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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673386 > unrolled thread

Hachel's blunder

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

Contents

  Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 11:44 +0000
    Re: Hachel's blunder Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-19 12:01 +0000
      Re: Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 12:31 +0000
        Re: Hachel's blunder Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-19 12:47 +0000
          Re: Hachel's blunder Daryll Mahurov <ama@dalrolo.ru> - 2026-09-19 16:10 +0000
            Re: Hachel's blunder Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 16:58 +0000
    Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-19 12:42 -0700
      Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-19 23:44 -0700
        Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-20 11:22 -0700
          Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 10:43 -0700
            Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 14:58 -0700
              Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-21 20:59 -0700
                Re: Hachel's blunder The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-22 01:05 -0700

#673386 — Hachel's blunder

I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic 
integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating 
rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed 
set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful 
equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2 
—but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to 
dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there 
was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the 
formula itself—proved extremely useful.
So, we arrive at:

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in 
fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the 
x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from 
O).
That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from 
their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean 
reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be 
scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting 
with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists 
mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing 
about it.

R.H. 


-- 
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#673387

Richard,

You previously thought that

  dt = d(tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

was locally correct for accelerated motion, and that the error
appeared only when physicists integrated it.

You now explicitly withdraw that claim.

Fine.

But there is one very important correction:

> The advice and research provided by Python [...]
> proved extremely useful.
> So, we arrive at: [formula]

I did not discover an error in SR.

I discovered what YOUR equations imply.

Starting from YOUR equations

  Tr(x) = sqrt(2x/a)

  To(x) = (x/c)*sqrt(1 + 2c^2/(ax))

and

  Vr = sqrt(2ax),

ordinary differentiation necessarily gives

                    1 + Vr^2/(2c^2)
  dTo = dTr * -------------------------- .
                 sqrt(1 + Vr^2/(4c^2))

That result says:

  Hachel's assumptions != SR.

It does NOT say:

  experiment != SR.

That second step is precisely what remains to be demonstrated.


There is also a serious problem with this argument:

> you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when
> starting from O

That objection does not apply to the SR proper-time relation.

SR does not say that at every point of the trajectory one must
"go back to O" and reapply some finite formula from O.

It says locally:

  c^2 d(tau)^2 =
      c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.

Hence, in an inertial coordinate system,

  d(tau) = dt*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

This relation is local.

No O appears in it.
No initial position appears in it.
No assumption that v has remained constant since O appears in it.

One then sums these infinitesimal proper-time intervals along
the worldline:

  tau = integral d(tau).

That is exactly what a line integral does.


And this statement is simply false:

> Minkowski geometry [...] works only for simple Galilean
> reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.

Take ANY accelerated timelike worldline in Minkowski spacetime,

  x^mu(t).

Its proper time is

  d(tau)^2 = dt^2 -
             (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)/c^2.

Nothing there requires

  dv/dt = 0.

Uniform proper acceleration is one of the elementary examples:

  ct(tau) = (c^2/a) sinh(a tau/c)

  x(tau)  = (c^2/a)[cosh(a tau/c)-1].

This is an accelerated worldline IN Minkowski spacetime.

Likewise, rotation does not make Minkowski spacetime cease to be
Minkowskian. Non-inertial coordinates can have a nontrivial
metric while the spacetime curvature remains zero.

So you have not found a mathematical failure of Minkowski
geometry for acceleration.


Your theory now predicts a different local clock law from SR.

For example, at

  Vr = sqrt(2)c,

your accelerated formula gives

  dTr/dTo = 0.612372...

whereas SR gives

  d(tau)/dt = 0.577350...

at the same instantaneous velocity.

Difference: about 6.07%.

That is excellent news experimentally: the disagreement is
quantitative.


So there is no need yet to scrap

  "the entire doctrine"

and rebuild physics from scratch.

First perform the considerably cheaper operation:

                 MEASURE IT.

If an accelerated clock at that velocity behaves according to

  0.612372...

rather than

  0.577350...,

then you have evidence against SR and something genuinely
important to explain.

