Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.

Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

? ? ?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>

But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying for years,
namely that physicists do not understand anything at all about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the stupidity of the
Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!!

But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the best posters
of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will never progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

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

Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.

Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly =  3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

 ? ? ?
 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>


But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames
of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying
for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all
about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely
ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the
stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take
up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!!

But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the best
posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will never
progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

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

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:31, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit :

Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception, >>>>> they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.

Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly =  3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

 ? ? ?
 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>


But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames
of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying
for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all
about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely
ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the
stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take
up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!!

But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the
best posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will
never progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

Yes.
How do you judge that?
You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to
be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible.

Because I can prove with arguments that you are self-contradictory
and violating the principle of Relativity PERIOD.

It's not very rational.

It is.

[snip babbling]

You can hear because you are an psychopath and an egomaniac.

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

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:40, Python a écrit :

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:31, Richard Hachel a écrit :

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

Yes.
How do you judge that?
You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to
be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible.

Because I can prove with arguments that you are self-contradictory
and violating the principle of Relativity PERIOD.

Je ne suis pas là pour violer les lois de relativité.

Ce qui viole les lois de la relativité, ce sont les mauvais concepts
actuels, qui produisent une relativité mathématique (laide en plus) mais
pas une relativité physique.

Ca se démontre très bien si l'on a la clé, que j'ai mis des décennies
à peaufiner, parce que c'est contre intuitif, et que c'est une vision de
la géométrie spatiale qui n'avait jamais été dessinée.

Dès le départ, ta théorie (et celle de Paul et des autres) n'a aucune chance d'âtre vrai, et plus on y progresse plus on y trouve d'erreur et d'absurdité.

Il y a des absurdités et des faussetés partout, dans tous les
référentiels étudiés.

Même un simple référentiel galiléen pose problème (le paradoxe de Langevin).

Et si l'on tente de résoudre sans les concept hacheliens, on ne peut que
se planter.

Comment tu fais pour te mettre à la place de Stella pour observer la
terre revenant vers toi à Vapp=4c
dans ton télescope pendant 9 ans sur une distance contractée? ? ? C'EST débile.

Il y a forcément une dilatation des distances et forcément un facteur
gamma qui provoque une dilatation et non une contraction.

Mais regarde les transformations de Poincaré bordel, c'est évident.

Dilatation des temps : To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) équation en
mode positif, l'objet se déplace de gauche à droite.

MAIS dilatation AUSSI des distances x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Je le répète le problème est humain.

"Nous ne voulons pas que cet homme règne sur nous, même si ce qu'il dit
est très fort, et très logique".

C'est tout bonnement incroyable.

Attention, je ne dis pas que si l'objet passe devant moi de façon transversale, je ne le verrai pas plus petit. Je vais bien avoir l'=l.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) par effet de rotation de l'angle de visée (en fait
je vois un corps qui est déjà passé, je le vois plus petit, et avec
vision de sa face postérieure).

Non, non, je ne suis pas là pour violer les lois mais pour les expliquer mieux que ne font les autres,
chose qui est (et je le comprends) parfaitement, dure à avaler.

Pourtant, expérimentalement, mathématiquement, conceptuellement, tout
se tient, et tout se tient très bien.



R.H.

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

Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit :

Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception, >>>> they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly.

Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly =  3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

 ? ? ?
 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>


But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames
of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying
for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all
about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely
ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the
stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take
up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!!

But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the best
posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will never
progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

Yes.
How do you judge that?
You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible.
It's not very rational.
You should ask yourself the right question: between Paul (whom I greet
kindly) and Hachel, it is Hachel who takes the lead, and who explains
where Paul's error lies, while rectifying things and explaining what
should be done instead (as much in his integration of observable durations
and the bad relationship that it will give with the proper durations; and
as much in the way he considers the relativistic ratios which are not, as
I told him, rotations of bodies, or of mobile, but rotations of viewing
angles.
The observed body does not undergo any rotation, but a simple translation
in x. This also produces a greater distance from the body,
and therefore a greater observable time. Which is logical since only x and
To undergo relativistic alterations in the TLs and not y and not z:
therefore no rotation, a simple translation, and a greater To time (and
not equal, as he says).
I agree with him, when it seems disoriented, and he really is. He seems
not to understand that for the terrestrial observer, the event occurred 15 years ago, and for the rocket, which is nevertheless connected at this
moment, 41 years ago!
It disorients him.
Why?
Because he is formatted like Einstein, like Minkowski, and all the others,
with a shaky geometry, in which they nevertheless have faith as hard as
iron.
All that must be collapsed.
But it is easier said than done as the psychological pressure of the
trilili contest is enormous.

R.H.

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

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:40, Python a écrit :

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:31, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit :

Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of
reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly. >>>>>>
Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly =  3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

 ? ? ?
 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>


But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both
frames of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying
for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all
about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely
ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the
stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must
take up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!! >>>>>
But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the
best posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will
never progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

Yes.
How do you judge that?
You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to
be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible.

Because I can prove with arguments that you are self-contradictory
and violating the principle of Relativity PERIOD.

It's not very rational.

It is.

 [snip babbling]

You can't hear because you are a psychopath and an egomaniac.

typo: *you can't hear* (obvious)

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

W dniu 07.08.2024 o 03:40, Python pisze:

Le 07/08/2024 à 03:31, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit :

Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis'
the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰,
the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰
the DEC = 0.
Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of
reception,
they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from
the star 15000 years ago.
That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly. >>>>>>
Simple geometry will give:
x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly
y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly =  3297 ly
z' = 0 ly
t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year

E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y)

 ? ? ?
 <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1>


But what are you talking about? ? ?

You're talking nonsense!!!

Your thing IS nonsense!

How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both
frames of reference? ? ?

All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying
for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all
about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely
ridiculous and anarchic way!

But this is nonsense, Paul!!!

You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the
stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract.

PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something!

There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z.

Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must
take up its numerical applications again.

y'=y=9ly
z'=z=0ly

This is dramatically simple.

x=12 ly
x'=40 ly

To=15 ly
To'=41ly

t'=t=0

There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis.

NOTHING MORE.

This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!! >>>>>
But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the
best posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will
never progress.

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp>

I would like Python's opinion on this.

R.H.

He's right, you're wrong. Another question?

Yes.
How do you judge that?
You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to
be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible.

Because I can prove with arguments that you are self-contradictory
and violating the principle of Relativity PERIOD.

You can rave, spit and slander, but nothing
else; samely as your fellow cultists,
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

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