Op 9/02/2025 om 16:25 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

This morning, I completed an animation for Wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terrell_Rotation_and_Illusory_FTL.gif#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D

No major insights, but it was fun to program. I've added it to the
article on Special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Measurement_versus_visual_appearance

Nice work! I've seen earlier well-done German animations, don't know
where I kept the links though.
About "Measurement_versus_visual_appearance", that has always been a
topic of interest to me, and it took years (if not decades:) to see it
trickle in to SRT descriptions (before that, there was general confusion between both descriptions, still going on in some minds:).

Here are my latest Desmos exercises on it:
https://www.wugi.be/srtinterac.html (under: Measuring relativistic
motion, and Seeing it)
(older QB examples at https://www.wugi.be/paratwin.htm and https://www.wugi.be/qbRelaty.html)
"Terrell rotation" can be seen at work in all kinds of position, in 2D.
The only "direct vision" of pure Lorentz length contraction is far away
along the observer-based perpendicular [line/plane] to the direction of
motion.
:(I'm confident though that my graphs won't make it to Wiki):

--
guido wugi

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

Op 9/02/2025 om 22:24 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:54:22 +0000, guido wugi wrote:

Op 9/02/2025 om 16:25 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

This morning, I completed an animation for Wikipedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terrell_Rotation_and_Illusory_FTL.gif#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D



No major insights, but it was fun to program. I've added it to the
article on Special relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Measurement_versus_visual_appearance

Nice work! I've seen earlier well-done German animations, don't know
where I kept the links though.

I believe this is what you were thinking about. https://www.spacetimetravel.org/ https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/

Yes, in particular
Was Einstein noch nicht sehen konnte - Visualisierung relativistischer
Effekte <https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/tompkins>

I also remember a Jonathan Doolin having some very nice gifs on same
topic, but they're in some obscure discussion forum thread I can't dig
up right now.

--
guido wugi

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

Le 09/02/2025 à 23:34, guido wugi a écrit :

Op 9/02/2025 om 22:24 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:54:22 +0000, guido wugi wrote:

Op 9/02/2025 om 16:25 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

This morning, I completed an animation for Wikipedia

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terrell_Rotation_and_Illusory_FTL.gif#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D




No major insights, but it was fun to program. I've added it to the
article on Special relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Measurement_versus_visual_appearance

Nice work! I've seen earlier well-done German animations, don't know
where I kept the links though.

I believe this is what you were thinking about.
https://www.spacetimetravel.org/
https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/

Yes, in particular
Was Einstein noch nicht sehen konnte - Visualisierung relativistischer Effekte <https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/tompkins>

I also remember a Jonathan Doolin having some very nice gifs on same
topic, but they're in some obscure discussion forum thread I can't dig
up right now.

Non, non, non!

C'est ridicule et absurde. Vous n'appliquez pas les transformations de
Lorentz qui sont les seules utiles.

Poincaré ne fait pas de rotations, il n'y a pas de changement en y et en
z.

Regardez les transfos que j'ai données, ce sont les mêmes que Poincaré.


Par contre, le cube doit être plus long lorsqu'il arrive l'=l.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] on ne voit pas cet effet...

Et puis il est impossible de voir la face arrière du dé, cela montre que
la théorie de la relativité n'est toujours pas comprise
géométriquement.

Dans la réalité, le dé est projeté en arrière, mais chaque image du
dé est la même quoi que déformé, pour deux observateurs qui se
croisent. L'un ne peut pas dire : "moi, je vois la face arrière du dé",
et pas l'autre qui est stationnaire devant.

C'est pas du tout comme ça que ça se passe.

Ca fait des années que j'ai tout expliqué, mais chacun n'en fait qu'à
sa tête.

Continuez, les mecs, continuez...

C'est affolant.

R.H.

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:15, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:03, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a écrit :

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:22:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

All these years posting about special relativity, and you don't
understand the Lampa–Terrell–Penrose effect?

For shame!

We must apply the Lorentz transformations.
Poincaré gave them correctly.

Also did Einstein with a more profound derivation.

The geometric considerations of Lampa-Terrell-Penrose are ridiculous and incorrect.
This is not at all the way to go about it, and these views are completely false.

Because you say so ?

Well also (-1)^2 = -1 because you said so :-) ?

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:56, Python a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:15, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Well also (-1)^2 = -1 because you said so :-) ?

Ce n'est pas ce que j'ai dit, Jean-Pierre.

J'ai dit que la structure des imaginaires était foireuse, et qu'il
fallait utiliser plutôt ce tableau
bien plus cohérent et en parfait miroir imaginaire d'avec le réel.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KDRL7uHU4BdpWhvnqAXPIotvbWg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:03, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:22:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

All these years posting about special relativity, and you don't
understand the Lampa–Terrell–Penrose effect?

For shame!

We must apply the Lorentz transformations.
Poincaré gave them correctly.
The geometric considerations of Lampa-Terrell-Penrose are ridiculous and incorrect.
This is not at all the way to go about it, and these views are completely false.

R.H.

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 02:11, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:56, Python a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:15, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Well also (-1)^2 = -1 because you said so :-) ?

Ce n'est pas ce que j'ai dit, Jean-Pierre.

J'ai dit que la structure des imaginaires était foireuse, et qu'il fallait utiliser plutôt ce tableau
bien plus cohérent et en parfait miroir imaginaire d'avec le réel.

