Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <E89td6du78wfm2OXKZAD6KQeYyY@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Approximately 300,000 km/s With Respect To =?UTF-8?Q?What=3F?=
References: <v6pdg9$2k01g$1@dont-email.me> <v6qssk$2vb8b$1@dont-email.me> <lfer0bF3dlmU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v708nu$3mln$1@dont-email.me> <lfjtovFqneaU1@mid.individual.net> <v72oo9$ko8j$1@dont-email.me>
 <lfmlkfF7umpU10@mid.individual.net> <v786b8$1psia$1@dont-email.me> <lfrqhlF22urU3@mid.individual.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: NuNi9fL5BAPOijwRbKsXtrMf0_o
JNTP-ThreadID: v6pdg9$2k01g$1@dont-email.me
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=E89td6du78wfm2OXKZAD6KQeYyY@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 24 23:34:50 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-07-18T23:34:50Z/8954451"; 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 <r.hachel@wanadou.fr>
Bytes: 4816
Lines: 68

Le 18/07/2024 à 08:20, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 
> Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
> 
> 'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving 
> bodies'.
> 
> And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
> 
> If you want to refer to something  else, then please write to what paper 
> you want to refer.
> 
> I wrote about Einstein's paper.
> 
> This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a 
> force free space.
> 
> 
> ...

I think you are absolutely right: what we call today the theory of 
relativity is more a conglomeration of different hypotheses given by 
different physicists from all backgrounds and all nationalities, that is 
to say an edifice built in a fairly polymorphous way.
I had already noticed this forty years ago, and for forty years, I tried 
to bring all this together into a compact, logical, global, and very clear 
theory to hold whole in the brain of a single man or 'only one student.
In short, something which holds simply, logically, and in one conceptual 
piece, from Galilean frames of reference, to uniformly accelerated frames 
of reference, including rotating frames of reference.
Very quickly, I realized the magnitude of the task for two reasons:
- the appearance of obvious problems in the formulations of physicists, 
even if only to describe a simple Langevin, and the inability even today, 
in 2024, incredibly, to describe a coherent relationship even if only by 
passing in apparent speeds (what the two observers would see in their 
telescope). And I'm not talking about the madness of the masters in 
physics if we have to move on to more complicated frames of reference and 
the invention of surreal things like that (reverse saddle geometry, or 
fanciful integrations of relativistic time, etc...) .
- human madness and the navel-gazing of opponents (there, I don't even 
need to explain).

However, we can give a complete and coherent theory using very simple 
mathematics (no need to calculate an integral).
Special relativity is very simple. Mathematically at high school level 
(16-18 years old). What makes it difficult is:
1. the understanding and genesis of the gamma factor by the logical 
invariance of the speed of light in an anisochronous medium.
2. the reciprocity of relativistic effects by permutation of frames of 
reference and in particular apparent effects on distances.
3. that if it is true that there is a dilation of times, by the simple 
fact of the denominator present in the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, 
there is ALSO, by the same denominator a dilation of lengths and distances 
( physicists confusing this general dilation with the observation of an 
object passing transversely in the field of vision, and which actually 
appears contracted in this position).

Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but 
there are no pitfalls.”
The opposite was true: “Relativity is a game for children or high school 
students, but it’s full of little conceptual traps.”

Once you get rid of the bad concepts, all the equations become incredibly 
simple.

And yet more beautiful and truer.


R.H.