Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <JXfeHZJOPLL7azhAhgg8UZ4HAsg@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or =?UTF-8?Q?particles=3F?=
References: <729c6c816b598ea72c5e917156b4e9b9@www.novabbs.com> <0aa2a5a52a8810caf17eb577da321b19@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: FMIs5kB5TvMyLgXSf0FtteH47lE
JNTP-ThreadID: 729c6c816b598ea72c5e917156b4e9b9@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=JXfeHZJOPLL7azhAhgg8UZ4HAsg@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 24 12:06:18 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-10-22T12:06:18Z/9070282"; posting-account="4@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@liscati.fr.invalid>
Bytes: 4513
Lines: 72

Le 22/10/2024 à 05:41, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> Mr. Hertz:
> 
> "That c+v is possible destroys relativity and cosmology, as Hubble's
> results have to be RE-INTERPRETED."
> 
> Light cannot behave as a particle in a medium such as the atmosphere
> because its speed is constrained to that of the medium like sound. It
> cannot act like a wave in a vacuum without a medium. Somehow, it must do
> both. That Sirius and the Sun are moving at 5.5 km/sec towards each
> other can only be known this way. When the light in space encounters
> interstellar gas, it is slowed to the speed of light in gas, forming
> compression waves saving the information of the relative motion of 5.5
> km/sec.
> 
> Einstein's train and lightning experiment claiming the bolt ahead is
> seen simultaneously as the one behind is an irrational denial of
> relative motion. He presumes time dilation to conclude it in a
> surreptitious petitio principii.

The principle of time dilation and the principle of the relativity of 
simultaneity (that is to say, above all, of universal anisochrony) only 
pose a problem to those who have not understood it.

But strangely, it is not those who are the most hostile to me, it is the 
bigwigs of physics, who do not understand much more.

You are talking here about the experience of lightning on the rails.

Here, everyone drowns. Einstein like the others.

The two lightnings will be simultaneous for the station master, but ALSO 
for the traveler.

However, this is not what Einstein says (who is wrong), nor what today's 
relativists say (who still have not understood after 120 years).

It is so obvious that if the two observers cross, the photons arriving 
from behind at this place, and from in front at the same place will be 
simultaneous for all observers in the universe, and whatever their frame 
of reference (even the most complex, rotating, transverse, accelerated, 
sub-luminal, etc.).

If we place the frames of reference of each correctly, the WHOLE universe 
will be in the same hyperplane of present time, very deformed in x, that 
is certain, since x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), but in the same hyperplane of 
simultaneity.

So why are physicists not able to say it?

Because they are doing it in the abstract, and they do not say where the 
origin of their frame of reference really is, and on WHAT does it base its 
notion of cosmic simultaneity?

It is NOT on the observer himself, but on a point placed elsewhere, in a 
fourth virtual spatial dimension is abstract.

However, this point is not part of reality, of our world.

It is this ignorance that will make us believe in the rupture of 
simultaneity by change of frame of reference.

This does not exist for observers.

Certainly, for observers, there is a reciprocal rupture of chornotropy, 
that is to say of the speed at which the hands of watches turn.

But that has nothing to do with the invariance of simultaneity by change 
of momentarily joint observers whatever their speed or their type of frame 
of reference (rotating, accelerated, Galilean, etc.)

R.H.