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: Is it a Joke? ? ?
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:13:35 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vaps3p$3va7q$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <vak80b$2u8l5$1@dont-email.me>
 <5U7no7_ss4o5VC4H35bOoOqEi6w@jntp> <val4pj$332jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <PV2oATKbq9mjQDVMXlzvbvCPLMU@jntp> <vala23$33mgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <2hjjdokckxPswv9vzkiMV5N_680@jntp> <vanq5h$3irq8$1@dont-email.me>
 <KEAdeNaSGPhdUQc32DGS2HcmhqA@jntp> <vaplj0$3upoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <sFVsteOhJ9tQehdwjFNWQJawodY@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:12:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8d26fcdedb52beba8fe121381af51556";
	logging-data="4172026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182llpgGXST2BkFXzhUsJzm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D7KQvHyMRiU9dax8EUIha9HbLf0=
In-Reply-To: <sFVsteOhJ9tQehdwjFNWQJawodY@jntp>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4200

Den 29.08.2024 13:53, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 29/08/2024 à 13:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
>> I won't bother to comment your claim that the speed of light
>> between a watch and yourself depends on "how you position yourself".
> 
> That is indeed what I said.
> 
> Due to universal anisochrony, the speed of light depends
> on the position of the observer.

We are talking about the speed of light from the moon to
you who have positioned yourself at the Earth.

| Den 26.08.2024 13:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
|>
|> There is a one-second time difference between 00:00:08 and 00:00:07", 
between my watch and the watch on the moon.
|> This is because of the speed of light, which is quite slow, and takes 
at least a second to reach me.
|> And so that explains everything.
|>

You _know_ that this speed is c, so the light will use
ca. 1 second to reach you, which indeed explains everything:

You see the watch in the telescope showing 00.00'.07"
_because_ the lunar watch shows 00.00'.08" and is
synchronous with the watch on your table.

This case is now closed!
You have lost! The speed of light is never infinite!

> 
> <snip nonsense>
> 
You are fleeing again, as I knew you would.

Let us look at another claim of yours:

You are talking about a proton in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
|>
|> Don't tell me you don't understand that the proton rotates 11.25 
million times per second in the laboratory frame but 78 million times 
per second in the proton frame.
|>
|> This is called time dilation.
|>



In other words:
| While the proton rotates once in the laboratory frame,
| it rotates 6933 times in the proton frame.
|
| This is called time dilation.


This statement of yours prove that your 'theory' is inconsistent.
(Or rather, it proves that you have no 'theory', but are babbling utter 
nonsense.)

It is true that a proton in the LHC moves around the circle
≈ 11.25 thousand times per second, which means that measured
in the laboratory frame, the proton moves once around the circle
in T ≈ 90 μs.
Since γ = 7460, the proper time of the proton per orbit is τ ≈ 12 ns.

So a correct statement would be:
| Measured in the laboratory frame the orbital time is T ≈ 90 μs.
| Measured in the proton frame the orbital time is τ ≈ 12 ns.
|
| This is called time dilation.

The proton moves once around the circuit in the lab frame,
while the lab moves once around the proton in the proton frame.

But Richard Hachel claims that the proton moves 6933 times
around the cycle while it moves once around the cycle!

------------

Richard, you will have to flee again. Chicken! 😂
Because you have realised that you were wrong, haven't you?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/