Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_I_dare_to_relativists_to_explain_local_time:_t-vx/c=C2=B2?=
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:58:04 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <ve5k3c$2k0ti$1@dont-email.me>
References: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com> <6a64a60eb15efe9a5449ade234d05804@www.novabbs.com> <fc3e047c7de75fd713b8844393a5234e@www.novabbs.com> <ITL7AA8psYi3SFitwMx5bsT692A@jntp> <vdtj91$1678k$1@dont-email.me> <1k5RVUJbA9eJCvwPwgrHGmo0kGk@jntp> <ve05m6$1l5mj$1@dont-email.me> <DsCNxsCYVkQ6O8Xc6trMTSQzKZg@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:58:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70a6bc77883a5801ac70cf54e06b1699";
	logging-data="2753458"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ePW9HncN/5RO1mBtGPUtt"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:31na6A01PCce0zJGgkAOOzqwXKE=
Bytes: 5070

On 2024-10-07 08:45:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> 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.

No, it doesn't. 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.

> 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,

SR is often misunderstood by those who have not properly sutied it but
there are no misunderstanding in SR itself.

> 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?"

Nothing makes simultaneity relative. It simpy is relative.

> 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.

That is an error in your understanding, not in SR itself.

> 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.

None of the above is evidence about understanding of semantics of times,
positions, durations or legths. Whether other things are understood is
not relevant.

-- 
Mikko