| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics 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> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: fHx74ZLMKywKFSDsvuXLaeNl7UY JNTP-ThreadID: azmKI4HvnEJnqvnVFsjpWB8pljI JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Sat, 10 Aug 24 09:02:41 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-10T09:02:41Z/8981618"; 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@jesauspu.fr> Bytes: 6782 Lines: 115 Le 09/08/2024 à 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit : > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:28:27 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit : >>>> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit : >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the >>>> >> > explanations given to you. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media: >>> 1> >>>> >> >>>> >> I laughed. >>>> >> >>>> >> R.H. >>>> > >>>> > Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh. Maybe an OMG! Meaning, you just >>>> > realized that Jan is right. Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate, >>>> > too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!" >>>> > >>>> > You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length >>>> > contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your >>>> > Vo. LC is NOT so dependent. It would be a VERY strange universe if >>>> > it were. >>>> >>>> You say: "it's a Doppler shift". >>>> And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)? >>>> Isn't it a Doppler shift? >>>> Yes, it's also a Doppler shift. >>>> This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect". >>>> Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is >>>> neither >>>> fair nor pretty. >>> >>> It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time. >>> People didn't have relativity in order, >>> and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses. >>> They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass' >>> of the electron were different. >>> It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light, >>> because the terminology was already current, >>> >>> Jan >> >> The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear >> concepts. >> There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and >> other such joys. >> You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you >> turn >> on your neurons. >> "Mass is a relativistic invariant". >> Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp. >> All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge, >> deflects it, and does not take it further. > > Give it up, Richard. What you post here and on other threads has no > relation to anything. You are debating exclusively the chimeras > of your imagination, your mind here is like a hall of mirrors, full > of endless reflections of self-made nonsense. > >> I will never understand all this madness. > > Exactly. You are running in circles constantly and nothing for > you makes sense in this domain. That's fine. Not everyone has to > be a physicist. I am not a virtuoso pianist and I can live with > that awareness extremely comfortably and well. > >> Human beings are both idiots and pedants. > > No, it's you. > > Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem > to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it becomes > an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of > convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the > domain one cannot possibly succeed in.. > > -- > Jan It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it. It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations. "We don't want this man to rule over us". Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology, philosophy, politics, scientific theory). Prove to me that a single equation or a single concept that I have given is not mathematically coherent, or prove to me that a single thing that I have said can be experimentally rejected. I have no worries about the battles that may be made against me, since they are already won in advance on the theoretical point (the RR is mathematically absurd from the outset if you use apparent speeds even in a simple Langevin, it therefore has no chance of being true as taught). Similarly, the concept of direct-live is absolutely obvious if we understand that instantaneous information transport is possible in certain geometric conditions, that is to say longitudinal in the source-receiver direction. The future will show that I am right. But we will have to go further, and perhaps artificial intelligence, which has no trilili, will have to explain, which would be an enormous advance in the history of humanity, why man, against himself, always refuses new tables as Friedrich Nietzsche said. The problem is more "we do not want this man to reign over us" rather than "is universal anisochrony physical? or, "is there a relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches by change of reference frame? We do not answer questions, we attack man. This is not scientific. R.H.