Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:57:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Incorrect mathematical integration
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <EKV4LWfwyF4mvRIpW8X1iiirzQk@jntp>
 <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>
 <0omdnaWYYaS3mDn7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <kptLgC_qo39r22Q_FOJtg_EAu5w@jntp>
 <FqycncZ41N2jyzn7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 12:58:05 -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: <FqycncZ41N2jyzn7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EqGcnVwuypOgzDj7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EKVy8hExDENA0x8V+EodsEkpC3UhPCb3cGgXKVNkwpuVw2/YV6fu7vwbcrq2sWJh/9dFKaXO8yg017j!1zJHYLtO8cPSyg7Tdo8SiKc/SLpON3pEVxSvurcvtzE/vOxwFLwpwj1a5g6JZWhR1WcapPJhjyUJ!0w==
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: 5237

On 07/26/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 07/26/2024 01:59 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 26/07/2024 à 22:20, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>>> On 07/25/2024 01:30 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> You mean the distance _in_ the space _in_ the frame?
>>
>> We must be careful about our understanding of relativistic things.
>>
>> Physicists make things too simple.
>>
>> They say D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>>
>> Then they rub their hands.
>>
>> However, this is completely false, it all depends on where we stand and
>> in which frame of reference.
>>
>> I have already said a thousand times that D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), applied
>> hastily and haphazardly, is pure nonsense.
>>
>> The true equation being D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>>
>> So we start again:
>> We have a particle with a constant speed Vo=0.8c that goes from A to B.
>>
>> In the lab frame of reference, AB is 3 meters.
>>
>> Whether I place myself at A or B, it is logical that AB is three meters.
>>
>> Except that I beg you to understand something important.
>>
>> I am inertial with A and B when I measure AB.
>>
>> Now let's place ourselves at the level of the proton for example.
>>
>> What is the distance AB?
>>
>> Physicists answer me, insulting me when possible, threatening me or
>> hating me when they can: D'=3*0.6=1.8m.
>>
>> Except that having said that, they have not said anything coherent at
>> all, and they make me laugh, they who believe, because they have studied
>> a adulterated SR,
>> that it is me who is making fun.
>>
>> No, to say that is to say an abstract, incoherent sentence, and no more
>> real than "I like round squares" or "I would like to drink dehydrated
>> water", or "I prefer the color scarlet white".
>>
>> It means NOTHING.
>>
>> We come back to the proton, what is the distance AB for it?
>>
>> Well, it all depends on its POSITION.
>>
>> And this is what physicists have trouble understanding (I still have 40
>> SR, and it is logical that I am stronger than them).
>>
>> When the proton passes through A, the distance AB is 9 meters.
>>
>> When the proton passes through the center of AB (in the lab frame of
>> reference) AB measures 5 m (0.5+4.5).
>>
>> When the proton arrives at B, AB is 1 meter.
>>
>> Space is a reference mollusk.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> The SR-ians are sort of in a tiny sub-field of the theory,
> a tiny local sub-field of the theory.
>
> It's a big field, ..., it's one theory.
>
>
> The notion of the space-contraction as satisfying Lorentz
> in a FitzGeraldian way, while that the linear acceleration
> and the rotational acceleration are fundamentally different
> with regards to the freedom of rotating frames and the space
> of a rotating frame or the space of a linearly accelerating frame,
> keeping the linear also satisfying the Galilean, has here that
> the quench of the beam-line, sees the detecter peter out as
> quite reflecting the Galilean inputs.
>
> ... In "the time" of the emitter/detecter the linear accelerator,
> for example SLAC.
>
> According to Einstein, GR is first, and SR is just a local case.
>
>

Another real great thing besides JWST and SLAC
is the Z-Pinch, another high-energy or high-configuration
experiment helping illustrate things like "space contraction
is real and linear and rotational are different" and "the
electrical field is already a standing wave" and "the
fluid models of liquid and electrical current are about
opposites" and "mathematics owes physics better and
more mathematics of continuum mechanics the
mathematical physics".