Le 05/10/2024 à 19:32, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :

Explain this:

1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)

Attention.
I have always said, against Einstein's advice, that the theory of
relativity was mathematically very simple, but that it was full of
non-obvious concepts and frequent traps.
All the mathematical tools of special relativity are in the baggage of an average 16-year-old student.
What is missing today is mainly semantics.
It is not Minkowski, Grossmann or Lorentz who are missing,
but Hugo, Dante, or Shakespeare.
That is to say, people who know how to say things and explain them.

IF

v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km

γ = 1.00000000067222

t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec

48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?

Vo=11000m/s
x'=400 kms.
γ = 1.00000000067222
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec
(je ne vérifie pas le calcul mais si cela est correct, cela veut dire que l'événement e1 qui s'est produit en x, s'est produit, pour l'observateur
O,
à 400km, et il y a To=1333333 ns.

Vo=0.0000366666c

C'est ça que ça veut dire.

Passons à la distance notée par O' qui est x'.
x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) Attention To négatif, e1 s'est produit "avant".
Je ne fais pas le calcul, mais e1 s'est produit légèrement plus loin que
pour x.
Et aussi légèrement plus loin dans le passé puisque To'=x'/c

Worse yet.

IF x' = 0, then x = vt

If x=0 then x'=0 and To=0 and To'=0, this is the moment when the watches
are triggered.

t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ

t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ

t' = 0.999999998655556 t (now t' run slower than t!)

Any explanations about these numerical examples of
the ridiculous results when applying SR?

If x=0 then x'=0 and To=0 and To'=0 , this is the moment when we trigger
the watches.

Before the crossing, the watches that are coming towards us always turn reciprocally faster.

Once the crossing has taken place, the watches that are moving away always
turn reciprocally slower than ours. This is a simple relativistic Doppler effect (to which we must not forget to add the gamma effect of reciprocal expansion of the internal mechanisms).

R.H.

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

Le 06/10/2024 à 10:54, Mikko a écrit :

What is missing today is mainly semantics.

The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
everybody.

You are lying.

You are lying in good faith, and that is why you are respectable.

But you are lying.

Of course your sentence "The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
and legths " is correct, but the following " The semantics of those are
well understood by almost
everybody." is no longer correct.

R.H.

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

Le 07/10/2024 à 10:21, Mikko a écrit :

What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions, durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?

Mikko

A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true that
there are only three physicists in the world who understand quantum
physics?"
He replied: "And who is the third?"
The same goes for special relativity.
But worse.
If I were asked if it is true that only three people in the world
understand SR, I would be obliged to ask and who are the other two?

There are necessarily things that physicists or fans do not understand, I
see it very well when I post messages, and everyone is flying at fifteen
miles.

SR is rotten with errors and misunderstandings, and many repeat things
without understanding them, or even understanding them backwards.

If I ask a question like:
"What makes the notion of simultaneity relative? Is it the position? Is it
the speed?"

100% of the 569,874 people questioned will throw themselves on the ground holding their sides, because the question will make them laugh so much.

They will all answer: speed!

That's wrong. It's the position.

Romeo on this bench, Juliet on that other one do NOT have the same
hyperplane of simultaneity.

On the other hand, a rocket crossing the earth at relativistic speed
(Vo=0.95c for example) apprehends exactly the same universe of
simultaneity.

By saying things backwards, physicists show that they have understood
nothing at all.

And by throwing themselves on the ground holding their sides with
laughter, they show that not only are they stupid, but they are arrogant.

Their problem is that they do not know how to interpret Lorentz transformations, and do not understand the geometry of space-time
(Minkowski was wrong, his "block" does not exist.

A very simple proof that it does not fit.

What is the apparent speed of a rocket moving towards me at speed Vo =
0.8c? As in the Langevin traveler.
Answer: Vapp = 4c

What is the proper duration of Stella's return trip in the Langevin?
9 years.

This means that during nine years of her proper time, Stella will see the
earth come back to her, with an apparent speed of 4c.

In elementary school, we learn that then, the apparent path is x = Vapp.Tr

Except that this is a distance of 36 ly which drives you crazy, and
requires the psychiatric hospitalization of the 569874 people interviewed.

With their contraction distances that are totally misunderstood (if that
were all) physicists all over the world, arrogant as they are, placed on
the tray of a scale and me alone on the other, do not carry the weight.

But they will never admit it.

Examples that SR is true, but totally misunderstood because of people like Einstein or Minkowski abound.

But I have been repeating it tirelessly for 40 years, the problem is
human, almost psychiatric or religious: we do not want to see.

R.H.

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

Le 09/10/2024 à 11:59, Mikko a écrit :

On 2024-10-08 07:28:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 10:43 schrieb Mikko:

On 2024-10-03 00:55:55 +0000, rhertz said:

Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler >>>>
Go to equations 8 and 10.

Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.

Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

Que pensait Henri Poincaré lorsqu'il écrivait « heure locale » ?
Que pensait Albert Eisntein ?
Que pensais Minkowski, Lorentz?
On ne le sait pas... Parlaient-il de la relativité des chronotropies par changement de repère inertiel ?
Parlaient-il de la relativité de la notion d'hyperplan de temps présent
dans un même repère ?
Il semblerait qu'ils parleraient à tous du premier concept.
Qui est vrai.
Les deux sont vrais.
Mais alors ils ont menti par omission. Ils n'ont pas parlé du principe de base, qui est, justement le deuxième concept.

R.H.

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

Le 09/10/2024 à 11:58, Mikko a écrit :

Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

Absolutely not.

I studied it for forty years, and if at first it is a bit hard, we say to ourselves that, perhaps, it is not a lack of intelligence on the part of
the reader.

But, no. It is an intellectual fraud.

Not everything, obviously, Dr. Hachel is NOT anti-relativist, quite the contrary.

But he has the fault of pointing out the lie of physicists, who say they understand but do not understand, and worse, of proving it.

For example, the first major proof is that of the contraction of
distances, I am told that if I move at v=0.8c, a distance of 12 ly will
appear to measure 7.2 ly.

This is a lie by omission, because I am not told which observer will see
this.

Implied "all the observers of my frame of reference".

However, this is false and mathematically stupid if we pursue the idea.

How can an observer see a body moving on 7.2 ly that is coming towards him
with a relativistic apparent speed of 4c and during a proper time of 9
years?

No one has ever been able to answer me, except with insults, whining, and bullshit.

Same thing when I explained the radial contraction of a rotating disk and
gave the logical equations that go with the concept.
They wanted to explain to me that it was false, but without being able to represent what a seven-year-old child would SEE, observing a disk of 1
meter in diameter placed frontally in front of him and rotating with a relativistic angular speed, a circumference that contracts (which is true)
and an invariant radius (which is false).

No, no, we must not say: "physicists are intelligent, they understand what
they are saying". It is false. They just understand the mathematical operations, but without understanding that what they write is physically
wrong, even ridiculous.

R.H.

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

XPost: fr.sci.physique

Le 09/10/2024 à 14:53, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 09/10/2024 à 11:59, Mikko a écrit :

On 2024-10-08 07:28:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 10:43 schrieb Mikko:

On 2024-10-03 00:55:55 +0000, rhertz said:

Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link: >>>>>
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler >>>>>
Go to equations 8 and 10.

Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.

Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

Que pensait Henri Poincaré lorsqu'il écrivait « heure locale » ?
Que pensait Albert Eisntein ?
Que pensais Minkowski, Lorentz?
On ne le sait pas...

*You* do not know.

If you had take time to read what these people actually wrote you
would know.

How come you didn't, if you pretend to think about the question for
ages?

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