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

Not only.
I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
misunderstood.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.

Richard, you do not even understand your own mental condition with great
clarity. It’s not very likely that you understand relativity with any
clarity. Please get help. Plenty of good psychiatrists where you are.

> The equations, I gave them for a long time.
> I am sorry to see that they are believed to be false.
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> Not only.
> I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
> misunderstood.
>
> R.H.
>

First note back to you, Richard. There is no such thing as a “relativist”.
Just like there is no such thing as a Maxwellist.

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

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:17:28 PM UTC-3, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

1) Nice way to write equations. I bet that you are a teacher or professor, and a good one.

2) I've left only that part and your comment, because for me it represent the heart of the illusion of relativity.

Mathematically speaking, it's a correct derivation. It was Voigt, 17 years before Einstein's relativity, who invented
such term for "local time". By then, he was thinking about sound and simultaneity was easy to understand when
comparing "perceptual" times for two witness (one at the train station and the other on the train, moving at v speed
from the station) in the case that a loud sound is heard AT the train station. In this case, c = w, the speed of sound.

The mechanical clocks of both witness mark EXACTLY the same time, with 1 sec. resolution. But w = 331 m/sec
causes a delay of 1 second EVERY 331 meters that the moving witness moves apart from the train station. For a
noise loud enough, at 1 Km from the station, the moving witness start HEARING the sound, BUT his clock marks
(example) 11:02:47 AM, EXACTLY the same time that the witness at the station register, providing that both
witnesses synchronized their mechanical clocks at time ZERO, before the train departs.

3 seconds is a lot of time, considering delays when light is involved. If the sound came from a powerful firework,
light would have reached the observer about 1 million times faster, or in about 3 microseconds.

Now one of the paradox of Einstein's relativity. If the moving witness is BLIND, for him something happened NOW,
which is, technically, something that happened 3 seconds in the past, but this witness CAN'T KNOW.

If the moving witness is DEAF, for him something happened NOW, which is, technically, something that happened
3 microseconds in the past, but this witness CAN'T KNOW. And if he could, he wouldn't have given a rat's ass for
the difference, because 3 microseconds is an amount of time that humans DON'T REGISTER.

Now, SIMULTANEITY is a "perceptual" concept that any human can understand, but 99.9999% of the time they don't care
and only relate simultaneous events in different parts of the world just by using the concept of UTC, if they are going
to use clocks to mark the time.

That the definition of simultaneity depend, on SR, on the speed of light is (IMHO) is arbitrary and philosophical.

It's known, for the last 400 years, that the speed of light is finite and very high. Astronomers, by the XVII century, were well aware
of such things to observe, for instance, the time that Sun raises or that one Jupiter's moon is seen on their telescopes.

But the CONCEPT of NOW and THEN is a matter of philosophical discussions, not scientific ones. For science (IMHO) NOW
is THEN, if the scientist is aware of delays involved in the phenomenon.

Relativity of simultaneity should be placed on the realm of weird things, because simultaneity is an ABSOLUTE CONCEPT.

But, 110 years of SR has brought some physics to play the game of defining the gender of angels: entertaining but useless discussions.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> 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.

What you are saying is rather trivially wrong because it does not matter
where the observers are. The position of an observer does not appear in the
Lorentz transformation. The only thing that matters is their motion
relative to each other, specifically their relative velocities v⃗ and −v⃗.
> 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.

No, they do not: In that case, events that are simultaneous for one observer
are still not simultaneous for the other, as I have just proved to you (note
that it does not matter where the observers are as long as the events are
spatially separated and therefore Δx ≠ 0 or, in vector form, Δr⃗ ≠ 0⃗).

Can’t you do highschool-level algebra?

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> Not only.
> I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
> misunderstood.

You have delusions about that instead.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/12/2021 à 16:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> with a psychiatrist for an evaluation.
>
> Like in USSR?

Ouch.

There are psychologists and psychiatrists outside the former USSR.
Always have been. A lot.