If it behaves according to 0.577350..., your equation is wrong.

At present the logical situation is simply:

  RH assumptions
       |
       v
  RH clock equation
       |
       | differs from
       v
  SR clock equation

You have demonstrated the difference.

You have not demonstrated which one Nature uses.

Before scrapping the entire doctrine, it might be prudent to
allow Nature a vote.

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

#673389

Le 19/09/2026 à 14:01, Python a écrit :
> Richard,

> You have demonstrated the difference.

  And you too.

> You have not demonstrated which one Nature uses.

  And you no more. :))
> 
> Before scrapping the entire doctrine, it might be prudent to
> allow Nature a vote.

 Absolutely. So, we have two different geometries with completely 
different predictions.

The first one isn't very elegant; I’ve never found the concept of the 
spacetime interval to be particularly elegant or easy to grasp. Above all, 
I find it entirely unnecessary and overly complicated for high school 
students (the basics of relativity ought to be taught in high school, 
given that in Hachel’s theory, the equations require no tools beyond 
what is already taught at that level).
It is clear, simple, and accessible to everyone.
With the help of artificial intelligence—which sometimes offers good 
ideas for clear definitions—we could put together a short booklet of 
just a few pages; the kind of booklet one could even read in bed at night 
before falling asleep.
"The concept of simultaneity... universal anisochrony... the relativity of 
chronotropy (the internal mechanism of watches)... accelerated reference 
frames... momentum prediction..."

It is all very simple, really.

R.H.

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

#673392

> So, we have two different geometries with completely different
> predictions.

Not quite.

We have:

  1. SR, which provides a general geometry and a general rule for
     calculating proper time along any timelike worldline;

  2. RH, for which we have derived a different local relation in
     one particular accelerated trajectory.

That is already interesting, but it is not yet "two geometries"
of comparable completeness.


> You have not demonstrated which one Nature uses.
>
> And you no more. :))

Careful.

I have certainly not demonstrated here that a particular experiment
has already distinguished YOUR newly stated equation from SR.

That is precisely why I am asking for such an experiment.

But SR did not acquire its experimental status yesterday.

Its predictions concerning clocks, Doppler effects, particle
lifetimes, accelerators, atomic clocks, GPS, etc. have been tested
for decades.

So the experimental situation is not:

             RH  0 - 0  SR

with Nature waiting for the referee to blow the whistle.

You have proposed a NEW prediction differing from the established
one.

The interesting job is therefore to find an experiment which
distinguishes them.


There is also a more immediate problem.

Before writing the little bedtime booklet, RH still needs a
general equation.

The equation we derived from your assumptions,

                    1 + Vr^2/(2c^2)
  dTo = dTr * -------------------------- ,
                 sqrt(1 + Vr^2/(4c^2))

came from your particular trajectory

  Vr = a Tr
  x  = (1/2) a Tr^2

starting from rest with constant a.

Now you want the booklet to explain:

  accelerated frames,
  deceleration,
  arbitrary changes of acceleration,
  simultaneity,
  clock rates,
  momentum, ...

Fine.

Then give the general RH law.

For an arbitrary trajectory, what determines

  dTr/dTo ?

Is it a function of

  Vr only?

  Vr and a?

  the sign of a?

  position x?

  the previous history of the trajectory?

For example, at the same event and the same Vr, what does RH predict
for:

  a > 0
  a = 0
  a < 0 ?

We already know that your present equations give different answers
between a > 0 and a = 0.

What is the answer for a < 0?


This matters because SR already has one answer valid for all three:

  d(tau)/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Acceleration changes the trajectory v(t), but no additional
acceleration term is required in the local proper-time law.

So simplicity cannot yet be claimed for RH.

A simple theory is not one whose first example uses high-school
mathematics.

It is one which gives a small set of well-defined rules from which
ALL the relevant cases can be calculated without adding a new rule
for each case.


