Hello everyone!

Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize right
away.

Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
relativistic physics exam.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
Posting in sci.physics.relativity with french logiciel Nemo :
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp>

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 11:08:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize right
> away.
>
imbecile

Le 06/12/2021 à 20:09, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 11:08:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize right
>> away.
>>
> imbecile

On dirait que Dono n'a rien reconnu du tout.

R.H.

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 2:08:02 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize right
> away.
>
> Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
> relativistic physics exam.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Link doenst work.

Le 06/12/2021 à 20:28, rotchm a écrit :
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 2:08:02 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize right
>> away.
>>
>> Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
>> relativistic physics exam.
>>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Link doenst work.

Try to clic on the adress Nemo.

R.H.

On 12/6/21 1:06 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
> relativistic physics exam.
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Like all too many non-physicists, you seem to think that equations stand
alone. They don't -- you MUST define the symbols used in them, in terms
of physically-relevant quantities. While some symbols have common and
generally-accepted meanings, such as "c", the others don't. In
particular, you MUST specify in which coordinates or frame each is defined.

In addition to defining \mu and v, you should also disambiguate the
argument to cos().

Because of the above problems, I cannot ascertain the validity of those
equations. In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).

Tom Roberts

Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 12/6/21 1:06 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
>> relativistic physics exam.
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Like all too many non-physicists, you seem to think that equations stand
> alone. They don't -- you MUST define the symbols used in them, in terms
> of physically-relevant quantities. While some symbols have common and
> generally-accepted meanings, such as "c", the others don't. In
> particular, you MUST specify in which coordinates or frame each is defined.
>
> In addition to defining \mu and v, you should also disambiguate the
> argument to cos().
>
> Because of the above problems, I cannot ascertain the validity of those
> equations. In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
>
> Tom Roberts

You are absolutely right.
These three equations represent what an individual would observe when he
saw passing (for example) in his field of vision an object having a
certain length, a certain chronotropy (the speed at which his watches
beat), and a certain color (wavelength electromagnetic).
The angle µ represents the angle between the direction of the object,
relative to the sight of the observer.
I do not need to explain myself on all this, because these equations are
already known. I'm just putting them together into a simple trilogy that
everyone should know by heart.
I drew you a very simple little drawing that you will immediately
understand.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?IioL6wJvhB6YZSlc-mcE0ewfKPg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?IioL6wJvhB6YZSlc-mcE0ewfKPg@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=IioL6wJvhB6YZSlc-mcE0ewfKPg@jntp>

Richard Hachel wrote:

>> Tom Roberts
>
> You are absolutely right.
> These three equations represent what an individual would observe when he
> saw passing (for example) in his field of vision an object having a
> certain length, a certain chronotropy (the speed at which his watches
> beat), and a certain color (wavelength electromagnetic).
> The angle µ represents the angle between the direction of the object,
> relative to the sight of the observer.

it looks like you dont understand equations, just by looking at them,
without solving. A physicist must understand the equation mechanism
directly. Equations are mechanisms.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> These three equations represent what an individual would observe when he
> saw passing (for example) in his field of vision an object having a
> certain length, a certain chronotropy (the speed at which his watches
> beat), […]

*facepalm*

Once you stop inventing your own, wrong version of special relativity with
its own terminology (that is in conflict with existing terminology), you
might be taken seriously.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chronotropism#English>

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 02:02:59 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:

> Because of the above problems, I cannot ascertain the validity of those
> equations. In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did. Your "you MUST" doesn't work,
poor halfbrain.

Den 06.12.2021 21:28, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 06/12/2021 à 20:28, rotchm a écrit :
>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 2:08:02 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Hello everyone!
>>> Here are three equations that the attentive eye should recognize
>>> right away.
>>> Equation that any student should learn by heart before taking the
>>> relativistic physics exam.
>>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>>
>> Link doenst work.
>
> Try to clic on the adress Nemo.
>
> R.H.

