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: Incorrect mathematical integration
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:46:47 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <ece0aacbdb8913589e5712cd506856d6@www.novabbs.com>
References: <EKV4LWfwyF4mvRIpW8X1iiirzQk@jntp> <KRDL-sfeKg0KUbMuUiMzTEhYDwk@jntp> <v7mc8d$pmhs$1@dont-email.me> <9w4qQAYIGHNeJtHg4ZR1m_Ooxo4@jntp> <v7p7bu$1cd5m$1@dont-email.me> <oEpFQDJJhcpYoGFheTTVIKntZUE@jntp> <v7qt4k$1obhi$1@dont-email.me> <E7KdnZQ2kcpMMz_7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <b4WXAi8P2nvCwUATxx84m5e52Ro@jntp> <15a62a2efad7e3485b6f622df9c78f38@www.novabbs.com> <wapqkmWcs3too3jFUK-G0srdhEM@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="423842"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$n97lbyEaFpZ2zC.H7vwvcu19aAVmVtyz9pp2iLzBR9kX9h.tWxju2
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4062
Lines: 80

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 0:54:30 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 26/07/2024 à 01:29, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 20:30:09 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >
> > > In the case you are proposing, there is no contraction of the
> distances,
> > > because the particle is heading TOWARDS its receptor.
> > >
> > > The equation is no longer D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and to believe this is
> to
> > > fall into the trap of ease, but D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/ (1-Vo/c)] since
> > > cosµ=-1.
> >
> > You are conflating Doppler effect with length contraction.  LC is
> ALWAYS
> > D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
> >
> > > For the particle the distance to travel (or rather that the receiver
> > > travels towards it) is extraordinarily greater than in the
> laboratory
> > > reference frame.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> >
> > Your assertion is in violent disagreement with the LTE:
> >
> > dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
> > dt' = gamma(dt - vdx)
> >
> > For an object stationary in the unprimed frame, dx = 0:
> >
> > dx' = gamma(-vdt)
> > dt' = gamma(dt)
> >
> > v' = dx'/dt' = -v
> >
> > For an object moving at v in the unprimed frame, dx' = 0
> >
> > v = dx/dt = v.
> >
> > There is no "extraordinarily greater" speed in either frame.  This
> > is true in Galilean motion also.  Galileo described it perfectly
> > with his ship and dock example and blows your assertion out of the
> > water, so to speak.
>
> But NO!
>
> WE MUST APPLY POINCARE'S TRANSFORMATIONS!
>
> It took years to find them, and without Poincaré, it is likely that they
> would have been found only ten or fifteen years later, when they already
> had them in 1904.
>
> That is why I am almost certain that Einstein copied them from Poincaré
> despite his period denials (which he would later contradict by saying
> that he had read Poincaré and that he had been captivated by the
> intellectual
> power of this man, considered the best mathematician in the world at
> that time).
>
> We must apply Poincaré.

If Einstein copied Poincaré, then Einstein's equations are Poincaré's.

> What does Poincaré say?
>
> If an observer moves towards me, at speed Vo=v, and crosses me at
> position 0, then for me, he is at (0,0,0,0) and for him, I am at
> (0,0,0,0).

Not necessarily. "Position 0" is insufficient  for being at (0,0,0,0).

> But let's assume that it is only a piece of rod 9 cm long
> that crosses me, and that the other end has not yet passed.
> At what distance will I see the other end of the rod? Let Vo = 0.8c.

You are going off on a tangent, not sticking to the problem you posed.
Furthermore, you haven't defined what you believe Poincaré's equations
are.  Consequently, your deflection is merely buzz words.