And before "the entire doctrine must be scrapped", there is still
that delightfully simple 6.07% question.

At

  Vr = sqrt(2)c,

RH accelerated motion predicts

  dTr/dTo = 0.612372...

while SR predicts

  d(tau)/dt = 0.577350...

No philosophy of simultaneity is required to distinguish those
numbers.

No Minkowski diagram is required either.

Just clocks.

So by all means write the booklet.

But before the chapter entitled

  "Why Einstein was wrong"

I suggest a short experimental chapter:

  "Which number does Nature give?"

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

#673400

Python wrote:

>> So, we have two different geometries with completely different
>> predictions.
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> We have:
> 
>   1. SR, which provides a general geometry and a general rule for
>      calculating proper time along any timelike worldline;

carefull here, that's not taking the curvatures into account, hence by 
definotion wrong.

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

#673402

Le 19/09/2026 à 18:10, Daryll Mahurov a écrit :
> Python wrote:
> 
>>> So, we have two different geometries with completely different
>>> predictions.
>> 
>> Not quite.
>> 
>> We have:
>> 
>>   1. SR, which provides a general geometry and a general rule for
>>      calculating proper time along any timelike worldline;
> 
> carefull here, that's not taking the curvatures into account, hence by 
> definotion wrong.

Si la relativité restreinte n'a pas les bonnes bases, que devient la 
relativité générale?

Attention les mecs, ne vous laissez pas avoir. Les dessins animés de 
trous noirs, c'est des dessins animés. 

R.H. 

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

#673403

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> So, we arrive at:
> 
> <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> O).
> That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> about it.
> 
> R.H.
> 
> --
> Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>


I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..


There is a clock..
it is a giant clock...
a very big gigantic clock,

and the time is...

it's NOW everywhere!!!!


What time is it now?

The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!



What time is it now?


Now?

Yes.


it's NOW everywhere!!!!


it's always now.



What time is it now?


didn't you just ask me dat?


IT'S NOW!!!!



Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.


FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!











-- 
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]

#673412

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > So, we arrive at:
> >
> > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >
> > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > O).
> > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > about it.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> > --
> > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> 
> I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> 
> There is a clock..
> it is a giant clock...
> a very big gigantic clock,
> 
> and the time is...
> 
> it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> 
> What time is it now?
> 
> The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> 
> What time is it now?
> 
> Now?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> 
> it's always now.
> 
> What time is it now?
> 
> didn't you just ask me dat?
> 
> IT'S NOW!!!!
> 
> Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> 
> FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!

In other words, if you want 
"a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"

it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!

There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
everywere.














-- 
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]

#673461

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >
> > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > So, we arrive at:
> > >
> > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > >
> > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > O).
> > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> >
> > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> >
> > There is a clock..
> > it is a giant clock...
> > a very big gigantic clock,
> >
> > and the time is...
> >
> > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> >
> > What time is it now?
> >
> > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> >
> > What time is it now?
> >
> > Now?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> >
> > it's always now.
> >
> > What time is it now?
> >
> > didn't you just ask me dat?
> >
> > IT'S NOW!!!!
> >
> > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> >
> > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> 
> In other words, if you want
> "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> 
> it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> 
> There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> everywere.


Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.

Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.

Our solar system is part of this clock...

the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...

buy a sundial.


It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
high...high up there...straight up.


Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack. 


Newton has a Master Universal Clock.


Einstein has a cuckoo clock.

The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????


He would have patent it if he knew how...

so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.

There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.


You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
Clock...

and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.

Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...

(beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)

https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA




-- 
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]

#673508

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > > So, we arrive at:
> > > >
> > > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > > >
> > > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > > O).
> > > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > > about it.
> > > >
> > > > R.H.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> > >
> > > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> > >
> > > There is a clock..
> > > it is a giant clock...
> > > a very big gigantic clock,
> > >
> > > and the time is...
> > >
> > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > >
> > > What time is it now?
> > >
> > > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> > >
> > > What time is it now?
> > >
> > > Now?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > >
> > > it's always now.
> > >
> > > What time is it now?
> > >
> > > didn't you just ask me dat?
> > >
> > > IT'S NOW!!!!
> > >
> > > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> > >
> > > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> >
> > In other words, if you want
> > "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> >
> > it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> >
> > There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> > everywere.
> 
> Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.
> 
> Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.
> 
> Our solar system is part of this clock...
> 
> the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...
> 
> buy a sundial.
> 
> It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
> high...high up there...straight up.
> 
> Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack.
> 
> Newton has a Master Universal Clock.
> 
> Einstein has a cuckoo clock.
> 
> The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????
> 
> He would have patent it if he knew how...
> 
> so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.
> 
> There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.
> 
> You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
> Clock...
> 
> and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.
> 
> Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...
> 
> (beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA

Keep in mind Einstein was jealous of anything having to do with Newton.

Einstein's goal was to bury Newton.

(Newton's IQ was HIGHER than Einstein's IQ)


GR was created to bury Newton.


Does Einstein believe in a Master Universal Clock???


Einstein only believes in ...his cuckoo clocks.


Has Einstein ever said anything nice about...Newton????



Newton said gravity is a force..and Einstein sez gravity is not a force.


Newton said the universe is a master clock, and Einstein said there is
no universal master clock.


Newton was a Christan, and Einstein was a Kike.














-- 
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]

#673525

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > > > So, we arrive at:
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > > > >
> > > > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > > > O).
> > > > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > > > about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > R.H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> > > >
> > > > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> > > >
> > > > There is a clock..
> > > > it is a giant clock...
> > > > a very big gigantic clock,
> > > >
> > > > and the time is...
> > > >
> > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > >
> > > > What time is it now?
> > > >
> > > > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > >
> > > > What time is it now?
> > > >
> > > > Now?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > >
> > > > it's always now.
> > > >
> > > > What time is it now?
> > > >
> > > > didn't you just ask me dat?
> > > >
> > > > IT'S NOW!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> > > >
> > > > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> > >
> > > In other words, if you want
> > > "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> > >
> > > it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> > >
> > > There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> > > everywere.
> >
> > Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.
> >
> > Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.
> >
> > Our solar system is part of this clock...
> >
> > the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...
> >
> > buy a sundial.
> >
> > It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
> > high...high up there...straight up.
> >
> > Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack.
> >
> > Newton has a Master Universal Clock.
> >
> > Einstein has a cuckoo clock.
> >
> > The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????
> >
> > He would have patent it if he knew how...
> >
> > so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.
> >
> > There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.
> >
> > You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
> > Clock...
> >
> > and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.
> >
> > Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...
> >
> > (beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA
> 
> Keep in mind Einstein was jealous of anything having to do with Newton.
> 
> Einstein's goal was to bury Newton.
> 
> (Newton's IQ was HIGHER than Einstein's IQ)
> 
> GR was created to bury Newton.
> 
> Does Einstein believe in a Master Universal Clock???
> 
> Einstein only believes in ...his cuckoo clocks.
> 
> Has Einstein ever said anything nice about...Newton????
> 
> Newton said gravity is a force..and Einstein sez gravity is not a force.


Now, a closer examination of Gravity according to Einstein is that
Gravity is caused by
the curvature of space. 

That isn't true.

Space is not curved. 

Space does not have straight or curve lines.

An egg is curve, but the yoke in the egg is not curved.

Our universe is contained/enclosed in a curve shell. Space runs through
in and out of this enclosure.

Gravity runs through in and out of this enclosure.


Gravity according to Newton is a force.

If a planet is round it's not because of the curvature of space...but,
but of gravity's force.

Dark Matter is the stage in which our enclosed universe sit's on.

Evrybody who is standing upside down on the other side of the earth is
not
caused by the curvature of space...it's an upside down stage.









