Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:58:32 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Incorrect mathematical integration
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <EKV4LWfwyF4mvRIpW8X1iiirzQk@jntp> <v7ri3a$1rs1b$1@dont-email.me> <ftN6UmDr7W62aPoOQpYysEUFAh8@jntp> <v7rp5h$1t5kp$1@dont-email.me> <BQ5j0PykzttrIMqyw16zXh2VQVU@jntp> <v7u8d2$2dodj$1@dont-email.me> <WxEQQfYMZ9Ktt8wAuyCpiQ5L8Tg@jntp> <v807nm$2rgp7$1@dont-email.me> <Y1zx7pfoPsbKo0KHuPJBLUEcaI0@jntp> <v80usp$2vjv9$1@dont-email.me> <HUuFOv87UeOdHEtvUgUB3DGPFlE@jntp> <v83hiq$3h0h2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <v83hiq$3h0h2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 93
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 20:58:32 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4577
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17e62d7ac15d9a34$145319$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4984

W dniu 27.07.2024 o 21:25, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 26.07.2024 22:36, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 26/07/2024 à 21:54, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> Den 25.07.2024 
>> 21:50, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proton only goes around once, and the time it takes, measured 
>>>>>> by the laboratory clock (which is actually TWO clocks A and B 
>>>>>> combined into one) is T = 90.0623 μs.
> 
>>> Right.
>>> So the proton crossed the distance L = 27 km in the laboratory
>>> reference frame in T = 90.0623 μs, and the speed in
>>> the laboratory reference frame is v = L/T = 0.999999991·c
> 
>>>>>> But if I measure with the watch that the proton wears on his left 
>>>>>> wrist, I will measure a time of τ = 12.0727 ns.
> 
>>>
>>> Right again.
>>> This is a trivial fact, disputed by no one.
> 
> This is experimentally confirmed in the real world.
> (With satellites and aeroplanes.)
> 
>>
>> It is not a question of discussing what is of rare evidence in both 
>> theories.
>> We must remain simple.
>> We have here two theories, and it is infinitely probable that one of 
>> the two is correct.
>> The problem is that on certain concepts, we do not agree. It is 
>> therefore certain that if there is an error, the error is there.
>> It cannot be found where we agree as here, or when each one poses:
>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) to determine the observable time of an 
>> accelerated object.
> 
> What are you talking about? :-D
> 
> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, for the proton, the distance AB (in the laboratory reference 
>>>>>> frame) was crossed 7460 times faster
> 
>>> !!!!!! :-D
> 
> 
>>> You say that the proton crossed the distance L = 27 km in
>>> _the laboratory reference frame_ in τ = 12.0727 ns, thus is
>>> the speed in the laboratory reference frame v = L/τ ≈ 7460·c
>>>
>>> How do you think that the proton can have two different speeds
>>> in the laboratory frame?
>>>
>>> Of course it can't in the real world.
> 
>> We must say simple things, and we must say true things.
>> It is very difficult in special relativity because of the frequent 
>> conceptual errors. Sometimes when I read certain things here or 
>> elsewhere, I have the impression that everything is sinking into horror.
>> We must be careful about the confusion of words.
>> You say, a body can only have one speed, and you seem to think that I 
>> am an idiot.
>> But no, I am not an idiot, and it is precisely because of morons like 
>> Python that I can pass for an idiot.
> 
>> Do you think that I am so stupid to say that a moving body can have 
>> two different speeds at the same time?
> 
> I did think so, but now you have corrected me.
> So you know that the proton can have only one speed in the lab frame.
> 
>> When I say that a body can have, in the same frame of reference, many 
>> different speeds, that is OBVIOUSLY not what I am talking about.
>> Let us assume a speed Vo=0.8c.
>> It is quite obvious that I cannot have at the same time, at the risk 
>> of being absurd, I who claim to describe the most beautiful, the 
>> simplest and the most logical theory, a life that is Vo=0.8/c, 
>> Vo=0.9c, Vo=0.5c and Vo=0.999c.
>> It would be absurd, and it would be dishonest to make me say what I 
>> did not say.
>> Now, I can still write Vo=0.8c, Vr=(4/3)c, Vapp'=0.4444c and Vapp"=4c.
>> You just have to understand what I write, why I write it, and validate 
>> it without spitting on it.
> 
> Why did you use so many words to say that you agree:
> "The proton can only have one speed in the lab frame."


:) Paul, poor halfbrain, have you ever
heard of quqntum mechjanics?