• GENERAL ADDITION OF RELATIVIST VELOCITIES

    From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 3 22:45:45 2023
    An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
    to the star
    Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
    reference frame.
    We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
    In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
    relativistic particle at speed
    Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
    axis of the
    aimed at Sirius.
    According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
    direction and speed
    of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
    reference.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Sep 3 20:01:18 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
    to the star
    Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R reference frame.
    We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
    In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
    relativistic particle at speed
    Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
    axis of the
    aimed at Sirius.
    According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
    direction and speed
    of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of reference.

    R.H.

    A frame can only add to its own motion and energy.
    Your motion does not give order to another frame.
    How can your acceleration give kinetic energy
    to any another frame? Multiple frames would give
    multiple kinetic energies to the one same frame.
    Relativity predicting multiple results show it
    could never be an accurate theory.


    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 4 12:50:08 2023
    Le 04/09/2023 à 05:01, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
    to the star
    Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
    reference frame.
    We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
    In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
    relativistic particle at speed
    Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
    axis of the
    aimed at Sirius.
    According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
    direction and speed
    of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
    reference.

    R.H.

    Relativity predicting multiple results show it
    could never be an accurate theory.

    ? ? ?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    It is precisely the genius of relativity to predict different things for different observers.

    Let’s pose Elisabeth and Mary.

    Elisabeth goes to look for eggs on Monday in Father Joseph's henhouse. She finds seven eggs.

    Mary goes to look for eggs on Tuesdays in Mother Michel's henhouse. She
    finds nine.

    It's not the same observer, the same day, the same place.

    Different observers placed in different places have different notions of simultaneity (depending on their position), chronotropy (depending on
    their relative speed), lengths and distances.

    Doctor Hachel has already explained it a hundred times, and many have difficulty understanding.

    The most difficult to understand is the relativity of distances.

    Humanity is completely confused by Hachel's depth of thought when he says
    that the effects on distances are reciprocal
    by reference permutation.

    This inability of human beings to follow his simple thought is
    extraordinary: and it is said: "He is arrogant."

    They don't realize that they are the stupid people, not me.

    They do not understand, for example, that when we move at 0.8c towards something, the lengths but also the distances are multiplied by three.

    It overwhelms them and confuses them.

    And they say "I'm an expert in physics, and Doctor Hachel is a crank".

    They understood nothing of their own theory.

    Their blindness is total and ridiculous.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Sep 4 09:22:42 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 04/09/2023 à 05:01, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
    to the star
    Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
    reference frame.
    We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
    In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
    relativistic particle at speed
    Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the >> axis of the
    aimed at Sirius.
    According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
    direction and speed
    of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
    reference.

    R.H.
    Relativity predicting multiple results show it
    could never be an accurate theory.
    ? ? ?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    It is precisely the genius of relativity to predict different things for different observers.

    Then how is it accurate in that multiple?
    How do you measure the difference between relative and absolute motion?
    The atom can compete with light speed at a motion BH. How are they relative?
    if the atom can compete with light's absolute speed?

    Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed an alternative in 1905.
    What motion does a frame have if there is more than one motion for it?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Let’s pose Elisabeth and Mary.

    Elisabeth goes to look for eggs on Monday in Father Joseph's henhouse. She finds seven eggs.

    Mary goes to look for eggs on Tuesdays in Mother Michel's henhouse. She finds nine.

    It's not the same observer, the same day, the same place.

    Different observers placed in different places have different notions of simultaneity (depending on their position), chronotropy (depending on
    their relative speed), lengths and distances.

    Doctor Hachel has already explained it a hundred times, and many have difficulty understanding.

    The most difficult to understand is the relativity of distances.

    Humanity is completely confused by Hachel's depth of thought when he says that the effects on distances are reciprocal
    by reference permutation.

    This inability of human beings to follow his simple thought is extraordinary: and it is said: "He is arrogant."

    They don't realize that they are the stupid people, not me.

    They do not understand, for example, that when we move at 0.8c towards something, the lengths but also the distances are multiplied by three.

    It overwhelms them and confuses them.

    And they say "I'm an expert in physics, and Doctor Hachel is a crank".

    They understood nothing of their own theory.

    Their blindness is total and ridiculous.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From xip14@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 02:36:30 2023
    Here is the spatial Lorentz Transform used by textbooks for velocity addition. Notice positive +vt′.

    x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )

    Does the train move with positive speed-v down the track?

    No. The track moves with negative speed-v under the train, negative speed-v with respect to the ground.

    Does the train fire off point-x′ which will be observed on the track, on the ground?

    No. The ground discharges point-x′ with positive speed-w.

    Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is ( x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From xip14@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 04:14:11 2023
    Not quite right: Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is ( x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

    Total displacement observed on the negatively moving track is not ( x′ + vt′ ), it’s the transformed value of ( x′ + vt′ ), namely gamma × ( x′ + vt′ ).

    Speed sum ( w + v ) is not the value observed on the negatively moving track. Speed on the track is the speed of point-x-unprimed, x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ ).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 12:26:33 2023
    Le 09/09/2023 à 11:36, xip14 a écrit :
    Here is the spatial Lorentz Transform used by textbooks for velocity addition.
    Notice positive +vt′.

    x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )

    Does the train move with positive speed-v down the track?

    No. The track moves with negative speed-v under the train, negative speed-v with respect to the ground.

    Does the train fire off point-x′ which will be observed on the track, on the
    ground?

    No. The ground discharges point-x′ with positive speed-w.

    Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is ( x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

    There are two ways of looking at things.
    The positive transformations of Poincaré, or the negative transformations
    of Einstein.
    But it's the same transformation except that in one we put +v and in the
    other -v.

    Poincaré lands in the frame of reference R of the train, motionless, then
    in that of the campaign R' which sees him pass from left to right.

    He is the first to have obtained the real transformations.

    The French mathematician then wrote (here in doctor Hachel script): x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    y'=y
    z'=z
    To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    and he then gives the inverse equations.

    Einstein considers, on the contrary, that the train is fixed in its frame
    of reference R' but that it travels from right to left in R' (or what is equivalent, but a little strange, that it is the countryside which runs
    from left to right under the train).

    He then obtains the obviously opposite transformations.

    x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    y'=y
    z'=z
    To'=(To-x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    It's extraordinarily simple.

    The difficulty is not in x, but in To.

    The hardest thing to understand is that when I write, for example: x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    y'=y
    z'=z
    To'=(To-x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²);
    where when I write the inverse equation, To and To' are negative.

    We are always talking about an event that happened To or To' ago.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)