• =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_The_mathematical_Poincar=C3=A9-Lorentz_transformati?= =

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 15:05:23 2024
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 14:51, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.

    It's just that - while wild multiplying frames of
    reference in galilean physics was stupid -
    wild multiplying time in relativistic physics is
    even stupider.
    And anyway - the transformations can't work in
    the presence of gravity; that makes them
    practically unusable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 16:03:26 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 15:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 14:51, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of
    a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.

    It's just that - while wild multiplying frames of
    reference in galilean physics was stupid -

    :-D

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 14:18:41 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 16:03, Python a écrit :
    Le 23/09/2024 à 15:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 14:51, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of
    a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.

    It's just that - while wild multiplying frames of
    reference in galilean physics was stupid -

    :-D

    C'est moi qui devient gaga et qui comprend de moins en moins les réponses intelligentes qu'on me fait ou quoi?

    Déjà que j'ai du mal à comprendre les envolées de Python sur les
    vitesses apparentes relativistes,
    là il va me falloir une notice d'utilisation de sci.physics.relativity.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 18:02:12 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of a
    frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
    t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
    t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?j9j1Tkqi5LGYmk5CzgXl1Ww8Qwk@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    Undefined entities:
    d=15
    t=0 (perception)
    sin a= 0.6
    cos a = 0.8

    It is however well defined in the image file.

    If it does not appear in the post, you must click in the file below.

    <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=j9j1Tkqi5LGYmk5CzgXl1Ww8Qwk@jntp>

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 19:53:31 2024
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
    t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
    t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly


    Undefined entities:
    d=15
    t=0 (perception)
    sin a= 0.6
    cos a = 0.8


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 13:06:29 2024
    Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of
    a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
      t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
      t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    I have made the transformation of the coordinates
    of an event from R to R' as you asked for.

    Case closed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 14:02:22 2024
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 13:06, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
    Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates
    of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame
    of reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
      t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
      t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    I have made the transformation of the coordinates
    of an event from R to R' as you asked for.


    Stella and Terrence, Bob and Alice may produce
    their coordinate sets magically, it's easy
    in fabricated tales. In the real world -
    generating a reliable set of coordinates
    is a serious task. We don't really have even
    1 (one) real set of coordinates valid for
    your precious transformations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 12:31:27 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 13:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of >>>> a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of
    reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
      t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
      t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    I have made the transformation of the coordinates
    of an event from R to R' as you asked for.

    Yes, your answers are correct, proof that you already have a good grasp of Hachel's relativity.
    I repeat that Hachel's relativity is very simple mathematically (college
    level) but that the concepts are sometimes repulsive to use for unprepared minds.
    Too much beauty dazzles the eyes.
    I am glad that you already have a good grasp of some concepts.
    This is not the case for everyone.

    Case closed.

    Absolutely not
    You didn't answer all the questions,
    and I refuse to believe that you don't know what a sine, a cosine, and an
    angle α are.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 13:20:45 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 14:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 13:06, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
    Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates
    of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame
    of reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
      t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
      t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    I have made the transformation of the coordinates
    of an event from R to R' as you asked for.


    Stella and Terrence, Bob and Alice may produce
    their coordinate sets magically, it's easy
    in fabricated tales. In the real world -
    generating a reliable set of coordinates
    is a serious task. We don't really have even
    1 (one) real set of coordinates valid for
    your precious transformations.

    This is not magic, nor invented tales.
    The theory of relativity is today an obvious theory (as long as we
    understand what is happening and why). The problem is that physicists do
    not understand correctly what is happening, and that their approach is
    mainly mathematical in seeking to fall back on their feet experimentally.
    I predict many disappointments for them if they do not read and understand
    what I wrote, and they will remain in their stupidity and arrogance "we do
    not want this little doctor to reign over us". History has repeated itself tirelessly since antiquity.
    No, no, it is very logical and very coherent, I found everything that
    Poincaré said, and I even went further in the beauty and logic of the relativistic concept.
    We must start from the basic principle that the notion of simultaneity is relative in a relativistic universe (and ours IS relativistic, all the experiments that will come will show this more and more).

