When I explained that the theory of relativity was very poorly understood,
and therefore very poorly explained, I always encountered an extraordinary silence from my correspondents.
It is the same silence that still persists today, mockery and insults not
being answers in the scientific sense of things.

I never stopped explaining where my grievances were, and denouncing what
was wrong.
Better, I rectified things, and I gave a more just, more beautiful,
simpler, more logical, truer theory.

In the example of Langevin's traveler, which represents a B A BA of
things, I showed why the theory collapsed if one practiced correctly by
simply using apparent speeds, and what observers would SEE if they had
good telescopes.

This is a thought experiment that nevertheless seems very natural.

So here we have this, and I'll show you what's wrong, if you don't
understand the theory correctly.

If we put ourselves, as in the example studied by Paul B. Andersen and
myself, in the place of Stella, and her telescope,
we all agree that she perceived Terrence's 360 beeps.

She perceived 4 per year on the way out (i.e. 4*9=36) and she perceived (Doppler effect) 36 per year on the way back (i.e. 36*9=324).

On the way out, she perceived one every three months.

On the way back, she perceived three per month.

The apparent speed of the earth measured by Stella is equal to the
distance traveled between two beeps, and the time between the two beeps.

Something very simple comes to pass.

Vapp'=4/9c on the way out.
Vapp"=4c on the way back.

Everyone can check it as they want, but it was not even necessary to do
so, because it was self-evident if we know that
Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c) or with cosµ=1 (the earth moves away in the
direction of the sight) Vapp'=0.8/1.8=(4/9)c and with cosµ=-1 (the earth approaches directly in the sight) Vapp'=4c.

For now, everything is logical, simple, verifiable.

Not even worthy of Hachel, nor of Paul.B.

Since everyone knows it, and everyone can do it.

No, the stroke of genius is not there yet.

But be careful, it destabilizes like a boxer who takes an unexpected
uppercut, who takes off from the ring, and who is going to butterfly on
the carpet.

Only, such a KO hurts, it hurts everyone, and the human mind not being
prepared for it, the mind defends itself: "Hachel is an ignoramus, Hachel
is a scoundrel, Hachel is Mengele".

The KO is here.

How can Stella see the earth move away from her for 9 years,
at the apparent speed of 0.4444c, turn, and see this same earth come back
to her, for 9 years at the speed of 4c?

For Hachel, who remembers having had the immense tilt in his mind one day
when he was thinking about it while calmly treading the lawns of a
hospital where he was waiting for a patient in consultation. The immense
tilt, that many arrogant idiots have never had, there is, EXACTLY, no contradiction there. As strange as it seems, Stella perceives these
obvious and very simple facts well.

What happens then in his telescope during the U-turn, and what happens to
the position of the earth in HIS own frame of reference, when it turns.

Anyone who manages to make the effort to understand me and to understand
what is really happening (and not the stupidities taught for 120 years)
has just achieved one of the most beautiful realizations in the entire
history of humanity.

Realization that even Poincaré, nor Einstein had.

I'll let you think about it.

R.H.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:

When I explained that the theory of relativity was very poorly understood, and therefore very poorly explained, I always encountered an extraordinary silence from my correspondents.
It is the same silence that still persists today, mockery and insults not being answers in the scientific sense of things.

Have you noticed the strange absence of geographers and astronomers
at flat-earther's conferences?

Jan

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

On 2024-09-06 21:39:47 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

When I explained that the theory of relativity was very poorly
understood, and therefore very poorly explained, I always
encountered an extraordinary silence from my correspondents.

Everything is poorly understood by someone.
Relativity is very well understood by some people. Most of them
do not participate in usenet discussions.

--
Mikko

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

W dniu 08.09.2024 o 11:04, Mikko pisze:

Everything is poorly understood by someone.
Relativity is very well understood by some people. Most of them
do not participate in usenet discussions.

Sure, sure. Some divine creatures nobody
has ever seen. Just nobody here.
And still, the mumble of the idiot was not
even consistent.

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

Le 08/09/2024 à 12:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 08.09.2024 o 11:04, Mikko pisze:

Everything is poorly understood by someone.
Relativity is very well understood by some people. Most of them
do not participate in usenet discussions.

Sure, sure. Some divine creatures nobody
has ever seen. Just nobody here.
And still, the mumble of the idiot was not
even consistent.

I think that it is partly out of fear (but repressed fear) that most
theorists do not come to discuss, or run away quickly.
There are still a few who still love research, and who sincerely like to understand, for the beauty of the thing, and not to show off like "Oh yes,
but me, I wrote a pdf, I got a Nobel, I wrote a book that sold very well". Their reaction is often very violent if we contradict them "You are
ignorant, you are a crank, I will shoot you".
There is therefore a real problem with relativist theorists, a real
problem of religious fanaticism.
The devil never gives credit, their ideology is as ridiculous as Islamic ideology, and can always only lead them, in the end, to disillusionment, hatred, and violence.

This is obviously completely abnormal, and in decades of internet
observations, I have never seen such a phenomenon.

Except perhaps a few forums of religious fanatics.

There is nothing to be happy about in this rotten atmosphere where the adversary is systematically the "crank". Even John Baez fell into this
trap of hatred and madness.

R.H.

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

On 2024-09-08 12:53:59 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 08/09/2024 à 12:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 08.09.2024 o 11:04, Mikko pisze:

Everything is poorly understood by someone.
Relativity is very well understood by some people. Most of them
do not participate in usenet discussions.

Sure, sure. Some divine creatures nobody
has ever seen. Just nobody here.
And still, the mumble of the idiot was not
even consistent.

I think that it is partly out of fear (but repressed fear) that most theorists do not come to discuss, or run away quickly.

No, it is because they are busy with what they are paid to do or what
they find interesting. Usenet discussion is rarely paid, except some
spamming and trolling.

--
Mikko

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

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:

Everything is poorly understood by someone.
Relativity is very well understood by some people. Most of them
do not participate in usenet discussions.

Einstein was totally thrown for a loop when he found out his
field equations had multiple solutions in certain areas (the
"hole argument"). It wasn't until 1980 that Stachel cracked that
nut and saw it as gauge freedom [0]. So if something stumped even
a brainiac like Einstein, you can bet your bottom dollar it's a real
head-scratcher. And this is just one piece of the relativity puzzle!

Even today, physicists are still going at it hammer and
tongs over how the radiation from an accelerating electron
looks to an observer moving alongside it (who, according to
general relativity, can consider the electron to be at reast).
Some claim this radiation is hidden behind an event horizon
for the tag-along observer [1]. It's enough to make your
head spin faster than a Frisbee at Venice Beach!

[0]

"General covariance and the foundations of general relativity:
eight decades of dispute" (1993-03) by John D. Norton

[1]

C. De Almeida and A. Saa, "The radiation of a uniformly
accelerated charge is beyond the horizon: a simple
derivation," American Journal of Physics, vol. 74, no. 2,
pp. 154–158, 2006.

Electrodynamics of Radiating Charges, Øyvind Grøn

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