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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#595269

On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "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.

No. There are too many undefined terms in it.

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

Not really. With minor corrections a very similar statement is correct
(albeit tautological):

If two timelike objects travel along identical paths [#], then between
any given pair of points on their (common) path their elapsed proper
times are equal.

	[#] Here path is through spacetime.

This is tautological, and thus not very useful, because as stated the
two objects arrive simultaneously at any given point along their common
path -- the two objects travel as one.

Tom Roberts

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

#595277

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 06:05:29 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > "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.
> No. There are too many undefined terms in it.
> > Yet this principle deeply shocks all relativist physicists in the 
> > world.
> Not really. With minor corrections a very similar statement is correct 
> (albeit tautological): 
> 
> If two timelike objects travel along identical paths [#], then between 
> any given pair of points on their (common) path their elapsed proper 
> times are equal. 

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forebidden by your
bunch of idiots old seconds.

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

#595289

Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "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.
> 
> No. There are too many undefined terms in it.

 In Einstein description, yes.

 In mine no.

 "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."


 R.H. 

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

#595303

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> > On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> "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.
> >
> > No. There are too many undefined terms in it.
> 
>  In Einstein description, yes.
> 
>  In mine no.
> 
>  "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times,
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."
> 
>  R.H.

but you began the sentence with "If..."

that means everything after the word  "If" is meaningless. It does not
agree with Nature.

Any 3 year old can observe objects traveling on a stream of water and
see there is no "identical paths".

The paper boat travels alone
On it's own path
At it's own time.


Even my two watches travel on different paths in 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]

#595310

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 4:09:33 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit : 
> > On 11/12/22 3:42 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> "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. 
> > 
> > No. There are too many undefined terms in it.
> In Einstein description, yes. 
> 
> In mine no.

Yes, you used the following undefined terms:

"equal observable times"
"identical paths"

Your sentence has no meaning until you state precisely what those
terms mean.

> "If two relativistic mobiles travel, in equal observable times, 
> identical paths, their proper times will remain equal."

Yes, as stated it's gobbledygook.  You need to define the
undefined terms.

--
Jan

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

#595290

Le 13/11/2022 à 06:05, Tom Roberts a écrit :

> This is tautological, the two objects travel as one.

I think I'm going to commit murder.

> Tom Roberts

 HELP!!!


 R.H. 

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

#595279

Den 12.11.2022 10:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 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.

Another, not equally vacuous, "Hachel's principle":

On Saturday, November 5, Richard Hachel wrote:

  "For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
   we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"

:-D

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

Not really.
Very few will notice, and those who do will be only mildly amused
and think: "Yet another ignorant crank."

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#595292

Le 13/11/2022 à 09:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 12.11.2022 10:42, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> 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.
> 
> Another, not equally vacuous, "Hachel's principle":
> 
> On Saturday, November 5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
>   "For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
>    we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"
> 
> :-D

 I didn't write that.

For these two equations, I wrote, and specifying well:

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

I am talking about the terrestrial observable time for an object 
accelerated according to a, and over a chosen distance x.

I then wrote that the instantaneous observable speed of the object (rocket 
or particle) was, at any point of the journey:
 dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

I begged my readers (and you too) to please understand that these things 
are correct, even if they seem strange.

We speak on the one hand of a global time To, and on the other of an 
instantaneous speed Vo.

The problem is much less funny than you seem to believe.

You postulate that one can make Galilean additions on a problem where they 
become false.

You postulate that we can make simple mathematical integraions.

I say you can do it, if you dye it, but the results will be wrong.

R.H. 

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

#595309

Den 13.11.2022 13:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 09:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> Another, not equally vacuous, "Hachel's principle":
>>
>> On Saturday, November 5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>   "For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
>>    we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"
>>
>> :-D
> 
> I didn't write that. >
> For these two equations, I wrote, and specifying well:
> 
> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

Quite.
t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) or with c = 1: t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)

> 
> I am talking about the terrestrial observable time for an object 
> accelerated according to a, and over a chosen distance x.
> 
> I then wrote that the instantaneous observable speed of the object 
> (rocket or particle) was, at any point of the journey:
> dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

And with c = 1
dx/dt = [1+1/2ax]^(-1/2)

So according to Hachel:
    "For the trajectory t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
     we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"

or if you prefer:
"For the trajectory t=sqrt(x^2 + 2x/a)
     we have  dx/dt = [1+1/2ax]^(-1/2)"

This alone proves that you are talking nonsense.
There is nothing more to discuss.

