Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <LdiOEXosVQBwmzyUbXQtBoNVQOg@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp> <FlDiO.56506$GVTf.837@fx01.ams4> <lf40ddFdu9kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <Qjq15Muw8aIiGRVOKV0Bu2oT9_k@jntp> <v6mlhe$21277$2@dont-email.me> <9oTvw4-YSIPb1dubtdBwcc_MeX8@jntp>
 <v6ojjl$2fb4i$1@dont-email.me> <oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@jntp> <v6r5of$30t0t$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: jvOZvlfTF4tbemI-DF8MpiAR9hI
JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=LdiOEXosVQBwmzyUbXQtBoNVQOg@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 24 13:44:41 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-07-12T13:44:41Z/8944934"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
Bytes: 3777
Lines: 73

Le 12/07/2024 à 13:58, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
> It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
> if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
> 
> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
> very differently from what SR predicts.

 No.
 
> Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

 No.

> It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!

The experimental verifications relate to points which are similar in the 
two theories (or rather in the two relativistic geometries, those of 
Minkowski and that of Hachel).

For example, if we ask a physicist to calculate the time taken by an 
accelerated particle to travel a distance x, the physicist will 
immediately use Hachel's formula and he will be right.
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
If we ask him the opposite, that is to say to calculate the distance as a 
function of time, the physicists will still use Hachel's formula, which is 
the reciprocal, and he will still be right.
x=(c²/a)[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²) -1]
You cannot therefore say, "the physicists contradict you", since they use 
the same formulas as me, to prove a physical reality that is obvious on 
paper, and obvious in the laboratories.

Now, on other things, they have to correct their equations, and they have 
to prove experimentally whether it is Minkowski or me. On theoretical 
paper, it is impossible that Minkowski and his physicists can be right, 
what they say is not consistent and logical.

I have corrected a few equations that are not correct among theirs, and 
all they have to do is verify experimentally what can only be correct both 
mathematically and physically.

Example of corrections:

x=(1/2).a.Tr²

Vri=a.Tr

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

To²=Tr²+Et²

Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vri²/c²)

Eg=mc².sqrt(1+2ax/c²)

Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+2ax/c²) -1]

p=m.sqrt(2ax)

a'=a(1+Vr²/c²)^(-3/2)

a'=a(1-Vo²/c²)^(3/2)

These equations contradict the predictions of proper times and 
instantaneous observable velocities.

It is therefore the experimental verification of these two values 
​​that we must seek (which is not simple experimentally).

R.H.