    In a Newtonian universe, if we take an orthonormal frame, and we place a
    point A(2,2) and a point B(4,2) and that from a point M(3,2) located in
    the middle we send any signal at equilalent speed (it can be the speed of
    light or another), we know that the reception (e1 and e2) will be
    simultaneous, but also that the reception by M of the return (e3 and e4)
    will be simultaneous.
    On the other hand, e1 and e3 will not be simultaneous; and e2 and e4 will
    not be simultaneous.
    It's very simple.

    In an anisochronous universe too, like the relativistic universe, the real
    one, that of Hachel, things are a little different. M, of course, will
    consider that e1 and e2 are simultaneous, and that e3 and e4 are also simultaneous, but that e1, e2, e3, e4 all occurred at the same time.
    This simple and obvious Hachette notion confuses both relativistic
    physicists and Newtonian physicists.

    But let's go further.

    What happens for the point O(0,0), the origin of the frame?

    In Newtonian mode, the events e1 and e2 occurred simultaneously for M, and
    we say that, a priori, they necessarily occurred simultaneously for O.
    Then we say that, on the other hand, the reception by O (e3, e4) of the
    return will not be simultaneous, which seems obvious.

    But the Newtonian mode is Newtonian, it is not relativistic, and it no
    longer describes the real world if we go very fast or if we go very far.

    In correct relativistic mode, for O, the events e1 and e2 DID NOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY while this was the case for M.
    And even if for O, e1=e3 and e2=e4 (direct-live), we will have neither
    e1=e2 nor e3=e4.
    This is the first well-understood principle of relativity.
    What is very strange is that most of the speakers do not understand it
    because of an unreasonable belief in a hyperplane of present time common
    to all points of the frame, to all points of the universe.
    They do however understand the relativity of the chronotropy that will
    result from it, if I move very quickly from A to B, but NOT, it seems,
    the notion of universal anisochrony.
    Similarly they do not seem to understand what really happens when Stella
    turns at its aphelion, they speak of a kind of rot under the carpet that
    they call "gap time". However, this notion does not exist at all in Dr.
    Hachel, on the other hand, space being a mollusk of reference, there is a gigantic spatial zoom that they ignore, although it is written in black
    and white in the Poincaré transformations
    (if we apply them correctly), with an earth rejected at 36 al, and which
    will return with an apparent speed of 4c on Stella, during 9 years of its
    own time.
    D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

    So relativity is true, but it is extremely poorly understood from its
    simplest bases.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 15:53:25 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 14:31, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    ...
    I repeat that Hachel's relativity

    There is no "Hachel's Relativity", there is a bunch of nonsense, misunderstandings and contradictions.

    is very simple mathematically (college level)

    "college level" in English relates to University level, not
    what you meant which is Secondary School (in UK) or Middle
    School or Junior High School in the U.S.A.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 15:37:40 2024
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 15:20, Richard Hachel pisze:
    Le 24/09/2024 à 14:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 13:06, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
    Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates >>>>>> of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame >>>>>> of reference R'.


    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15


    If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
    the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,

    Then the event with the coordinates
      t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R

    Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
      t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

    Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

    I have made the transformation of the coordinates
    of an event from R to R' as you asked for.


    Stella and Terrence, Bob and Alice may produce
    their coordinate sets magically, it's easy
    in fabricated tales. In the real world -
    generating a reliable set of coordinates
    is a serious task. We don't really have even
    1 (one) real set of coordinates valid for
    your precious transformations.

    This is not magic, nor invented tales.


    Generating a reliable set of coordinates
    is really a serious task. Forcing everyone
    to create and maintain his own - was always
    a complete absurd, and not only for that
    reason.
    Still, much more is possible and easy in
    gedanken/fabricated tales.


    The theory of relativity is today an obvious theory

    The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 16:02:39 2024
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 15:53, Python pisze:
    Le 24/09/2024 à 14:31, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    ...
    I repeat that Hachel's relativity

    There is no "Hachel's Relativity", there is a bunch of nonsense, misunderstandings and contradictions.

    Sounds exactly like relativity.
    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)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 16:04:28 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 16:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 24.09.2024 o 15:53, Python pisze:
    Le 24/09/2024 à 14:31, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    ...
    I repeat that Hachel's relativity

    There is no "Hachel's Relativity", there is a bunch of nonsense,
    misunderstandings and contradictions.