-- 
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]

#673532

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > > > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > > > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > > > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > > > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > > > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > > > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > > > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > > > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > > > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > > > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > > > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > > > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > > > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > > > > So, we arrive at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > > > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > > > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > > > > O).
> > > > > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > > > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > > > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > > > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > > > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > > > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > > > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > > > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > R.H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a clock..
> > > > > it is a giant clock...
> > > > > a very big gigantic clock,
> > > > >
> > > > > and the time is...
> > > > >
> > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > it's always now.
> > > > >
> > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > >
> > > > > didn't you just ask me dat?
> > > > >
> > > > > IT'S NOW!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> > > >
> > > > In other words, if you want
> > > > "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> > > >
> > > > it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> > > >
> > > > There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> > > > everywere.
> > >
> > > Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.
> > >
> > > Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.
> > >
> > > Our solar system is part of this clock...
> > >
> > > the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...
> > >
> > > buy a sundial.
> > >
> > > It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
> > > high...high up there...straight up.
> > >
> > > Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack.
> > >
> > > Newton has a Master Universal Clock.
> > >
> > > Einstein has a cuckoo clock.
> > >
> > > The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????
> > >
> > > He would have patent it if he knew how...
> > >
> > > so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.
> > >
> > > You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
> > > Clock...
> > >
> > > and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.
> > >
> > > Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...
> > >
> > > (beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA
> >
> > Keep in mind Einstein was jealous of anything having to do with Newton.
> >
> > Einstein's goal was to bury Newton.
> >
> > (Newton's IQ was HIGHER than Einstein's IQ)
> >
> > GR was created to bury Newton.
> >
> > Does Einstein believe in a Master Universal Clock???
> >
> > Einstein only believes in ...his cuckoo clocks.
> >
> > Has Einstein ever said anything nice about...Newton????
> >
> > Newton said gravity is a force..and Einstein sez gravity is not a force.
> 
> Now, a closer examination of Gravity according to Einstein is that
> Gravity is caused by
> the curvature of space.
> 
> That isn't true.
> 
> Space is not curved.
> 
> Space does not have straight or curve lines.
> 
> An egg is curve, but the yoke in the egg is not curved.
> 
> Our universe is contained/enclosed in a curve shell. Space runs through
> in and out of this enclosure.
> 
> Gravity runs through in and out of this enclosure.
> 
> Gravity according to Newton is a force.
> 
> If a planet is round it's not because of the curvature of space...but,
> but of gravity's force.
> 
> Dark Matter is the stage in which our enclosed universe sit's on.
> 
> Evrybody who is standing upside down on the other side of the earth is
> not
> caused by the curvature of space...it's an upside down stage.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

How did the apple hit Newton's head if it should have 'curved' pass his
head???



-- 
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]

