Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcV2hhdCBJcyBUaGUgVGhlb3J5IE9mIFJlbGF0aXZpdHk/4oCd?=
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:43:20 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <ac59ab3e44c19fde003c2881457749bb@www.novabbs.com>
References: <7c4ca70590931faae5029c6152add202@www.novabbs.com> <i4xoVz-qBH1_qhpzeiMc3n4kuig@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1755585"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$QLsSwLZ/DMY0QxjyL1jt4eX44Kv5XDou/H2816JA1WkiJCLwh4A6W
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
Bytes: 5555
Lines: 103

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 1:03:57 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 01/01/2025 à 21:06, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> Albert Einstein, “What Is The Theory Of Relativity?” (November 28, 1919)
>>
>> In the London Times, Einstein explained this fact about his theory:
>>
>> "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests,
>> is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This
>> principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of
>> propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of
>> the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this
>> principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of
>> Maxwell and Lorentz."
>>
>> The velocity of waves does not include the velocity of the source
>> because compression waves are formed, constraining the speed to that
>> dictated by the medium.
>>
>> The velocity of both particles and waves includes that of the observer.
>>
>> To deny that light velocity involves that of the observer is stupid,
>> illogical, and irrational nonsense. It is a denial of relative motion
>> itself.
>
> I see that you still do not understand the theory of relativity.
> This is very unfortunate, and I feel like I am unfortunately speaking
> into
> the void.
> The second postulate of Poincaré (and not of Einstein who NEVER
> postulated anything at all except copied the work of others) proposes
> something A PRIORI.
> It is a postulate.
> It postulates that the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant by change
> of reference frame, which poses a double problem.
> It is both true and false physically, and, secondly, it is a postulate
> and
> a postulate does not say why.
>
> We do not have this double problem with Dr. Hachel.
>
> In Hachel, who is very mean, not only is the postulate obviously derived
> from another postulate that explains WHY (the notion of universal
> anisochrony and the relativity of hyperplanes of simultaneity in the
> same
> stationary frame of reference) but moreover,
> it explains that it is the transverse speed of light that is invariant,
> and equal to c in all frames of reference.
>
> I remind you, breathe, blow, do not feel unwell, that each observer, in
> Hachel, observes his universe live. It then becomes obvious that a light
> ray is instantly perceived by any receiver (it could be my retina), and
> that this speed (infinite) remains so by change of frame of reference
> (it
> is me who moves), or whatever the speed of the source.
>
> On the other hand, if a photon flees me, I would always see it flee in
> the
> same way, and at the same speed (Vapp=c/2).
>
> And this in whatever frame of reference I am in.
>
> Which means that the transverse speed of a photon will always be equal
> to
> c, whatever frame of reference I am in (even if I am in a uniformly
> accelerated frame of reference).
>
> The transverse speed of light will become a physical invariant.
>
> So there is some truth and some falsehood in what physicists say.
>
> They do not say that we observe the universe live, and believe that this
> galaxy which is 13 billion light years away (notion of distance) existed
> thirteen billion years ago (notion of time).
>
> They do not understand that 13 billion years is a value given by a
> geometric position of a distant observer who would observe the path of
> the
> photon transversely, but that it has nothing to do with my retinal
> hyperplane of simultaneity.
>
> They are absolutely incapable of passing Cape Hachel, and again, they
> passed Cape Poincaré with some difficulty (they understand the notion of
> relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches) but, and this is for
> me
> an extraordinary phenomenon, even miraculous, the notion of anisochrony
> and correct spatio-temporal geometry.
>
> They remain stuck in a completely abstract and mathematically stupid
> Minkowskian block, and are incapable of seeing further.
>
> This has always amazed me.
>
> R.H.
Thank you. Someone had to step into the breach.

If the transverse speed of a photon remains the same as c even within a
uniformly accelerating frame, this is what both particles and waves do
within such a frame. This makes it unnecessary for any postulates other
than Newtonian.

To imagine this takes place across (between) frames regarding the
endpoint or observer is irrational.