" Web Protection by Bitdefender
Suspicious page blocked for your protection
https://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp

Your connection to this web page is not safe due to
an unmatching security certificate.
This means that the certificate was issued for a different
web address than the one it is being used for, and you run
the risk of exposing your data by accessing this page."

http are unsecure urls (no SSL certificate), and many browsers
(and internet security software) will not open them.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
durations.
In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.
It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists, because I
don't think that's the case.
Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it
and say that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame
of reference". This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly
said.
I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found, and that I
conceive, me, with great clarity of mind.
In this transformation (which is, if we look closely, the Lorentz
transformation at the moment when the two observers cross each other, we
notice that at t '= t = 0 they observe exactly the same universe.
Simply, they each observe a very distorted universe (see the coordinates).
A bit as if they were, like two people, in a galaria of ice. The two
people are at the funfair on the same day, at the same time, in the same
place.
They are observing the exact same local universe at the same time. No one
sees a dog if there is a cat. No one sees what was going on there the day
before. Everyone sees the same thing at the same time.
But the images are positionally very distorted. This is what must first be
understood.
I will then give the general equation (when t '= / = t = / = 0), ie AFTER
the two observers have crossed each other.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?EKLo9dfpk2hbreas3hxvv-EQlEk@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Tom Roberts

R.H.

Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
durations.
In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.
It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists, because I
don't think that's the case.
Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it
and say that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame
of reference". This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly
said.
I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found, and that I
conceive, me, with great clarity of mind.
In this transformation (which is, if we look closely, the Lorentz
transformation at the moment when the two observers cross each other, we
notice that at t '= t = 0 they observe exactly the same universe.
Simply, they each observe a very distorted universe (see the coordinates).
A bit as if they were, like two people, in a galaria of ice. The two
people are at the funfair on the same day, at the same time, in the same
place.
They are observing the exact same local universe at the same time. No one
sees a dog if there is a cat. No one sees what was going on there the day
before. Everyone sees the same thing at the same time.
But the images are positionally very distorted. This is what must first be
understood.
I will then give the general equation (when t '= / = t = / = 0), ie AFTER
the two observers have crossed each other.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MBGxzekhIrpPfW8PB-k8w9Glceo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> Tom Roberts

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=MBGxzekhIrpPfW8PB-k8w9Glceo@jntp>

Le 07/12/2021 à 15:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
>> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
> Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
> contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
> durations.
> In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well understood,
> show that two observers crossing each other and triggering them show t '= t = 0
> observe exactly the same universe.
> It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists, because I don't
> think that's the case.
> Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it and say
> that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference".
> This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly said.
> I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found, and that I conceive,
> me, with great clarity of mind.
> In this transformation (which is, if we look closely, the Lorentz transformation
> at the moment when the two observers cross each other, we notice that at t '= t =
> 0 they observe exactly the same universe.
> Simply, they each observe a very distorted universe (see the coordinates). A bit
> as if they were, like two people, in a galaria of ice. The two people are at the
> funfair on the same day, at the same time, in the same place.
> They are observing the exact same local universe at the same time. No one sees a
> dog if there is a cat. No one sees what was going on there the day before.
> Everyone sees the same thing at the same time.
> But the images are positionally very distorted. This is what must first be
> understood.
> I will then give the general equation (when t '= / = t = / = 0), ie AFTER the
> two observers have crossed each other.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MBGxzekhIrpPfW8PB-k8w9Glceo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> R.H.

We can also write like this (moment of crossing).

On peut aussi écrire comme ça (instant du croisement).

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?XZ_2M54qG2n9cnGDDmE6ArgCLlE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Clic here to see in http code with including images ---> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=XZ_2M54qG2n9cnGDDmE6ArgCLlE@jntp>

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
>> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
> Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
> contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
> durations.
> In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
> understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
> them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.
> It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists, because I
> don't think that's the case.
> Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it
> and say that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame
> of reference". This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly
> said.
> I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found, and that I
> conceive, me, with great clarity of mind.
> In this transformation (which is, if we look closely, the Lorentz
> transformation at the moment when the two observers cross each other, we
> notice that at t '= t = 0 they observe exactly the same universe.
> Simply, they each observe a very distorted universe (see the coordinates).
> A bit as if they were, like two people, in a galaria of ice. The two
> people are at the funfair on the same day, at the same time, in the same
> place.
> They are observing the exact same local universe at the same time. No one
> sees a dog if there is a cat. No one sees what was going on there the day
> before. Everyone sees the same thing at the same time.
> But the images are positionally very distorted. This is what must first be
> understood.
> I will then give the general equation (when t '= / = t = / = 0), ie AFTER
> the two observers have crossed each other.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MBGxzekhIrpPfW8PB-k8w9Glceo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> R.H.
>

What I understand is that you don’t have much idea at all about what
relativity says, despite your self-perceived great clarity of mind.

