| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8uja0$1uqdk$6@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Python <python@invalid.org> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Important to know Python opinion on this... Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 03:40:16 +0200 Organization: CCCP Lines: 101 Message-ID: <v8uja0$1uqdk$6@dont-email.me> References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <FS7BRIsxO-_X20VxXPebSsjPIt4@jntp> <v8gpr4$2c66e$1@dont-email.me> <1r17YwSTuu_yFwJ8Mj7O-umZb_M@jntp> <v8jd83$2vsa3$1@dont-email.me> <aGJtGFi-pcZdeYKlbLrP7fJkFGw@jntp> <v8m3tk$3k7em$1@dont-email.me> <n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp> <HMYdw0y7VC05exszud0h5rQwt6Y@jntp> <v8uf0f$1uqdk$2@dont-email.me> <NIE1WowEV5m3DKPaixweoDFo5QE@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 03:40:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1ee868451ad7ede8480e4387e31bc418"; logging-data="2058676"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+21HPXo1czK5dSVCkuTnKp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:eenUmMjHRy6xmJN7nPGqd8aCnIs= In-Reply-To: <NIE1WowEV5m3DKPaixweoDFo5QE@jntp> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4487 Le 07/08/2024 à 03:31, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 07/08/2024 à 02:26, Python a écrit : >> Le 06/08/2024 à 23:50, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>> Le 03/08/2024 à 23:40, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>>> Le 03/08/2024 à 22:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>> Since the rocket is moving along the x-axis' >>>>> the angle velocity - (direction to star) = 37⁰, >>>>> the RA in the rocket frame will due to aberration be 12.7⁰ >>>>> the DEC = 0. >>>>> Since the rocket and the Earth are colocated at the time of reception, >>>>> they will obviously receive the same light which was emitted from >>>>> the star 15000 years ago. >>>>> That means that the distance in the Rocket frame must be 15000 ly. >>>>> >>>>> Simple geometry will give: >>>>> x' = 15000⋅cos(12.7⁰) ly = 14633 ly >>>>> y' = 15000⋅sin(12.7⁰) ly = 3297 ly >>>>> z' = 0 ly >>>>> t' = -15000/c year = -15000 year >>>>> >>>>> E '= (14633 ly, 3297 ly, 0 ly, -15000 y) >>>> >>>> ? ? ? >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp/Data.Media:1> >>>> >>>> >>>> But what are you talking about? ? ? >>>> >>>> You're talking nonsense!!! >>>> >>>> Your thing IS nonsense! >>>> >>>> How do you want the object to be at the same distance in both frames >>>> of reference? ? ? >>>> >>>> All this is sad to cry and you show EXACTLY what I have been saying >>>> for years, namely that physicists do not understand anything at all >>>> about the theory of relativity, and use mathematics in a completely >>>> ridiculous and anarchic way! >>>> >>>> But this is nonsense, Paul!!! >>>> >>>> You practice a stupid rotation, and we can clearly see all the >>>> stupidity of the Minkowski space-time block, stupid and abstract. >>>> >>>> PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, I beg you to understand something! >>>> >>>> There is NO rotation, there is NO change in y, nor change in z. >>>> >>>> Poincaré was right and his geometry is magnificent, and we must take >>>> up its numerical applications again. >>>> >>>> y'=y=9ly >>>> z'=z=0ly >>>> >>>> This is dramatically simple. >>>> >>>> x=12 ly >>>> x'=40 ly >>>> >>>> To=15 ly >>>> To'=41ly >>>> >>>> t'=t=0 >>>> >>>> There is a relativistic translation on the x-axis. >>>> >>>> NOTHING MORE. >>>> >>>> This produces a ROTATION OF THE AXIS OF VIEW, but NOT of the star!!! >>>> >>>> But damn it, if you don't understand that, you who are one of the >>>> best posters of relativity, we are in a terrible mess, and we will >>>> never progress. >>>> >>>> R.H. >>>> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=n6nnyNLQR1tXDC_uShX3k3bxE5g@jntp> >>> >>> I would like Python's opinion on this. >>> >>> R.H. >> >> He's right, you're wrong. Another question? > > Yes. > How do you judge that? > You start with the a priori that a speaker is wrong, because he has to > be wrong, otherwise, it would be too horrible. Because I can prove with arguments that you are self-contradictory and violating the principle of Relativity PERIOD. > It's not very rational. It is. > [snip babbling] You can hear because you are an psychopath and an egomaniac.