Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:20:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Incorrect mathematical integration
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <EKV4LWfwyF4mvRIpW8X1iiirzQk@jntp>
 <UqTpLIJxvD4VcXT01kWm7g9OGtU@jntp> <v7jnc7$7jpq$1@dont-email.me>
 <KRDL-sfeKg0KUbMuUiMzTEhYDwk@jntp> <v7mc8d$pmhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <9w4qQAYIGHNeJtHg4ZR1m_Ooxo4@jntp> <v7p7bu$1cd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <oEpFQDJJhcpYoGFheTTVIKntZUE@jntp> <v7qt4k$1obhi$1@dont-email.me>
 <E7KdnZQ2kcpMMz_7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <b4WXAi8P2nvCwUATxx84m5e52Ro@jntp>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 13:21:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b4WXAi8P2nvCwUATxx84m5e52Ro@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0omdnaWYYaS3mDn7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 50
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sv1B+zZzLEAZjSMJCAp2N9h7YKEAwc8VXGt5uEvuiUuXE6ZQpPIk2lqmwtYkw7SDvv7Hi4aEhD01Hre!gw9rxYqroY7uJaQ1E3jZym96A2yl91nrj7PvPc4qXJF6sciCVFro9M3NOFZ5W1rr2m+690nlQeSl!vg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3552

On 07/25/2024 01:30 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/07/2024 à 22:00, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>>
>> Yeah, you might think so, then though to equip the model
>> where the frames, in the space, are space-frames and frame-spaces,
>> so that the particle's _space_ besides its _frame_ are moving,
>> what results that space-contraction in effect, is real, that
>> the particle brings its space with it.
>>
>> The linear accelerators are mostly aggregates of quite a large
>> number of, abstractly, particles, as with regards to energy
>> input and energy arrived.
>>
>>
>> The linear accelerators, like SLAC, illustrate that space-contraction
>> can be observed, affecting the surrounds of the main beam-line as
>> it were, as if according to a space contraction, and indeed about
>> the Galilean, inputs and outputs.
>>
>>
>> In the cosmological setting, the larger body or system being
>> its own rotational frame altogether, illustrating again that
>> the space contraction is observable, the Lorentzian in the
>> rotational, helps explain why theories like MOND have a
>> physical explanation and not just an algebraic model.
>>
>> I.e., MOND sort of answers why there is no dark matter,
>> then there's a sort of inverse-MOND also to explain why
>> there's no dark energy, that the effects otherwise are
>> quite simple and holistic, instead of the "missing link"
>> non-theory of non-science.
>
> In the case you are proposing, there is no contraction of the distances,
> because the particle is heading TOWARDS its receptor.
>
> The equation is no longer D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and to believe this is to
> fall into the trap of ease, but D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/ (1-Vo/c)] since
> cosµ=-1.
>
> For the particle the distance to travel (or rather that the receiver
> travels towards it) is extraordinarily greater than in the laboratory
> reference frame.
>
> R.H.

You mean the distance _in_ the space _in_ the frame?

Frame-space space-frames?  Rahme-Raumen Raume-Rahmen?