    Sounds exactly like relativity.

    Nope.

    [boring stupid stuff]

    *yawn*

    poor stinker

    Nice signature though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 14:56:22 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 15:53, Python a écrit :

    "college level" in English relates to University level, not
    what you meant which is Secondary School (in UK) or Middle
    School or Junior High School in the U.S.A.

    Possible.

    Sinon, j'attends toujours que tu m'expliques ton histoire de machins sur
    les vitesses apparentes.

    J'ai proposé à d'autres intervenants de m'expliquer, mais ils se sont
    tous enfuis.

    Doivent encore moins comprendre que moi.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 15:06:32 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 14:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :

    Aberration de la position des étoiles.

    Vo=0.8c

    x=12
    y=9
    z=0
    To=-15 (event in M-type synchro)
    d=15
    t=0 (perception)
    sin a= 0.6
    cos a = 0.8

    x'=40
    y'=9
    z'=0
    To'=-41
    d'=41
    t'=0
    sin a'= 0.2195
    cos a'= 0.9756


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 22:08:13 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 16:56, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 24/09/2024 à 15:53, Python a écrit :

    "college level" in English relates to University level, not
    what you meant which is Secondary School (in UK) or Middle
    School or Junior High School in the U.S.A.

    Possible.

    Certain.

    Sinon, j'attends toujours que tu m'expliques ton histoire de machins sur
    les vitesses apparentes.

    J'ai proposé à d'autres intervenants de m'expliquer, mais ils se sont
    tous enfuis.

    Doivent encore moins comprendre que moi.

    Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
    shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
    with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
    this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 22:47:04 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:43, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:08, Python a écrit :

    Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
    shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
    with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
    this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

    The sound Doppler effect is interesting, but well... Once again, you're
    going to waste your time.
    You're going to show that the Doppler effect explanation works, and
    nothing more: you're not going to get to the bottom of things.
    But you're not going to show why it works, because you take my equations
    for total crap, despite their logic and mathematical beauty that even Einstein or Poincaré didn't have.

    But FUCK, that's not what's important, it's not your watermelon that's
    going to synchronize the watches, it's not your ambulance siren, but we
    don't care about all that.

    That's not the important thing.

    The important thing is to understand that the notion of a relativistic
    frame of reference is biased if we apply it to anything other than the observer himself.

    The important thing is to understand that since each observer has his
    own relativistic hyperplane of simultaneity, it is mandatory to go
    through it to correctly and perfectly describe things.

    The important thing is to understand that if we practice like this, for
    any observer, there is a perfect fluidity of times for all observers,
    and that talking about gap-time is particularly stupid.

    What physicists do is stupid. They calculate time in the forward frame
    of reference (measured by a point M and its synchronization) then in the return frame of reference (with another point M' also placed on the
    normal but from another incredibly different frame of reference M').

    Realizing that we cannot add the return and return times, they invent a tiem-gap that has absolutely no place in my home (which allows you to
    insult me ​​when you have understood NOTHING, once again).

    I have referred you dozens of times to nemo.physics where you will find
    the perfect description of what is happening.

    Such a description should make you think, after drinking two or three
    cups of coffee, maybe you will have the tilt, the mathematical
    illumination.

    The perfection, the coherence and the beauty of the whole thing far
    exceeds all the bullshit invented by Minkowski and those who followed
    him, including the idiot Albert Einstein.

    So if you want to show yourself up to it:
    1. Study what I say without acting like a monkey.
    2. Realize that it is as mind-blowing as no one has ever mind-blowed the theory (to better re-mind it)
    3. Show that you have balls and attack scientific public opinion by
    telling them that you have understood and validated something
    that they will never be able to understand if you do not help them.

    And stop with your watermelons and your ambulances, it is grotesque.

    Go into the depth and clarity of things.

    With your ambulances, you will never be able to make them understand
    that the road on which the ambulance is driving is a reference mollusk,
    and that it is no longer the same depending on the speed.