It’s not an uncommon trait of psychosis to mistranslate an inability to
understand something into understanding it deeply and uniquely, where
everyone else misunderstands it. It’s a way for the ego to protect itself
against the awareness that something is wrong upstairs; in the distorted
view, the ego asserts special insight, even to the point of unique genius.
“I’m not ill. I’m specially blessed. It’s the rest of the world that has to
catch up, poor souls.”

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :

> Because of the above problems, I cannot ascertain the validity of those
> equations. In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).

Dear Tom Roberts,

On the other hand, it is not entirely clear that the world is doing well,
and that it is I who am sick.

> Tom Roberts

R.H.

Le 07/12/2021 à 15:38, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> What I understand is that you don’t have much idea at all about what
> relativity says, despite your self-perceived great clarity of mind.
>
> It’s not an uncommon trait of psychosis to mistranslate an inability to
> understand something into understanding it deeply and uniquely, where
> everyone else misunderstands it. It’s a way for the ego to protect itself
> against the awareness that something is wrong upstairs; in the distorted
> view, the ego asserts special insight, even to the point of unique genius.
> “I’m not ill. I’m specially blessed. It’s the rest of the world that has
> to
> catch up, poor souls.”

You are wrong when you say that I have genius. You are also wrong when you
say that I am fat, drunk, and egocentric.
This is not how I see it.
The question must therefore be returned to you: but why, me, do I see this
good Doctor Richard Hachel like that?
But apparently NOBODY ever asks that question.
We judge by appearance (or sometimes stupidity or jealousy).
It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that I don't need fame (I have it),
that I don't need the money (I have it), that I don't need that I am being
taught (I am above average and that suits me quite well).
My only goal is to understand the things of the world, and especially to
denounce, in all directions, this standard fog of words which touches all
human society, and in particular in theology and in certain sciences which
are neither true, nor completely correct. .
"There is a white horse in this meadow": I understand.
"A round square": I don't understand.
"It is not grace that we are saved": no coherent idea in my mind.
"Socrates is identical". I do not understand.
"The notion of simultaneity is relative by change of observer": I
understand.
"The notion of simultaneity is relative by change of inertial frame of
reference": I only understand it pouic.

When I say I don't understand. Without ceasing, without ceasing, without
ceasing, I must repeat that it is not because I am stupid that I do not
understand.

And that is often very boring.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>
>> Because of the above problems, I cannot ascertain the validity of those
>> equations. In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
>> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
>
> Dear Tom Roberts,
>
> On the other hand, it is not entirely clear that the world is doing well,
> and that it is I who am sick.

Unfortunately, R.H., this is actually abundantly clear. Whether you see
yourself as sick is not particularly a reliable factor. What you may want
to do is to seek a session with a psychiatrist for an evaluation. If he
tells you that you are fine, then you can possibly wonder if the world is
then ill. If he tells you that you are not fine, then you will at least
have clarity about which is sick and which is not.

>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 15:38, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> What I understand is that you don’t have much idea at all about what
>> relativity says, despite your self-perceived great clarity of mind.
>>
>> It’s not an uncommon trait of psychosis to mistranslate an inability to
>> understand something into understanding it deeply and uniquely, where
>> everyone else misunderstands it. It’s a way for the ego to protect itself
>> against the awareness that something is wrong upstairs; in the distorted
>> view, the ego asserts special insight, even to the point of unique genius.
>> “I’m not ill. I’m specially blessed. It’s the rest of the world that has
>> to
>> catch up, poor souls.”
>
> You are wrong when you say that I have genius. You are also wrong when you
> say that I am fat, drunk, and egocentric.

You are wrong when you say I am wrong when I say that you are fat, drunk,
and egocentric. I’ve never said at all that you are fat, drunk, and
egocentric. But perhaps you have heard that from somewhere. Maybe another
voice in your head telling you that.

