Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <QYEsgVWlcFu0lRxb144TIzZkWPc@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Albert in Relativityland
References: <3ce0bf632f46843f8cc0a3f45fdc0acd@www.novabbs.com> <vshcgq$3ojsg$3@dont-email.me>
 <795a3195162645246d7e9e786d2036ff@www.novabbs.com> <vsiuqq$1bsmo$2@dont-email.me>
 <d0be5ca5054bb07de26f5d86274ce629@www.novabbs.com> <vsliu4$52m4$4@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: ZHhHek4UAP6E1azmiA8oYye3ric
JNTP-ThreadID: 3ce0bf632f46843f8cc0a3f45fdc0acd@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=QYEsgVWlcFu0lRxb144TIzZkWPc@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 25 12:08:21 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="0622b338f00df6c7e122ad5f6ee90645acf995aa"; logging-data="2025-04-03T12:08:21Z/9264647"; posting-account="4@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: 3890
Lines: 54

Le 03/04/2025 à 11:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

> Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?

The problem of time dilation will remain a real problem of understanding 
as long as theoretical physics remains a fog of words and abstract or 
misunderstood concepts.

According to the great Dr. Hachel, one of the most influential ideas in 
modern physics, a three-time Nobel Prize winner and future Fields Medalist 
for his work on complex numbers and imaginary functions, there is no real 
time dilation. An absurd concept.

If a particle were to live for 65.55 nanoseconds, for example, it would 
live for 65.55 nanoseconds in all the frames of reference in which it 
finds itself, being at rest in that frame of reference, and all frames of 
reference being equivalent in the notion of rest.

We must therefore abandon the term "time dilation," which is doubly false, 
in favor of "chronotropy dilation." That is to say, the particle's 
lifetime won't change, whether it's at rest or moving at 0.9995c.

What will change is the measurement I'll have of it in MY frame of 
reference compared to its own.

But if time doesn't change. If it always lives for 65.55 nanoseconds in 
all frames of reference (including accelerated or rotating frames), why 
aren't I measuring the same thing?

Two problems will then arise: First, the particle isn't, for me, in the 
same place when it leaves and when it arrives. If I assert a first-degree 
relativistic anisochrony between the two places, and if I add to this a 
dilation of the chronotropy due to the relative speed between it and the 
laboratory, we understand that the measurements will seem strange.

The particle's actual speed will seem much slower than it actually is; 
I'll only be measuring an observable speed.

I'll therefore have to correct this speed that I observe and measure (Vo: 
observable speed) into the notion of real speed (Vr).

Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

Everything is finally back in order.

The particle only lived for 65.55 nanoseconds. It's my ignorance of the 
concept of chronotropy dilation, spatial anisochrony, and especially the 
concept of real speed relative to what is measured, that misleads me into 
thinking that the particle actually lived longer in one frame of reference 
than in another.

R.H.