Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <_fWL1QRNDZJe9YyMRnHwHtpAbvo@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativistic aberration
References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <b9f5671b8333de8a8b9f2cfceb69f808@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: I_6yrOLpYHWNuK3nJSo08ViRB3M
JNTP-ThreadID: XgGFOrcTXd5ZDEX07aa-LTy0U04
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_fWL1QRNDZJe9YyMRnHwHtpAbvo@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 24 13:16:01 +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="2024-08-07T13:16:01Z/8978644"; 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: 4073
Lines: 52

Le 07/08/2024 à 12:05, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
> The visual field differences between observers are known and regardless
> of
> the details of the motion are always related by a conformal map. This
> alone
> accounts for things like the appearance of the outline of a moving
> sphere,
> the Tyrell "rotation", etc.
> 
> Also keep in mind that the two observers, even if they are momentarily
> at the same place, will have different visual fields due to the retinas
> of their eyes (which are of *finite* extent (i.e., not pointlike))
> accounting differently for the visually observed scene because of the
> different simultaneity for the two observers.
> 
> --

Your post is interesting in the sense that it clearly tries to say things.
It is appreciated.
Even if I do not totally agree with you.
So I can ask you two questions:
"Are you for me or against me when I interpret the Poincaré Lorpetz 
transformations as Poincaré described them?"
I interpret them literally, and not like Python (who is crazy) and not 
like Paul B Andersen (who is intelligent and courageous), because I 
interpret them as a translation, and not as a rotation.
I do not vary in y or z. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify things:
According to Hachel, and always in accordance with logic, with truth, and 
with the equations of Poincaré, who was not weak in mathematics, the 
notion of simultaneity is invariant by change of observer JOINT at the 
moment of measurement, what varies for them is the INTERNAL CHRONOTROPY, 
and not the notion of simultaneity.
For example, a terrestrial observer observes the simultaneous bursting of 
three supernovae (it is very improbable but let's admit it) in very 
different places of the cel, and at very different distances.
At this moment, a rocket crosses the solar system at 0.8c (we admit that 
it is technologically possible on the Ox axis of R (earth reference 
frame).
Simplicity (and the TLs) shows that the terrestrial observer and the 
rocket observer will perceive the three explosions at the same time. This 
obviously implies that they see the same simultaneous universe. Nothing 
that is perceived by one is not perceived by the other and vice versa. 
Likewise, nothing that is not perceived by one is perceived by the other.
Both see the universe in perfect simultaneity.
Simply, things are spatially seen as through a distorting mirror, and we 
must apply x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) for the x component.
The t component does not vary. t'=t=0.
The To component varies To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), but that's not 
relevant here.
The problem is that we confuse t and To too much (t being real time 
measured by real watches, To being a useful, but abstract, unit).

R.H.