Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: Relativistic aberration References: <17e7331a73814274$123023$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: ikhiDCuB-TIQ5L89oKG2FHYbizI JNTP-ThreadID: XgGFOrcTXd5ZDEX07aa-LTy0U04 JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=O-L1WgU1eCsz14Wrc6D7tpNPV7s@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Wed, 31 Jul 24 15:10:08 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-07-31T15:10:08Z/8970602"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com" JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1 JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96 From: Richard Hachel Bytes: 3697 Lines: 51 Le 31/07/2024 à 07:03, Python a écrit : > > Oh, anything build later is bad, "abstract" (the same word Hachel uses > when he cease to believe he understand something), as an "information > engineer" you have issues with abstractions too? > > It looks to any sane person (neither you nor Hachel) can recognize that > from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics just ran fine > anyway :-) I'm not sure that everything went so well. It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong blocks to find the right transformations. If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there. When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a hundred years after Poincaré. And today, while I propose a new approach to the problem, men spit in my face more than they themselves know how to explain a small Poincaré transformation with a small numerical example. It is absolutely fantastic to weigh human stupidity with a good scale. Simple example, you, O Moron who shows off to me, but you are not even capable of understanding what an apparent speed is in astrophysics, and I had to explain to you for three months, why we could set Vapp = Vo / (1 + cosµ.Vo / c). And I will have to spend twenty years (but I would be dead before), to explain to you a small TL: a star has just collapsed on itself over there 15,000 light years away. I start my stopwatch in front of the celestial event that I SEE. A rocket that is crossing the solar system at that moment also sees it (tautology). Assuming that I set (x,y,z,To,t) in Hachel notation, without even needing to explain, it is so obvious, if I write E=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0) for me. What will he, the rocket commander, have to write? E=( ) But you're not even capable, hey, buffoon! What are you coming to annoy Sylvia and Maciej? The worst, if it turns out Sylvia, who is a woman will answer better than you. You should be ashamed. No, no, my dear, it didn't go "that well". R.H.