#673543

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I always said there was something amiss with this business of relativistic
> > > > > > > integration, where physicists calculate the proper time of an accelerating
> > > > > > > rocket relative to the Earth's reference frame.
> > > > > > > It seemed to me that the approximation was correct—that one could indeed
> > > > > > > set dt = d(tau)/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} locally.
> > > > > > > And that the problem lay in the integration itself.
> > > > > > > But actually, no. It is the equation that is flawed. It is a beautiful
> > > > > > > equation, certainly. But wrong. Completely wrong.
> > > > > > > I had started from a personal error—assuming dTo^2 = dTr^2 + d€t^2
> > > > > > > —but that is incorrect. Just as the Minkowski metric, which leads to
> > > > > > > dt^2 = d(tau)² + d€² is completely wrong.
> > > > > > > The advice and research provided by Python—who believed that if there
> > > > > > > was an error, it couldn't stem from the integration but rather from the
> > > > > > > formula itself—proved extremely useful.
> > > > > > > So, we arrive at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ..and not to what physicists say—who make the same blunder I did (in
> > > > > > > fact, you cannot position yourself at point O and then move to the
> > > > > > > x-coordinate Tr1 to use an equation that is valid only when starting from
> > > > > > > O).
> > > > > > > That was the source of my error, just as the physicists' error stems from
> > > > > > > their belief in Minkowski geometry—which works only for simple Galilean
> > > > > > > reference frames where velocity remains trivially constant.
> > > > > > > It fails to work for rotating or uniformly accelerated reference frames.
> > > > > > > It is truly alarming to realize that the *entire* doctrine must be
> > > > > > > scrapped, and everything rebuilt and re-explained from scratch—starting
> > > > > > > with a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity, a concept physicists
> > > > > > > mistakenly conflate with chronotropy without understanding the first thing
> > > > > > > about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > R.H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=vkgxnBVVWIt_RjzJKizuT5Er7GM@jntp>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll explain since I'm the only genuieses in da room..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a clock..
> > > > > > it is a giant clock...
> > > > > > a very big gigantic clock,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and the time is...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Time is ... NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's NOW everywhere!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's always now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What time is it now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > didn't you just ask me dat?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IT'S NOW!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, i beg to differ..not according to Einstein's clock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, if you want
> > > > > "a clear definition of relativistic simultaneity"
> > > > >
> > > > > it's FUCK EINSTEIN'S CLOCK!
> > > > >
> > > > > There is only one universal clock, and that clock reads the time is NOW
> > > > > everywere.
> > > >
> > > > Let me put it this way. The Universe HAS a Master Clock.
> > > >
> > > > Our solar system is part of this universal clock mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > Our solar system is part of this clock...
> > > >
> > > > the wheels of mercury turn faster than the wheels of earth and so on...
> > > >
> > > > buy a sundial.
> > > >
> > > > It's going to be 12: o'clock...dats when the sun is 12 o'cluck
> > > > high...high up there...straight up.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein's clocks are for people who travel through ...Amtrack.
> > > >
> > > > Newton has a Master Universal Clock.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein has a cuckoo clock.
> > > >
> > > > The problem Einstein had is how do you schronize two cuckoo birds????
> > > >
> > > > He would have patent it if he knew how...
> > > >
> > > > so you are stuck forever wit dis imperfect cuckoo clock.
> > > >
> > > > There is no such thing as PERFECT on earth.
> > > >
> > > > You need to understand the 'machinery' behind the Universal Master
> > > > Clock...
> > > >
> > > > and that machine is located OUTSIDE your egg shaped universe.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what the machine outside the universe looks like...
> > > >
> > > > (beyond the dark matter which surronds your universe)
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com./watch?tvv=IkCku4TM8HA
> > >
> > > Keep in mind Einstein was jealous of anything having to do with Newton.
> > >
> > > Einstein's goal was to bury Newton.
> > >
> > > (Newton's IQ was HIGHER than Einstein's IQ)
> > >
> > > GR was created to bury Newton.
> > >
> > > Does Einstein believe in a Master Universal Clock???
> > >
> > > Einstein only believes in ...his cuckoo clocks.
> > >
> > > Has Einstein ever said anything nice about...Newton????
> > >
> > > Newton said gravity is a force..and Einstein sez gravity is not a force.
> >
> > Now, a closer examination of Gravity according to Einstein is that
> > Gravity is caused by
> > the curvature of space.
> >
> > That isn't true.
> >
> > Space is not curved.
> >
> > Space does not have straight or curve lines.
> >
> > An egg is curve, but the yoke in the egg is not curved.
> >
> > Our universe is contained/enclosed in a curve shell. Space runs through
> > in and out of this enclosure.
> >
> > Gravity runs through in and out of this enclosure.
> >
> > Gravity according to Newton is a force.
> >
> > If a planet is round it's not because of the curvature of space...but,
> > but of gravity's force.
> >
> > Dark Matter is the stage in which our enclosed universe sit's on.
> >
> > Evrybody who is standing upside down on the other side of the earth is
> > not
> > caused by the curvature of space...it's an upside down stage.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge the unchallengeable.
> 
> How did the apple hit Newton's head if it should have 'curved' pass his
> head???
> 

Les not forget Newton still lives beyond relativity.




-- 
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] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web