If they leave at the same time, they leave at the same time in all the 
>> observing reference frames.
>> 
>> If they arrive at the same time, they arrive at the same time in all 
>> the observing reference frames.
> 
> However, their paths between those two events is not the same in all
> reference frames. The first rocket travels along a curved path in most
> reference frames. The second rocent travels along a straight path in
> every reference frame.
> 
> Mikko

When I talk about the same path, you will notice that I didn't use the 
confusing term "trajectory".

The term trajctoire can be confused with the term trajectory in 
space-time.

I'm not talking about that.

I beg you to read carefully what I wrote.

Nobody reads right, although I write right, and very careful what I say 
because I know it's hard on your indoctrinated brains.

You don't want to get out of it, and for that, you make me say what I 
didn't say.

I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):

They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.

I didn't say "the same space-time".

Please, be awake and lucid.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595297

On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
> 
> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
> 
> I didn't say "the same space-time".

And that's your mistake.

They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.

An observer will see the constant speed traveler move ahead of the 
accelerating traveler, then the accelerating traveler gains speed and at 
some point the distance between them is no longer increasing and then it 
starts decreasing, until the distance reaches 0 at the destination.

At no point other than at the start and end of the journey are the two 
travelers at the same location at the same time.

Obviously different paths through spacetime.
> 
> Please, be awake and lucid.
> 
> R.H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595298

Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>> 
>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>> 
>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
> 
> And that's your mistake.
> 
> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.

 Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?

 J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.

 Ils continuent.

 Que puis-je faire?

 Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...

 Ils continuent...

 Mille fois, sic mille ans... 

 Quoi faire?

 Suis-je Superman? 

 Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole 
pas dans les airs.

 Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas. 

 Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre. 

 Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes 
claques dans la gueule, 
 à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies? 

 Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent, 
les bandes de pauvres cons.

 Bien sûr que oui. 

 R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595299

On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
>> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>>>
>>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>>>
>>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
>>
>> And that's your mistake.
>>
>> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.
> 
> Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?
> 
> J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.
> 
> Ils continuent.
> 
> Que puis-je faire?
> 
> Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...
> 
> Ils continuent...
> 
> Mille fois, sic mille ans...
> Quoi faire?
> 
> Suis-je Superman?
> Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole 
> pas dans les airs.
> 
> Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas.
> Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre.
> Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes 
> claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies?
> Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent, 
> les bandes de pauvres cons.
> 
> Bien sûr que oui.
> R.H.
> 
> 
> 
So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595300

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 17:57:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit : 
> >> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless): 
> >>> 
> >>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time. 
> >>> 
> >>> I didn't say "the same space-time". 
> >> 
> >> And that's your mistake. 
> >> 
> >> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime. 
> > 
> > Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps? 
> > 
> > J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter. 
> > 
> > Ils continuent. 
> > 
> > Que puis-je faire? 
> > 
> > Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter... 
> > 
> > Ils continuent... 
> > 
> > Mille fois, sic mille ans... 
> > Quoi faire? 
> > 
> > Suis-je Superman? 
> > Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole 
> > pas dans les airs. 
> > 
> > Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas. 
> > Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre. 
> > Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes 
> > claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies? 
> > Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent, 
> > les bandes de pauvres cons. 
> > 
> > Bien sûr que oui. 
> > R.H. 
> > 
> > 
> >
> So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.

Does he also agree that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means putting them into
some "Newton mode"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595301

Le 13/11/2022 à 17:57, Volney a écrit :
> On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless):
>>>>
>>>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say "the same space-time".
>>>
>>> And that's your mistake.
>>>
>>> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime.
>> 
>> Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps?
>> 
>> J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter.
>> 
>> Ils continuent.
>> 
>> Que puis-je faire?
>> 
>> Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter...
>> 
>> Ils continuent...
>> 
>> Mille fois, sic mille ans...
>> Quoi faire?
>> 
>> Suis-je Superman?
>> Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole 
>> pas dans les airs.
>> 
>> Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas.
>> Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre.
>> Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes 
>> claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies?
>> Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent, 
>> les bandes de pauvres cons.
>> 
>> Bien sûr que oui.
>> R.H.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.

Yes my love.

That's what I keep saying.

They follow the same path, in space.

But not in space-time, since I begged millions of physicists to tell the 
difference (but they're too dumb, it's horrible).

Shit!

I have been begging people for years to be very careful with the words, 
and the dogmas they use.

They spit in my face.

So yes, my love, that's what I say, the same path.

Not the same "4D trajectory" that I don't understand, because I don't care 
about your bullshit of bullshit.

I am talking about the same spatial trajectory in the observing frame of 
reference.

The other bullshit and stupidity, I don't care.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595311

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 17:57, Volney a écrit : 
> > On 11/13/2022 11:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> Le 13/11/2022 à 17:38, Volney a écrit : 
> >>> On 11/13/2022 7:34 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> I repeat it once again (even I have a feeling it's going to be useless): 
> >>>> 
> >>>> They will cross the same space, and arrive at the same time. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I didn't say "the same space-time". 
> >>> 
> >>> And that's your mistake. 
> >>> 
> >>> They don't follow the same paths through spacetime. 
> >> 
> >> Et mes couilles, elles suivent le même chemin, dans l'espace-temps? 
> >> 
> >> J'ai beau les supplier d'arrêter. 
> >> 
> >> Ils continuent. 
> >> 
> >> Que puis-je faire? 
> >> 
> >> Je les supplie, une fois, deux fois, trois fois, d'arrêter... 
> >> 
> >> Ils continuent... 
> >> 
> >> Mille fois, sic mille ans... 
> >> Quoi faire? 
> >> 
> >> Suis-je Superman? 
> >> Non, je ne suis pas Superman. Je ne viens pas de Krypton, et je ne vole 
> >> pas dans les airs. 
> >> 
> >> Cela, ils ne le comprennent pas. 
> >> Merde, c'est pourtant pas con à comprendre. 
> >> Ils veulent quoi, les hommes, un Messie qui les soumets à grandes 
> >> claques dans la gueule, à coup de Knout dans les caves nazies? 
> >> Oui, je le dis avec des larmes dans les yeux, c'est ça qu'ils veulent, 
> >> les bandes de pauvres cons. 
> >> 
> >> Bien sûr que oui. 
> >> R.H. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > So you agree they don't take the same paths through spacetime.
> Yes my love. 
> 
> That's what I keep saying. 
> 
> They follow the same path, in space. 
> 
> But not in space-time, 

OK, so your statement from your first post is false then.

> since I begged millions of physicists to tell the 
> difference (but they're too dumb, it's horrible). 

Stop fantasising about experts' stupidity. You'll get
nowhere using this method of discourse.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web