Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 21:32:28 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <e6a7e71e31958ad0eec9f8b0555d03bf@www.novabbs.com>
References: <GBEGTHyJnMpjHuJ0IoZO0OLSc1M@jntp> <0b2ff7832787b9d3165d93803b09df8f@www.novabbs.com> <74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp> <cda33e42de10aeee9283e500b47a63f9@www.novabbs.com> <AE2L2lzGJn13Z_4dg3bpJC59QsA@jntp> <66b3d79f$0$3656$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <dlVAS4dgp1D4i_LVHm3d5U9hqow@jntp> <43ee5c178f7ae877c0c3e00e77386494@www.novabbs.com> <xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp> <03be6498d21bfde3edbac3669f10841c@www.novabbs.com> <jAzCAJq8FVCKps9bXn3yDr5Sh4U@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2134819"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$QCRWESszLo.XczGG8v7OIOqg1VOP6B1Ub1/nXNj4mWervKbZT2kEu
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
Bytes: 6102
Lines: 119

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:08:21 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 10/08/2024 à 15:02, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
> > what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that
> > "instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.
>
> It is realized universally every day.
> This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in this
> telescope, I perceive them because, precisely, it is about instantaneous
> transmission of information.

Doesn't happen.  Ever.  There's always time delay due to speed of light.
Telescopes look into the past of what they see.  And the moon you see is
more than a second old.  Even the horse is older.

> This is what we call direct-live.

Which proves to be nonsense.

> If someone could breathe a little and blow, and no longer conceive the
> world stupidly,

Pot, kettle, black.

> that is to say as taught by physicists who have understood nothing at
> all about Poincaré's transformations and where that should have led
> them, rather than inventing an abstract Minkowskian and ridiculous
> geometry, then we could perhaps fecilely carry out tests of
> instantaneous transmission of information, thanks, perhaps, to games
> of mirrors and polarizing glasses. A bit like Aspect had done.
>
> R.H.

I'm afraid you've really gone of the deep end here, Richard.

> > It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
> > "apparent speed" is tenuous.  To me, it means an optical illusion,
> > which has no place in solving relativity problems.  Velocity is the
> > correct term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where
> > t2 and t1 are read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and
> > x1, respectively, as the object whose velocity is meing measured
> > passes those points.
>
> This is a magnificent definition, and its simplicity and truth deserve
> to be taught in all high schools in the world.
> I'm not kidding.
> Now once this is taught, and well understood by the students, they
> will be able to solve lots of problems with railways or highways,
> and even be able to time the final of the Olympic 100 meters.
> The formula you give is simply magnificent...
> BUT...
> But then Richard Hachel arrives once again, and his unfortunate habit
> of behaving like a genius of humanity, and he will say: "You are doing
> Newtonian physics, guys, very beautiful Newtonian physics, and, in
> this case, let yourself be taught by Maciej, who also does excellent
> Nestonian physics. Forget relativistic physics."

Leave Walnut-brain Wozzie out of your meanderings, please.

> In truth, if this equation keeps a certain reality for proper times
> (tau), it becomes unusable for improper times, unless, like Hachel,
> we write Vo, and no longer v, in relativistic equations.

Nope.

> Why?
>
> Anisochrony, guys, ANISOCHRONY!!!

Nope.  You're conflating motion as measured by a moving observer
relative to the "stationary observer.  The correct term for that
is v', or u' since it's different from the relative velocity
between the moving observer and the stationary one, not Vo.

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]

> In Hachelian relativity (the best theoretician of RR since Poincaré,
> Einstein and Minkowski thrown in the trash,

Breath, blow ...

> although I am not anti-Germanic),

Some might call you that :-))

> we cannot add, subtract, count, times with watches even intertial,
> stationary between them, if they are placed in different places.
> This results not in a TRUE measurement, but in an OBSERVABLE
> measurement.
> The only true measurement can only be made by a single watch (tau).

You fail to understand two things: (1) watches in different places
at rest with respect to each other can be synchronized, and I have
demonstrated how to do it elsewhere (it's called Einstein synchron-
ization).  (2) A means of recording the reading of the remote watch
is implicit in the measurement.  It may be a second observer at the
second watch, or some recording device.

And v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1) is, therefore, ALWAYS true (in SR).

> If this is done with the watch of the mobile

There is no mobile in the above equation, only in Equation [A].

> [Conflation of stationary (Newtonian) observers with mobile
> observers deleted].

> As a relativistic reminder:
> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
> Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Nope.  Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:

dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)

dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)