And no, you will not be stringed to a bed, medicated, and treated with
electro-shocks. Those days are long over. However, I am not speaking
from first-hand experience.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

> 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*.

It is all very pretty.

It looks mathematically correct, but it is physically wrong.

The Lorentz transformations are only valid for the moment of the crossing
O and O '.

They give with remarkable precision the position and time of occurrence
of the events that the two observers O and O 'observe in R and in R' at
that moment.

We can then transpose ALL the universe in R to the whole universe in R '.

It's very beautiful, very simple, and a lot of fun at the same time.

At this moment we have:

t'=t=0

x x'= g (x + To.v)
y y'= y
z z'= z
To To'= g (To − x.v/c²)

t t'=t=0

v=0.8c

Application numérique E(R)=(x,y,z,To,t)=(12,9,0,-15,0)
E(R')=(x',y',z',To',t')=(40,9,0,-41,0)

And so on for all possible and imaginable events.

It is disconcertingly easy.

IF you don't have the same concepts, or the same results as me, then YOU
are wrong,
and your view of RR is wrong.

This is a first thing.

Already, we see the beauty, the coherence and the simplicity of the
relativistic transformation.

It is the whole universe, for example from a terrestrial observer
transposed to an observer crossing in the solar system and who, for his
part, observes the universe through his window.

Then we have to go further. We have to ask ourselves what will become of
the observed coordinates when time passes, for the terrestrial observer,
and for the observer in the rocket.

We then have the following more general transformations.

x x'= g [x - v.(To+t)]
y y'= y
z z'= z
To To'= g [(To+t) − x.v/c²]

t t'= sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c + To'

Application numérique: t=6
E2(R)=(x,y,z,To,t)=(12, 9, 0, -9, 6)
E2(R')=(x',y',z',To',t')=(32, 9, 0, -31, 2.2415)

If you can't get the same results as easily as I do, little something is
wrong with your SR.

In mine, I never have any errors, nor any paradox, and the equations are
simple and without paradoxes.

The theory of relavivity is true, nice and logic.

Try and see.

> PointedEars

R.H.

Le 07/12/2021 à 22:09, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Richard, you do not even understand your own mental condition with great
> clarity. It’s not very likely that you understand relativity with any
> clarity. Please get help. Plenty of good psychiatrists where you are.
>
>> The equations, I gave them for a long time.
>> I am sorry to see that they are believed to be false.
>>
>>
>> R.H.
>>

Try to answer the little exercise I just gave.

Either you can, or you can't.

If you can't, I don't see the reason you're talking to me.

If you can, and if your results are the same as mine, I don't see why you
criticize them at least numerically.

If you can, but your results are different from mine, then I understand
why YOUR SR is so difficult to understand, to apply, while mine is so
simple, clear and logical. You cannot find two different results for the
same problem, and it cannot be the one who understands things with the
most clarity and the most logic who is wrong. My coordinates are
remarkably precise.

R.H.

Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

> No, they do not: In that case, events that are simultaneous for one observer
> are still not simultaneous for the other, as I have just proved to you

All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R, are
observed at the same time by the observer O 'in R'.
At the time of their crossing, of course.
Then things collide and I gave the correct transformations.
If you say the opposite, it is because you did not understand what I am
saying from the beginning. So we are talking into the wind.

> PointedEars

R.H.

Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not only.
>> I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
>> misunderstood.
>
> You have delusions about that instead.

absolutely not

New evidence:
I have no problem describing a "Langevin" in apparent speed.
Relativists can't, and I'm driving them all crazy.
The question is "but what is going on?"
Try it yourself.
v = 0.8c,
d = 12ly
To = 30y
To '= 18y
vapp '= 4c
vapp "= 0.4444c
Me, I succeed without any difficulty. It's simple, clear, easy.
All the relativists in the world are incapable of dealing with this
without going crazy.
What's going on?
WHAT'S happens?
The crazy, is me? ? ? Yes? ? ? LOL.

Stop, please.

Stop.

>
>
> PointedEars

R.H.