> This is not how I see it.
> The question must therefore be returned to you: but why, me, do I see this
> good Doctor Richard Hachel like that?
> But apparently NOBODY ever asks that question.
> We judge by appearance (or sometimes stupidity or jealousy).
> It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that I don't need fame (I have it),
> that I don't need the money (I have it), that I don't need that I am being
> taught (I am above average and that suits me quite well).

Well, speaking of fat, drunk, and egocentric.

> My only goal is to understand the things of the world, and especially to
> denounce, in all directions, this standard fog of words which touches all
> human society, and in particular in theology and in certain sciences which
> are neither true, nor completely correct. .
> "There is a white horse in this meadow": I understand.
> "A round square": I don't understand.
> "It is not grace that we are saved": no coherent idea in my mind.
> "Socrates is identical". I do not understand.
> "The notion of simultaneity is relative by change of observer": I
> understand.
> "The notion of simultaneity is relative by change of inertial frame of
> reference": I only understand it pouic.
>
> When I say I don't understand. Without ceasing, without ceasing, without
> ceasing, I must repeat that it is not because I am stupid that I do not
> understand.

There is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant. I fully
understand that you cannot reconcile your self-assessment of being above
average intellectually with being unable to understand some things. It is
sometimes, rather, because you have simply not availed yourself of the
proper instructional materials and learned it. Not everything can be just
sorted out by an intelligent man without the benefit of detailed
instruction and hard work. This would be complicated as well by the burdens
of being fat, drunk, and egocentric.

>
> And that is often very boring.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 15:39:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> >> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
> >> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
> > Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
> > contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
> > durations.
> > In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
> > understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
> > them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.
> > It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists, because I
> > don't think that's the case.
> > Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it
> > and say that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame
> > of reference". This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly
> > said.
> > I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found, and that I
> > conceive, me, with great clarity of mind.
> > In this transformation (which is, if we look closely, the Lorentz
> > transformation at the moment when the two observers cross each other, we
> > notice that at t '= t = 0 they observe exactly the same universe.
> > Simply, they each observe a very distorted universe (see the coordinates).
> > A bit as if they were, like two people, in a galaria of ice. The two
> > people are at the funfair on the same day, at the same time, in the same
> > place.
> > They are observing the exact same local universe at the same time. No one
> > sees a dog if there is a cat. No one sees what was going on there the day
> > before. Everyone sees the same thing at the same time.
> > But the images are positionally very distorted. This is what must first be
> > understood.
> > I will then give the general equation (when t '= / = t = / = 0), ie AFTER
> > the two observers have crossed each other.
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MBGxzekhIrpPfW8PB-k8w9Glceo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> What I understand is that you don’t have much idea at all about what
> relativity says, despite your self-perceived great clarity of mind.
>
> It’s not an uncommon trait of psychosis to mistranslate an inability to
> understand something into understanding it deeply and uniquely,

Sure, Bod, you have a whole bunch of fellow idiots.

Le 07/12/2021 à 16:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> with a psychiatrist for an evaluation.

Like in USSR?

Are you serious?

R.H.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 06.12.2021 21:28, skrev Richard Hachel:
> " Web Protection by Bitdefender
> Suspicious page blocked for your protection
> https://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp
> Your connection to this web page is not safe due to an unmatching
> security certificate.
> This means that the certificate was issued for a different web
> address than the one it is being used for, and you run the risk of
> exposing your data by accessing this page."
> http are unsecure urls (no SSL certificate), and many browsers (and
> internet security software) will not open them.

this is nonsense, all browsers are inherently http. Moreover, if not
crucial, take you data by http, not https. Once they gave you the https
unique key, you are tracked possibly for ever.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 16:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> with a psychiatrist for an evaluation.
>
> Like in USSR?
>
> Are you serious?
>
> R.H.
>

No, like in just about every country in Europe, where psychiatry is a
well-established medical profession.

I see, though, that you have elected not to even consult with someone about
your mental health. No wonder it’s not obvious to you that you are the one
sick and the rest of the world well.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 06/12/2021 à 22:13, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>> In particular, they are not the most fundamental equations of
>> elementary SR (which are those of the Lorentz transform).
> Lorentz transformations are found very easily starting from the TRANVERSAL
> contraction of lengths and distances, and from the TRANSVERSAL dilation of
> durations.

