Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <cABzDZ5758NACFAJyiOdxMhM0jw@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
References: <9oTvw4-YSIPb1dubtdBwcc_MeX8@jntp> <v76hh2$1d5jc$2@dont-email.me> <MINhbylBZhXuFEEVBuuOVNQAhME@jntp>
 <v78vh4$1u5pb$2@dont-email.me> <KgsNxvPyqt-0B8k9AVRrfDcva1k@jntp> <v7bqlv$2ie0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <FztOOPctCcCwS8JArTdOkyGfYyE@jntp> <669acc1f$3$8225$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <tWSqEjfxX9QQDg-63SH9iJ-NA5k@jntp>
 <669ad8de$0$8219$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: OyDPRdQ1k6SE3MTU42cLo03mzKs
JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=cABzDZ5758NACFAJyiOdxMhM0jw@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 24 21:45:33 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-07-19T21:45:33Z/8955653"; 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@wanadou.fr>
Bytes: 3876
Lines: 45

Le 19/07/2024 à 23:21, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> 
> Why don't you ever read a book, or use standard terminology.

 
> What you are talking about is called the proper velocity,
> aka the celerity.
> 
> George Gamow was already making jokes about it
> in Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, (1940)
> 
> Jan

It is sometimes difficult to use standard terminology to say new things.
For 40 years, to make myself understood, I have used the most standard and 
simplest words possible, in order to be understood.
Now, there are terms which are in my opinion obligatory for a theory of 
relativity well understood by everyone, and understood perfectly.
Term without which it becomes difficult to form precise ideas.
For example the word anisochrony, or the word chronotropy.
Or the terms "internal Doppler effect" much more logical than the term 
"transverse Doppler effect" which is a very lame term.
I have sometimes seen the term celerity, but not often. I prefer to be 
precise by using the term real speed, which seems more correct to me,
and which pushes the reader to think: “If he is talking about real 
speed, it is because the observable is not the real one”.
So I don't do it for fun.
Contrary to what people say, there are very few new things or new terms, 
no more than three or four, but I think it is very important to think 
about it, because it ultimately leads to to new concepts and especially 
new equations.
As much as I remain in perfect harmony with Poincaré, my geometry 
diverges from that of Minkowski, too false, too abstract, too complicated.
I have been thinking for 40 years to find experimental proof that what I 
say is true, but it is not simple at present.
I therefore only have the theoretical proofs since I am the only one to be 
perfectly coherent from the beginning to the end of the theory which forms 
a whole.
But strangely, proofs of theoretical coherence do not interest physicists, 
they want experiments, which is in itself ridiculous if, at the start, the 
theory is contradictory and absurd (or even how physicists describe a 
Langevin in apparent speeds: 40 years since I said that this is completely 
absurd and that it is the belief in the Minkowski block which caused 
this).

R.H.