Le 07/12/2021 à 22:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Ouch.
>
> There are psychologists and psychiatrists outside the former USSR.
> Always have been. A lot.
>
> And no, you will not be stringed to a bed, medicated, and treated with
> electro-shocks. Those days are long over. However, I am not speaking
> from first-hand experience.

You don't?
Well I am speaking from first hand experience.
All my life I have looked after people.
Young people, old people, children, infants, women, men, people of all
nationalities, of all faiths, of all backgrounds.
Those who could not afford, I have always treated them for free. I never
asked for a dime more than what was legally owed to me.
For psychiatric cases,
I prescribed psychotropic drugs, neuroleptics, anxiolytics, psychiatric
consultations.
I sometimes had to ask for temporary internships for urgent care.
I do not think, one day, to have harmed anyone.
So don't talk to me about medicine or therapy. Vosu is not a doctor. I
never did any unnecessary treatment or hospitalization, nor did I think I
really needed it for myself.
Do not listen to the crap said about me on the forums by people who are
really sick, and their pathology is easy to classify. Everyone will be
better off for it.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:09, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Richard, you do not even understand your own mental condition with great
>> clarity. It’s not very likely that you understand relativity with any
>> clarity. Please get help. Plenty of good psychiatrists where you are.
>>
>>> The equations, I gave them for a long time.
>>> I am sorry to see that they are believed to be false.
>>>
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>
> Try to answer the little exercise I just gave.
>
> Either you can, or you can't.
>
> If you can't, I don't see the reason you're talking to me.
>
> If you can, and if your results are the same as mine, I don't see why you
> criticize them at least numerically.
>
> If you can, but your results are different from mine, then I understand
> why YOUR SR is so difficult to understand, to apply, while mine is so
> simple, clear and logical. You cannot find two different results for the
> same problem, and it cannot be the one who understands things with the
> most clarity and the most logic who is wrong. My coordinates are
> remarkably precise.
>

I’m sorry, Richard, but correctness of results has nothing to do with
whether you can make sense of them or not.

And I try to make it a point not to engage in a rational argument with an
irrational person. You do not have all your wits about you, and it is
foolish to try to engage in a contest of wits without them.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Ouch.
>>
>> There are psychologists and psychiatrists outside the former USSR.
>> Always have been. A lot.
>>
>> And no, you will not be stringed to a bed, medicated, and treated with
>> electro-shocks. Those days are long over. However, I am not speaking
>> from first-hand experience.
>
> You don't?
> Well I am speaking from first hand experience.
> All my life I have looked after people.
> Young people, old people, children, infants, women, men, people of all
> nationalities, of all faiths, of all backgrounds.
> Those who could not afford, I have always treated them for free. I never
> asked for a dime more than what was legally owed to me.
> For psychiatric cases,
> I prescribed psychotropic drugs, neuroleptics, anxiolytics, psychiatric
> consultations.
> I sometimes had to ask for temporary internships for urgent care.
> I do not think, one day, to have harmed anyone.
> So don't talk to me about medicine or therapy. Vosu is not a doctor. I
> never did any unnecessary treatment or hospitalization, nor did I think I
> really needed it for myself.
> Do not listen to the crap said about me on the forums by people who are
> really sick, and their pathology is easy to classify. Everyone will be
> better off for it.
>
> Doctor Richard Hachel.
>

Richard, please. You are not well. It is time for you to entrust yourself
to someone who is in better position to care for your health.

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

Le 07/12/2021 à 23:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard, please. You are not well. It is time for you to entrust yourself
> to someone who is in better position to care for your health.

LOL.

R.H.

Richard 'Lengrand' Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/12/2021 à 23:49, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard, please. You are not well. It is time for you to entrust yourself
>> to someone who is in better position to care for your health.
>
> LOL.

Même quelqu'un doué d'aussi peu de discernement que Jacques Lavau juge
aussi, rappelle-toi Lengrand, que tu es bon pour le cabanon et les
manches nouées par devant.

