| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<R0ZFINOyb6vlx3NXlysw0PqxoDY@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <R0ZFINOyb6vlx3NXlysw0PqxoDY@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: [SR] The traveler of Tau Ceti References: <7zee2Lkf92pHHnzqt_kMV5fR8gM@jntp> <utcpug$2dn03$2@i2pn2.org> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: 2ZqBMowJeidkCJgkxrC8uwWMn3s JNTP-ThreadID: FzwcP8T6MX2OPkxsajhFKoJ7Pzs JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=R0ZFINOyb6vlx3NXlysw0PqxoDY@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Tue, 19 Mar 24 20:29:58 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-03-19T20:29:58Z/8782171"; 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: 2778 Lines: 47 Le 19/03/2024 à 20:44, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > You have in another posting said that the traveller's clock > would show τ = √(2⋅d/a) = 4.7764 y , That's actually what I said. >and the speed relative to > Tau Ceti would be Vr = a⋅t = 5.0279 ly/y when she passes the star. Absolutely. > Since it is experimentally confirmed that the speed relative > to the star never can exceed c, the theory you have used > to arrive at these predictions is obviously falsified. I beg you to understand something... When I talk in Vr notation, I'm talking about real speeds (which can take any value). You are talking about speeds observable in a frame of reference which is not that of the mobile, but that of the observer, and therefore you are talking about Vo. It is very obvious, and I have never said the opposite in 40 years of explanations that I wanted to be consistent, that Vo could be greater than c. It’s YOU who made me say it. I never said that. I implore you to show a little more humility when responding to me. To say "Doctor Hachel, you are an idiot, you don't know that we cannot exceed c", is to be both very extravagant, and above all very unhumble. I would not allow myself to make such a stupid and humiliating remark to you. > > The "theory" is obviously Newtonian mechanics with Galilean relativity. Absolutely not. My concepts are ultra-relativistic. Absolutely not newtonian, nor einsteinian. R.H.