Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativistic aberration
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:21:46 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <0cb92f486425b83cdc71dbdea3093427@www.novabbs.com>
References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <43e0a1be4a7921eb043acb58d1168ee1@www.novabbs.com> <Kaxl44IyggMeO7Ao3IslDanrquQ@jntp> <1b0910c819bb031839b21557a19c75be@www.novabbs.com> <_hiIkN_NB6Jm2XOJZeHK7Fy9L2E@jntp> <1f081cbe82f7c86f1463b0bf5ad957a9@www.novabbs.com> <9mrYetkghLXwIcwZUl4c8b3LTKI@jntp> <f21b77862f36ab6a27fd237fda9661f8@www.novabbs.com> <Rsj9fwaYx7xWTx_LjgnuDLRLG0M@jntp> <6f498e8663ec0b05b9cd9e03df9b4de4@www.novabbs.com> <tWsKauuW6XViPa1OVHe8GAFt0pY@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3421902"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$UPy5IOzkj4iQCFvANOtgFuxTlMWOUdsIQfMNEBDyp2dxP/ZyRV7P2
Bytes: 6702
Lines: 138

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:30:10 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 15/07/2024 à 23:54, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > Speaking of SR, I've found that to be true in only two cases: when
> > gravity is significant and when dealing with faster-than-light (FTL)
> > phenomena.
>
> I notice that the notion of anisochrony, although simple, that I
> proposed forty years ago now to try to rectify things that did not
> seem clear to me, remains invariably misunderstood by men.
> It's very strange.
> But you're talking about the speed of light.
> I wrote at the time (1986): "there will therefore be an impassable
> observable speed, which will extend to all particles and all the laws of
> physics".

Let's talk about how an "observable speed is measured.  Place clocls
with
two detectors of your object of choice a distance D apart.  Let your
object
fly past first one then the other detector.  Note the times of passage.
The speed of the object is v = D/(t2 - t1).

If t2 - t1 = D/c then the object is traveling at the speed of light. 
Note
that t2 - t1 is NOT zero, but certainly may be less than D/(t2 - t1), in
which case, a speed greater than c has been measured.

62 years ago, three physicists published a paper entitled "Meta
Relativity"
wherein they proposed particles could exist which ALWAYS travel FTL. 
Such
psrticles fit into SR with positive energy and momentum if the square of
their masses were negative:  i.e., E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 < 0.  This is
still
a field of investigation.

> I am surprised that 40 years later, we are still talking about tachyons,
> or whatever. The day you are told: "That's it, we have found a
> superluminal particle, invariably answer: then the experimenter was
> absolutely wrong".

That was the case when a Gran Sasso group announced that they found
neutrinos
traveling FTL.  The problem was a bad connector.  However, in 1987,
neutrinos
from supernova SM1987a were found to arrive three hours before the light
from
the supernova.  This was hypothesized to be caused by the light being
slowed
down by matter ejected from earlier bursts, but all three hours of it is
conjecture.

> Some people think that the limit on the speed of light comes from a
> technical problem, and that, with better technology, we might one day be
> able to find something that will exceed this speed, like in science
> fiction films. .
>
> This is not a technical problem, but a problem of absurdity.

 “The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to
extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers

> As if one were saying to a man: “Draw me a round square, give me a
> scarlet white paint, pour me a glass of dehydrated water”.

Invalid comparison.

> Exceeding the speed of light isn't impossible, it's just absurd. A bit
> like asking a man to search for a whole number between 5 and 6 for 1000
> years. He will never succeed because it is absurd and contradictory.

Invalid comparison.  Speeds of bradyons are liminted to -c < v < c,
speeds
of luxons are exacly c.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers
beyond c.

> For a particle to exceed the speed of light, it would have to exceed an
> infinitely fast real speed, which is absurd.

Nope. Infinitely fast real speed is NOT c.  I showed how to measure real
speed.

> The equation which compresses the speed values ​​to c, comes from the
> fact that the notion of universal simultaneity (notion of universal
> present time) is an abstract idea, very anchored in man, but which
> nevertheless remains totally abstract from our universe. It's not made
> like that.

And is completely wrong.  Universal simultaneity has been refuted by
experiment.

> We will therefore have two fundamental equations, one of which is the
> reciprocal of the other.
>
> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> Thus, it will be possible to give to a mobile, a law, a particle all the
> real speeds imaginable in a given frame of reference.

You're still not defining your terms, so I will define them for you:
they
are wrong.

> But you will never be able to measure it, observe it, faster than c.

THAT'S why they are wrong.

> It is a property of space and time that gives this.

Space and time give no such thing.

> Because the notion of general and reciprocal simultaneity simply does
> not exist, and we must take into account the temporal shifts which
> exist,
> naturally, between any two points in space.

First you say universal simultaneity exists, then you say it doesn't.

“Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink

> In short, the “plan of present time” does not exist. Each entity in
> the universe creates its own.
>
> Going from A to B, even infinitely quickly (we put a small watch on the
> particle) will always take an incompressible amount of time for the
> examiner placed stationary in this frame of reference.
>
> And c can never be logically exceeded IN this frame of reference, even
> if the particle, like the photon, moves instantly from there to there.
>
> R.H.

Light moves at c.  Tachyons move faster.  Neutrinos may be tachyons, but
it's difficult to obtain tachyons with the proper energy.