Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 00:11:13 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <97b33fc8fbf96960076de44282d1b9bb@www.novabbs.com>
References: <GBEGTHyJnMpjHuJ0IoZO0OLSc1M@jntp> <cda33e42de10aeee9283e500b47a63f9@www.novabbs.com> <AE2L2lzGJn13Z_4dg3bpJC59QsA@jntp> <66b3d79f$0$3656$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <dlVAS4dgp1D4i_LVHm3d5U9hqow@jntp> <43ee5c178f7ae877c0c3e00e77386494@www.novabbs.com> <xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp> <03be6498d21bfde3edbac3669f10841c@www.novabbs.com> <jAzCAJq8FVCKps9bXn3yDr5Sh4U@jntp> <e6a7e71e31958ad0eec9f8b0555d03bf@www.novabbs.com> <h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2145610"; 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$10$wmTZNdEPIwltK36Bh0GOo.A8I6GBKz98k0.z6NJrjgfviTiylmsru
Bytes: 3903
Lines: 74

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 10/08/2024 à 23:32, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:08:21 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >
> > > As a relativistic reminder:
> > > Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
> > > Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> >
> > u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
> > Nope.  Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
> > necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:
> >
> > dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
> > dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
> >
> > dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)
>
>  Absolutely, but...
>
>  And y? And z?

Surely you know that y' = y and z' = z since the motion is solely
along x.  I can only conclude, therefore, that you are obfuscating
in the grand manner of Walnut-brain Wozzie.

> But that's not what I'm talking about!
> I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact
> that, very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
> we can never measure a speed greater than c.

So?

> But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
> theory and experiment, we can observe things live.

Not live.  Light transit time delayed.  Stop saying live.  You cheapen
yourself by lying.

> There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
> (including Minkowski's that are not).

Is there a "real" geometry of spacetime?  Geometry is a human concept.

> You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as
> if I didn't know it, are you kidding?

You don't act like you know it.  Not deep down in your innards where it
counts.

> No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
> form, in general real form or in vector form.

All I've seen is childish attempts to invent fantasies.

> I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> R.H.

Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines.  Doing so is just being a
stuffed
shirt.  And it's wrong anyway: "cosu.U" means what?  What is u.U?  Do
you mean
cos(u.U), which makes no sense. Cosines and sines are dimensionless. 
You need
some formal education in correct mathematical expression.

You always try to run before you can walk.