Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:36:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <v715id$8suh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp>
 <FlDiO.56506$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>
 <LdiOEXosVQBwmzyUbXQtBoNVQOg@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="378caa3574aaf12aaab8d0f4b1234aa5";
	logging-data="291793"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0WEOBAIdov9CX4KIYGGJ8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ew6BLA8Xzj24n4Nsx6nAb0v95EI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <LdiOEXosVQBwmzyUbXQtBoNVQOg@jntp>
Bytes: 6055

Den 12.07.2024 15:44, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 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.


To test a theory, you must calculate what the theory
predicts will be measured in an experiment.

Then you do the experiment, and see if the values
read of the instrument are in accordance with the prediction
within the precision of the measurement.

There are two possible outcomes.
Either the measurements are in accordance with the measurements
or they are not.

In the former case, the theory is confirmed, but NOT proved.
In the latter case, the theory is falsified (proved wrong).

It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.

According to Richard Hachel (that's you) his theory predicts:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.

You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed  6927⋅c.

The physicists who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c.

The predictions of your theory are different from the measured
values.

Your theory is falsified.

> 
>> 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.

Look.
Many (most) experiments will confirm several theories.
So it will probably be experiments which confirm both
your theory and SR.

But it takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.

The fact that the LHC (and other accelerators) work falsifies
your theory and confirms SR.

You can kick and whine and breath heavily us much as you want.

YOU ARE PROVED WRONG.

> 
> 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).

You are a bit slow, are you not?

Look at these experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

I am sure you can seek and find that some of them confirm your theory.
But that doesn't help, because several of them falsify your theory.

It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.

The HLC is such an experiment.
Your equations predict that the protons in the HLC
are moving with the speed  6927⋅c.
In the real world they are measured to always move
at a speed slightly less than c.

Your equations are proved wrong!

Keep insisting that your theory isn't falsified,
and I will keep reminding you that it is!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/