Arrête avec ta fixette à la con sur les termes "réel" et "imaginaire"
qui ne sont que des reliques historiques. Tu as fini par prendre
"imaginaire" comme une terme permettant de dire des trucs contradictoires.
Ce qui ne passe pas en mathématiques. Quant à ta courbe "miroir" on s'en tape, c'est le graphe d'une *autre* fonction dont les racines ne sont pas
celle de la fonction de départ.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KDRL7uHU4BdpWhvnqAXPIotvbWg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

It is what you said.

If i^2=-1 [as in your table]
and i^4=-1 [your claim]

but i^4 being (i^2)^2 = -1 [your claim]
implies that [from your claim] (-1)^2 = -1

i.e. 1 = -1 : your "system" is contradictory.

QED.

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

W dniu 10.02.2025 o 01:56, Python pisze:

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:15, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 01:03, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:22:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

All these years posting about special relativity, and you don't
understand the Lampa–Terrell–Penrose effect?

For shame!

We must apply the Lorentz transformations.
Poincaré gave them correctly.

Also did Einstein with a more profound derivation.

But 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).

BTW, so, how do you and your fellow idiots
recognize a geodesic in physical space?
Still no answer? Of course. Spitting and
slandering the enemies of your moronic
church is much easier then answerring their
questions, isn't it, poor stinker?

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 02:30, Python a écrit :

Le 10/02/2025 à 02:11, Richard Hachel a écrit :

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KDRL7uHU4BdpWhvnqAXPIotvbWg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

It is what you said.

Absolutely.

i.e. 1 = -1 : your "system" is contradictory.

Absolutely not.

R.H.

--
<https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=tpeLUlXUr6mkorJUfcdf2FoDdas@jntp>

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

Op 10/02/2025 om 0:55 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:34:15 +0000, guido wugi wrote:

Op 9/02/2025 om 22:24 schreef ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:54:22 +0000, guido wugi wrote:

I believe this is what you were thinking about.
https://www.spacetimetravel.org/
https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/

Yes, in particular
Was Einstein noch nicht sehen konnte - Visualisierung relativistischer
Effekte <https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/tompkins>

I also remember a Jonathan Doolin having some very nice gifs on same
topic, but they're in some obscure discussion forum thread I can't dig
up right now.

Jonathan Doolin has quite a large YouTube presence. Most of his
videos appear to be for classes that he taught at Carl Sandburg
College. He's also been active on Quora. I imagine that somewhere he's provided contact information, so you should be able to email him.

Found it back: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/terrell-revisited-the-invisibility-of-the-lorentz-contraction.520875/page-5
also ditto/page-4
He also commented on my videos on "TP graphs you haven't seen yet": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxZqymjRIls&list=LL&index=31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiAaGVp631M&list=LL&index=32
not always understanding what he saw. So better see for yourself, if
wishing so,
amongst other 'original' SRT visuals: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDSSE1qfb6zyVKJbe8POgj-8ijmh5o0

My next animation will be of a large cube viewed from a fixed angle
to illustrate the pronounced curvature effects that one can
hypothetically observe. I put the traveling animation in the Special relativity article because of its relevance in interpreting apparent superluminal motions of black hole jets, etc. But this next
animation does not have such immediate relevance in interpreting
astronomical phenomena, so I'll probably stick in in the Terrell
rotation article.

I've seen Terrell rotation "explained" this way: "seeing" the
relativistic object as if rotated, while the combination of length
contraction (a Lorentz feature) and Terrell rotation (a Doppler feature)
leaves the object "seen really uncontracted" (!!!). An excellent example
of dialectic confusion between two kinds of SRT "observation":
Lorentz features (measurement, back-calculation results), and Doppler/"Einstein" features (actually *looking* at relativistic motion).

--
guido wugi

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

Le 10/02/2025 à 16:06, guido wugi a écrit :

I've seen Terrell rotation "explained" this way: "seeing" the
relativistic object as if rotated, while the combination of length contraction (a Lorentz feature) and Terrell rotation (a Doppler feature) leaves the object "seen really uncontracted" (!!!). An excellent example
of dialectic confusion between two kinds of SRT "observation":
Lorentz features (measurement, back-calculation results), and Doppler/"Einstein" features (actually *looking* at relativistic motion).

I have been explaining for years how to do it to many people, but the
problem is that my clarifications are so powerful and irrefutable that it
makes people laugh.

It is an incredible phenomenon in the history of humanity, but it is very
real.

A man speaks, he explains the whole RR clearly, he says how to do it, and everyone howls with laughter.

This behavior, finally, is logical.

Let's imagine a man who is looking for a translator capable of translating
from Slovak to Vietnamese, and who lives in the Denver area. He searches
for ten years, and he does not find one. Then suddenly, he is told that
there is a nine-year-old boy, whose father was Slovak and whose mother is
a Vietnamese refugee, who speaks and writes both languages
​​perfectly.

Everyone laughs. Everyone starts laughing.

I have the impression that it is a bit like that in physical science, as
soon as we talk about the theory of relativity.

Your diagrams are not good, no one is able to represent what is happening.

This is much simpler than your representations which turn into the absurd.
It is clear that two observers momentarily joint receive at this moment
all the same photons from the universe and not "from others".

They therefore see exactly the same universe present, but very spatially deformed at the x level.

x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t (since they perceive the photons at the same place and at the same
time for them).

There is therefore no deformation in y and z. No twisting or
I-don't-know-what.

I'm willing to help a potential programmer do stuff, but if he doesn't
listen to me, in a hundred years we'll still be making crappy videos.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?YO2437pA102LaJrJSEcn8jf2k1Q@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

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