    They will never be able to understand that if there are twelve km to go,
    the ambulance will have to travel thirty-six, and that those who call me
    a monkey without having understood the beauty and logic of reasoning
    (see my little comics on Nemo) are themselves arrogant monkeys,
    criticizing a stroke of genius that they have not even understood and
    that they cannot even explain.

    R.H.

    Complete madness, oh God !

    I'll post the ambulance-siren comparison though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 21:03:13 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:47, Python a écrit :

    Complete madness, oh God !

    I'll post the ambulance-siren comparison though.

    Bah oui, tu peux.
    Mais tout cela se fait en mode newtonien.
    Ce n'est pas un exercice relativiste.
    Tout se passe au premier degré seulement.
    Alors qu'en relativité, avec des fusées allant très vite, les effets
    Doppler doivent comprendre des effets du second degré [sqrt(1-v²/c²)]
    que tu ne trouveras pas avec tes ambulances.
    C'est pourquoi vous gagnez du temps en utilisant directement des fusées. Après, je dis ça, je dis rien.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 20:43:22 2024
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:08, Python a écrit :

    Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
    shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
    with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
    this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

    The sound Doppler effect is interesting, but well... Once again, you're
    going to waste your time.
    You're going to show that the Doppler effect explanation works, and
    nothing more: you're not going to get to the bottom of things.
    But you're not going to show why it works, because you take my equations
    for total crap, despite their logic and mathematical beauty that even
    Einstein or Poincaré didn't have.

    But FUCK, that's not what's important, it's not your watermelon that's
    going to synchronize the watches, it's not your ambulance siren, but we
    don't care about all that.

    That's not the important thing.

    The important thing is to understand that the notion of a relativistic
    frame of reference is biased if we apply it to anything other than the
    observer himself.

    The important thing is to understand that since each observer has his own relativistic hyperplane of simultaneity, it is mandatory to go through it
    to correctly and perfectly describe things.

    The important thing is to understand that if we practice like this, for
    any observer, there is a perfect fluidity of times for all observers, and
    that talking about gap-time is particularly stupid.

    What physicists do is stupid. They calculate time in the forward frame of reference (measured by a point M and its synchronization) then in the
    return frame of reference (with another point M' also placed on the normal
    but from another incredibly different frame of reference M').

    Realizing that we cannot add the return and return times, they invent a tiem-gap that has absolutely no place in my home (which allows you to
    insult me ​​when you have understood NOTHING, once again).

    I have referred you dozens of times to nemo.physics where you will find
    the perfect description of what is happening.

    Such a description should make you think, after drinking two or three cups
    of coffee, maybe you will have the tilt, the mathematical illumination.

    The perfection, the coherence and the beauty of the whole thing far
    exceeds all the bullshit invented by Minkowski and those who followed him, including the idiot Albert Einstein.

    So if you want to show yourself up to it:
    1. Study what I say without acting like a monkey.
    2. Realize that it is as mind-blowing as no one has ever mind-blowed the
    theory (to better re-mind it)
    3. Show that you have balls and attack scientific public opinion by
    telling them that you have understood and validated something
    that they will never be able to understand if you do not help them.

    And stop with your watermelons and your ambulances, it is grotesque.

    Go into the depth and clarity of things.

    With your ambulances, you will never be able to make them understand that
    the road on which the ambulance is driving is a reference mollusk, and
    that it is no longer the same depending on the speed.

    They will never be able to understand that if there are twelve km to go,
    the ambulance will have to travel thirty-six, and that those who call me a monkey without having understood the beauty and logic of reasoning (see my little comics on Nemo) are themselves arrogant monkeys, criticizing a
    stroke of genius that they have not even understood and that they cannot
    even explain.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 07:53:46 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 07:21, Thomas Heger pisze:
    Am Dienstag000024, 24.09.2024 um 22:43 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:08, Python a écrit :

    Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
    shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
    with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
    this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

    The sound Doppler effect is interesting, but well... Once again,
    you're going to waste your time.
    You're going to show that the Doppler effect explanation works, and
    nothing more: you're not going to get to the bottom of things.
    But you're not going to show why it works, because you take my
    equations for total crap, despite their logic and mathematical beauty
    that even Einstein or Poincaré didn't have.