The Lorentz transformation can be formulated in vector form, i.e. where the
velocity has a non-zero y- or z-component. And the correct formulation does
not look like yours:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Vector_transformations>

In particular, your transformation equations are defective because they do
NOT contain the spatial coordinate(s) in the temporal transformation, and
they do not contain the temporal coordinate(s) in the spatial
transformation.

> In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
> understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
> them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.

Wrong.

> It's very important to get this into the minds of relativists,

You have to be strong now: Without realizing it, you assume and accept all
the concepts of special relativity, even those from which the relativity of
simultaneity follows, so you are a "relativist" as well. You are just not
able or willing to realize that the relativity of simultaneity is a
consequence of the assumptions that you accept and adopt.

> because I don't think that's the case.

What you think or believe to be has no bearing on mathematics or observable
reality.

> Their theory, most often, in France as elsewhere, they misunderstand it
> and say that "the concept of simultaneity is relative by change of frame
> of reference".

Nobody but you say that.

> This is totally false, and above all, it is very badly said.

Well, *only you* said it, so blame yourself.

The actual statement is that simultaneity is relative in that, events that
are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another
frame of reference if the frames are in relative motion to each other.
That is

This is very easily shown with the Lorentz transformation for motion of the
primed frame at speed v parallel to the x-axis (of the unprimed frame):

t' = γ (t − v/c² x)

For two events

e₁ ≔ (t₁, x₁, y₁, z₁) ≡ (t₁', x₁', y₁', z₁')
e₂ ≔ (t₂, x₂, y₂, z₂) ≡ (t₂', x₂', y₂', z₂')

we have

t₁' = γ (t₁ − v/c² x₁)
t₂' = γ (t₂ − v/c² x₂),

and therefore

t₂' − t₁' = γ (t₂ − v/c² x₂) − γ (t₁ − v/c² x₁)
= γ [t₂ − v/c² x₂ − (t₁ − v/c² x₁)]
= γ [t₂ − v/c² x₂ − t₁ + v/c² x₁]
= γ [t₂ − t₁ − v/c² x₂ + v/c² x₁]
= γ [(t₂ − t₁) − v/c² (x₂ − x₁)].

Introducing the temporal differences

Δt' ≔ t₂' − t₁'
Δt ≔ t₂ − t₁

and the spatial difference

Δx ≔ x₂ − x₁,

we can write
Δt' = γ (Δt − v/c² Δx).

Now let the events e₁ and e₂ be simultaneous in the unprimed frame, i.e.

Δt = 0.

Then we have

Δt' = γ (0 − v/c² Δx) = −γ v/c² Δx.

We know that v ≠ 0 and (therefore) γ ≥ 1. This means that if the events are
spatially separated, i.e. Δx ≠ 0, then Δt' ≠ 0. But that means that in this
case the events e₁ and e₂, which are simultaneous in the unprimed frame, are
NOT simultaneous in the primed frame.

More precisely, if we assume that

Δx = x₂ − x₁ > 0 ⇔ x₂ > x₁

then

Δt' = t₂' − t₁' < 0 ⇔ t₂' < t₁'

This means that *in the primed frame*, event e₂ happens *before* event e₁.
Again, they are NOT simultaneous *there*.

A Minkowski diagram where the x' and t' coordinates are the result of the
Lorentz transformation of the x and t coordinates, respectively, for some
speed of the primed frame relative the unprimed frame, shows this
graphically:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity.svg>

> I replace here the transformations of Lorentz that I found,

Your transformation equations are *wrong*.

PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

>> In this regard, I point out that the Lorentz transformations, well
>> understood, show that two observers crossing each other and triggering
>> them show t '= t = 0 observe exactly the same universe.
>
> Wrong.

No.

YOU, you say that is wrong.

Two or more observers crossing at the same place, at the same time t "= t
'= t = 0
have exactly the same vision of ALL the universe.
They all observe the same universe live.
There is no Andromeda paradox.
It is a falsehood invented by people who have found the Lorentz
transformations well, but who do not understand them and apply them
poorly.
I have the same equations as Poincaré, but I interpret them differently
and much more clearly.
I understand with great clarity what will be the vision of the observers
at this moment. The equations, I gave them for a long time.
I am sorry to see that they are believed to be false.

R.H.