Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <HT1heDa9f8DEveSvko7itS6W5bk@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics
References: <GBEGTHyJnMpjHuJ0IoZO0OLSc1M@jntp> <0b2ff7832787b9d3165d93803b09df8f@www.novabbs.com> <74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@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>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: ceettk_c20FdgDBgqP_2P8aHw5U
JNTP-ThreadID: azmKI4HvnEJnqvnVFsjpWB8pljI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=HT1heDa9f8DEveSvko7itS6W5bk@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 24 20:55:24 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-10T20:55:24Z/8982298"; 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@jesauspu.fr>
Bytes: 4792
Lines: 60

Le 10/08/2024 à 15:02, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
> "apparent speed" is tenuous.  To me, it means an optical illusion, which
> has no place in solving relativity problems.  Velocity is the correct
> term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
> read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
> as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

This is a magnificent definition, and its simplicity and truth deserve to 
be taught in all high schools in the world.
I'm not kidding.
Now once this is taught, and well understood by the students,
they will be able to solve lots of problems with railways or highways, and 
even be able to time the final of the Olympic 100 meters.
The formula you give is simply magnificent...
BUT...
But then Richard Hachel arrives once again, and his unfortunate habit of 
behaving like a genius of humanity, and he will say: "You are doing 
Newtonian physics, guys, very beautiful Newtonian physics, and, in this 
case, let yourself be taught by Maciej, who also does excellent Nestonian 
physics. Forget relativistic physics."

In truth, if this equation keeps a certain reality for proper times (tau), 
it becomes unusable for improper times, unless, like Hachel, we write Vo, 
and no longer v, in relativistic equations.

Why?

Anisochrony, guys, ANISOCHRONY!!!

In Hachelian relativity (the best theoretician of RR since Poincaré, 
Einstein and Minkowski thrown in the trash, although I am not 
anti-Germanic), we cannot add, subtract, count, times with watches even 
intertial, stationary between them, if they are placed in different 
places. This results not in a TRUE measurement, but in an OBSERVABLE 
measurement.
The only true measurement can only be made by a single watch (tau).
I keep begging everyone to understand that TWO different watches spatially 
separated (universal anisochrony) distort the measurement. When you do:
v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1) it is both very true and very false.
If this is done with the watch of the mobile (which cannot desynchronize 
with itself), we therefore have, in Hachel notation:
Vr=(x2-x1)/(Tr2-Tr1)
We have here the true speed, and it will give the true quantity of 
movement, p=m.Vr and the true energy of the body E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

But if we use the time measured by two different watches (be careful, even 
if the path was circular, the watch that measures placed at the edge of 
the circuit, it is TWO watches) then we end up with anisochronous murder.
We have Vo=(x2-x1)/(To2-To1) but the observable times being biased by the 
anisochrony between the two watches, we have an observable measurement 
which is a decoy and which is not the reality of things.
There is a constant difference between the real speeds and the observable 
speeds.
Example, Vr=(4/3)c ----> Vo=0.8c

As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

R.H.