| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<NIE1WowEV5m3DKPaixweoDFo5QE@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <NIE1WowEV5m3DKPaixweoDFo5QE@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: Important to know Python opinion on this... References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <FS7BRIsxO-_X20VxXPebSsjPIt4@jntp> <v8gpr4$2c66e$1@dont-email.me> <1r17YwSTuu_yFwJ8Mj7O-umZb_M@jntp> <v8jd83$2vsa3$1@dont-email.me> <aGJtGFi-pcZdeYKlbLrP7fJkFGw@jntp> <v8m3tk$3k7em$1@dont-email.me> <n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp> <HMYdw0y7VC05exszud0h5rQwt6Y@jntp> <v8uf0f$1uqdk$2@dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: MvKNpSRJx-X9nIkBrc6TsD_yAvE JNTP-ThreadID: XgGFOrcTXd5ZDEX07aa-LTy0U04 JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=NIE1WowEV5m3DKPaixweoDFo5QE@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Wed, 07 Aug 24 01:31:30 +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="2024-08-07T01:31:30Z/8978271"; 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: 5845 Lines: 116 Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit : > Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>> Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis' >>>> the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰, >>>> the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰ >>>> the DEC = 0. >>>> Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception, >>>> they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from >>>> the star 15000 years ago. >>>> That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly. >>>> >>>> Simple geometry will give: >>>> x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly >>>> y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly >>>> z' = 0 ly >>>> t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year >>>> >>>> E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y) >>> >>> ? ? ? >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1> >>> >>> >>> But what are you talking about? ? ? >>> >>> You're talking nonsense!!! >>> >>> Your thing IS nonsense! >>> >>> How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames >>> of reference? ? ? >>> >>> All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying >>> for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all >>> about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely >>> ridiculous and anarchic way! >>> >>> But this is nonsense, Paul!!! >>> >>> You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the >>> stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract. >>> >>> PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something! >>> >>> There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z. >>> >>> Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take >>> up its numerical applications again. >>> >>> y'=y=9ly >>> z'=z=0ly >>> >>> This is dramatically simple. >>> >>> x=12 ly >>> x'=40 ly >>> >>> To=15 ly >>> To'=41ly >>> >>> t'=t=0 >>> >>> There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis. >>> >>> NOTHING MORE. >>> >>> This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!! >>> >>> But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the best >>> posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will never >>> progress. >>> >>> R.H. >>> >>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp> >> >> I would like Python's opinion on this. >> >> R.H. > > He's right, you're wrong. Another question? Yes. How do you judge that? You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible. It's not very rational. You should ask yourself the right question: between Paul (whom I greet kindly) and Hachel, it is Hachel who takes the lead, and who explains where Paul's error lies, while rectifying things and explaining what should be done instead (as much in his integration of observable durations and the bad relationship that it will give with the proper durations; and as much in the way he considers the relativistic ratios which are not, as I told him, rotations of bodies, or of mobile, but rotations of viewing angles. The observed body does not undergo any rotation, but a simple translation in x. This also produces a greater distance from the body, and therefore a greater observable time. Which is logical since only x and To undergo relativistic alterations in the TLs and not y and not z: therefore no rotation, a simple translation, and a greater To time (and not equal, as he says). I agree with him, when it seems disoriented, and he really is. He seems not to understand that for the terrestrial observer, the event occurred 15 years ago, and for the rocket, which is nevertheless connected at this moment, 41 years ago! It disorients him. Why? Because he is formatted like Einstein, like Minkowski, and all the others, with a shaky geometry, in which they nevertheless have faith as hard as iron. All that must be collapsed. But it is easier said than done as the psychological pressure of the trilili contest is enormous. R.H.