From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

In recent days, the excellent Python has examined
how physicists integrate the proper time of particles or accelerating
rockets.
He did so very seriously (credit where credit is due),
and he correctly distinguishes SR from HR (Hachelian relativity).

SR yields a stupid equation relating proper time to observable time (that
is my own assessment). But simply saying so isn't enough; one must explain where and why it fails to hold up.
The physicists' error is amusing; it stems from a concept that is as
*a priori* as it is false. What could be more *a priori* than thinking
that for a tiny segment of the trajectory, dt = d(tau)-+sqrt(1 +
Vri-#/c-#), where Vri is the instantaneous speed?
EVERYONE does it this way.
And this leads to an incorrect integration, because the premise is flawed. Python, in fact, provided the true basis:
dt = d(tau)-+(1 + Vr-#/2c-#) / sqrt(1 + Vr-#/4c-#)
The first integrationrCothe scientists' versionrCoyields Tr = 3.140 years
for a rocket leaving Earth with 10 m/s-# acceleration to reach Tau Ceti
(12 light-years away).
The secondrCoHachel's versionrCoyields 4.776 years.
The difference is substantial.

Let us put the question to the artificial intelligence and see if Python's equationrCodealing with a tiny fragment of proper time and Earth
timerCocan be integrated over the entire journey to arrive at Hachel's proposition: t = tau-+sqrt(1 + Vr-#/4c-#).

Two miraculous things stand out:
The AI rCirCidoes not insult me.
The AI rCirCiagrees with Python equation

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Mhg-2pM4JhbyJ1fPJUCHZwJ7HzA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.
--
Ce message a |-t|- post|- avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Mhg-2pM4JhbyJ1fPJUCHZwJ7HzA@jntp>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python, in fact, provided the true basis

No. Stop attributing YOUR equation to me.

YOU asserted:

t = tau*sqrt(1 + Vr^2/(4c^2))
Vr = a*tau.

I differentiated it.

You checked the derivative and admitted it was correct.

Now you ask an AI to integrate that derivative, recover your
starting equation, and present this as evidence against SR.

So:

Hachel equation
|
differentiate
|
v
Hachel derivative
|
integrate
|
v
Hachel equation

Conclusion: "SR is wrong!"

That's not a scientific demonstration. That's a circle with
calculus in it.

And consider what you are actually claiming.

You are claiming that for more than a century physicists have
used the WRONG local proper-time law for accelerated particles,
while building particle accelerators, testing relativistic
lifetimes, operating atomic clocks and developing precision
relativistic metrology -- and that the mistake is large enough
to reach about 6% in the example we found.

Is that logically impossible?

No.

Is it an extraordinarily unlikely claim to be correct without
some very strong experimental evidence?

Obviously.

And what evidence have you produced so far?

None.

We have only:

RH: d tau/dt = 0.612372...
SR: d tau/dt = 0.577350...

at Vr = sqrt(2)c.

So stop asking AI to differentiate and reintegrate your own
assumptions.

Find an experiment that gives 0.612372 instead of 0.577350.

Until then, you haven't found a century-old blunder in relativity.

You've found that Hachel, differentiated and then integrated,
still gives Hachel.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 20/09/2026 |a 22:12, Python a |-crit :

Python, in fact, provided the true basis

No. Stop attributing YOUR equation to me.

YOU asserted:

t = tau*sqrt(1 + Vr^2/(4c^2))
Vr = a*tau.

I differentiated it.

Yes.

That's what I'm saying

And YOU found dTo=dTr.(1+Vr-#/2c-#)/sqrt(1+Vr-#/4c-#).

I asked the artificial intelligence if the work was correct, and it
replied that it was "glatt kosher."

Please, stop attributing YOUR equation to me.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2