    But FUCK, that's not what's important, it's not your watermelon that's
    going to synchronize the watches, it's not your ambulance siren, but
    we don't care about all that.

    That's not the important thing.

    The important thing is to understand that the notion of a relativistic
    frame of reference is biased if we apply it to anything other than the
    observer himself.

    The important thing is to understand that since each observer has his
    own relativistic hyperplane of simultaneity, it is mandatory to go
    through it to correctly and perfectly describe things.

    This hyperplane of the present is always perpendicular to the axis of
    time and time is a local measure.

    'perpendicular' means here (in a complex plane) a multiplication by i
    (the sqrt(-1)).

    So time is an imaginary (pseudo-) scalar, if you regard the axes x, y
    and z as real.

    If we place the observer in the center of the coordinate system, the
    axis of local time becomes perpendicular to the hyperplane of the present.

    This is valid for all observers everywhere.

    From this would follow, that time MUST be local and is not always 'parallel'.


    I've told you already: you can name your
    Great Mystical Youdontknowwhat with - whatever.
    Just leave "time" alone, this word has already
    some meaning and it is important.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 07:21:33 2024
    Am Dienstag000024, 24.09.2024 um 22:43 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 24/09/2024 à 22:08, Python a écrit :

    Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
    shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
    with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
    this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

    The sound Doppler effect is interesting, but well... Once again, you're
    going to waste your time.
    You're going to show that the Doppler effect explanation works, and
    nothing more: you're not going to get to the bottom of things.
    But you're not going to show why it works, because you take my equations
    for total crap, despite their logic and mathematical beauty that even Einstein or Poincaré didn't have.

    But FUCK, that's not what's important, it's not your watermelon that's
    going to synchronize the watches, it's not your ambulance siren, but we
    don't care about all that.

    That's not the important thing.

    The important thing is to understand that the notion of a relativistic
    frame of reference is biased if we apply it to anything other than the observer himself.

    The important thing is to understand that since each observer has his
    own relativistic hyperplane of simultaneity, it is mandatory to go
    through it to correctly and perfectly describe things.

    This hyperplane of the present is always perpendicular to the axis of
    time and time is a local measure.

    'perpendicular' means here (in a complex plane) a multiplication by i
    (the sqrt(-1)).

    So time is an imaginary (pseudo-) scalar, if you regard the axes x, y
    and z as real.

    If we place the observer in the center of the coordinate system, the
    axis of local time becomes perpendicular to the hyperplane of the present.

    This is valid for all observers everywhere.

    From this would follow, that time MUST be local and is not always
    'parallel'.

    Instead time could have various axes in different places, which could
    have an angle towards the time of other places.

    This is actually different to usual concepts in physics, which usually
    assume time to be universal.

    But, apperently, nature does not support that concept and prefers local
    time.

    We could see this in many different observations in cosmology.

    These range from the Pioneer anomaly to black holes.
    But also jets or galaxy formation could be explained this way.

    TH
    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 15:05:18 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:21, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    This hyperplane of the present is always perpendicular to the axis of
    time and time is a local measure.

    - Absolutely!

    If we place the observer in the center of the coordinate system, the
    axis of local time becomes perpendicular to the hyperplane of the present.

    - Absolutely!

    This is valid for all observers everywhere.

    - Absolutely!

    From this would follow, that time MUST be local and is not always 'parallel'.

    - Absolutely. If we make any small translation, for example if we go from
    the bench where Romeo is to the bench where Juliet is, we must draw
    another hyperplane of present time, of universal simultaneity.
    This was not the case in Newtonian geometry, which is Euclidean. In relativistic geometry, this is the case, because any change of observer
    changes the reference frame not by changing the 3D frame, but by changing
    the present time hyperplane.

    This is actually different to usual concepts in physics, which usually
    assume time to be universal.

    - Be careful with the words. The word "time" is biased because it can mean
    many things, such as the word "animal".
    You have to use the word chronotropy if I am talking about duration, and
    the word hour if I am talking about the simultaneity of present time.
    These are two different things, and the very principle of a good
    understanding of the theory of arelativity as it should be taught.

    TH

    R.H.

    --
    Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=8pgHG_nVpCOD1aHHfIQ27vqhjqI@jntp>

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