And you know why, you have been told many times,
this is elementary calculus!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#595332

Le 13/11/2022 à 21:55, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 13.11.2022 13:26, skrev Richard Hachel:

>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)

 I confirm.

  This is the observable time (or improper time, or terrestrial time) that 
we will note according to the length of the path of a rocket or a particle 
and according to its acceleration.

That's what I found when writing what I thought was right, and it's 
exactly the same formula that I found in books dealing with relativity.

Which I think, makes it credible since through different ideas and paths, 
we find an identical formula.

On the other hand, for proper tenses my ideas and mametry are 
fundamentally different.

> So according to Hachel:
>     "For the trajectory t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>      we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"

That's not exactly what I said.

I said that the instantaneous observable speed in x, was given by the 
relation dx/dt = Vo/c(inst)=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

Which is a much lower speed than predicted by relativists.

Of course, it is clear that if I take any segment of x, and divide it by 
the corresponding observable time To, I obtain an instantaneous speed much 
greater than those of the two edges of the segment.

So there is something weird here.

I'm not saying something that's wrong, but something that sounds weird.

R.H. 

 

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

#595352

Den 14.11.2022 01:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 21:55, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 13.11.2022 13:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 
>>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
> 
> I confirm.
> 
>   This is the observable time (or improper time, or terrestrial time) 
> that we will note according to the length of the path of a rocket or a 
> particle and according to its acceleration.
> 
> 
>> So according to Hachel:
>>     "For the trajectory t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
>>      we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"
> 
> That's not exactly what I said.
> 
> I said that the instantaneous observable speed in x, was given by the 
> relation dx/dt = Vo/c(inst)=[1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)

So you confirm that you said:
      "For the trajectory t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
       we have  dx/dt = [1+c²/2ax]^(-1/2)"

And you pretend not to understand what's wrong with it!

Can you solve the following problems?

Given the function: t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) = sqrt(x²/c²+2x/a)

Question #1
what is dt/dx?

Question #2
what is dx/dt?

If you are ignorant of calculus:
https://www.derivative-calculator.net

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#595363

Le 14/11/2022 à 13:29, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> If you are ignorant of calculus

 Please, don't be arrogant.

 R.H. 

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

#595411

Den 14.11.2022 15:21, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 14/11/2022 à 13:29, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> 
>> If you are ignorant of calculus
> 
> Please, don't be arrogant.

Does that mean that you are not ignorant of calculus?

In that case the following questions should be easy to solve:

Given the function: t = (x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) = sqrt(x²/c²+2x/a)

Question #1
what is dt/dx?

Question #2
what is dx/dt?

Even if you are good at calculus, this is
an easy way out. I use it!

https://www.derivative-calculator.net

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#595348

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> 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.

Would it shock you deeply to learn that no physicist in the world
knows about it, or will ever know about it?

FYI, you are not a physicist,

Jan

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

#595361

Le 14/11/2022 à 10:47, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Would it shock you deeply to learn that no physicist in the world
> knows about it, or will ever know about it?
> 
> FYI, you are not a physicist,

It does not matter.

The Beatles couldn't recognize a C from a D.

That didn't stop them from becoming the biggest band in the universe.

R.H. 

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

#595403

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:16:29 PM UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/11/2022 à 10:47, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : 
> > Would it shock you deeply to learn that no physicist in the world 
> > knows about it, or will ever know about it? 
> > 
> > FYI, you are not a physicist,
> It does not matter. 
> 
> The Beatles couldn't recognize a C from a D. 
> 
> That didn't stop them from becoming the biggest band in the universe. 

Science is different.  If you cannot recognize a C from a D, you're out.

--
Jan

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

#595409

On Tuesday, 15 November 2022 at 00:19:36 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:16:29 PM UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > Le 14/11/2022 à 10:47, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : 
> > > Would it shock you deeply to learn that no physicist in the world 
> > > knows about it, or will ever know about it? 
> > > 
> > > FYI, you are not a physicist, 
> > It does not matter. 
> > 
> > The Beatles couldn't recognize a C from a D. 
> > 
> > That didn't stop them from becoming the biggest band in the universe.
> Science is different. If you cannot recognize a C from a D, you're out. 

Science, and poor idiot Jan especially, is, of course, free of
weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web