Argument faible, certes, mais inquiétant. Odd et Michael, ici, arrivent
à la même conclusion, sans préjugé préalable. As they say, it should
ring a bell. It won't, you're a demented kook.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> No, they do not: In that case, events that are simultaneous for one
>> observer are still not simultaneous for the other, as I have just proved
>> to you
>
> All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R, are
> observed at the same time by the observer [O' in R'].

No.

> At the time of their crossing, of course.

No, never, so not even then.

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not only.
>>> I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
>>> misunderstood.
>>
>> You have delusions about that instead.
>
> absolutely not

Well, so far you have claimed only nonsense.
> New evidence:
> I have no problem describing a "Langevin" in apparent speed.

What do you mean by “a "Langevin"”?

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 08/12/2021 à 00:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> No, they do not: In that case, events that are simultaneous for one
>>> observer are still not simultaneous for the other, as I have just proved
>>> to you
>>
>> All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R, are
>> observed at the same time by the observer [O' in R'].
>
> No.

>> At the time of their crossing, of course.
>
> No, never, so not even then.

All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R,
are observed at the same time by the observer [O' in R'].

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?O7BKWHDiy0tii6DPbfeKktJqypg@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> PointedEars

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=O7BKWHDiy0tii6DPbfeKktJqypg@jntp>

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:23:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz emitted a brainfart:
>
> because simultaneity is an ABSOLUTE CONCEPT.

....only for hardened cranks. Like Richard Hertz.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> For psychiatric cases, I prescribed psychotropic drugs, neuroleptics,
> anxiolytics, psychiatric consultations.

Given your actions and reactions, I find it more likely that you received
them.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 08/12/2021 à 00:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>>> No, they do not: In that case, events that are simultaneous for one
>>>> observer are still not simultaneous for the other, as I have just
>>>> proved to you
>>>
>>> All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R, are
>>> observed at the same time by the observer [O' in R'].
>> No.
>>
>>> At the time of their crossing, of course.
>> No, never, so not even then.
>
> All the events of the universe observed by an observer O in R,
> are observed at the same time by the observer [O' in R'].

By repeating false statements (over and over again)
they do not become more true. [psf 4.18]
That’s 4 (additional) points for you on the Crackpot Index¹,
considering points 1, 2, 4, and 5 there.

PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/12/2021 à 22:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 07/12/2021 à 21:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not only.
>>> I also explain things that relativists do not explain or have
>>> misunderstood.
>>
>> You have delusions about that instead.
>
> absolutely not
>
> New evidence:
> I have no problem describing a "Langevin" in apparent speed.
> Relativists can't, and I'm driving them all crazy.
> The question is "but what is going on?"
> Try it yourself.
> v = 0.8c,
> d = 12ly
> To = 30y
> To '= 18y
> vapp '= 4c
> vapp "= 0.4444c
> Me, I succeed without any difficulty.

Self-delusion.

> It's simple, clear, easy.
> All the relativists in the world are incapable of dealing with this
> without going crazy.
> What's going on?
> WHAT'S happens?
> The crazy, is me? ? ? Yes? ? ? LOL.

As I was curious, I googled your name and found

<http://hachel.chez-alice.fr/rela3.htm>

which is undoubtedly a part of your Web site and authored by you. There you
claim, translated to English:

| Let us now assume that the traveler changes his speed during the trip.
| Instead of traveling at Vo = 0.6c in the terrestrial frame of reference
| (i.e. a real speed of Vr = 0.75c), this traveler,
| emboldened by efficient technology and the impeccable maintenance of the
| nuclear engines during the outward journey,
| decides to force his speed up to 0.8c on the way back ...
| That is to say a real speed Vr = 1.333333c

This is rather ridiculously wrong. The traveler has covered more distance
in that time (no matter the frame of reference; see below), so their average
speed (and that is all you can mean there) cannot possibly be larger than
their initial speed, and certainly not larger than c.

As for the latter, that follows from the Lorentz transformation. The result
is (as I have derived here ad nauseam, so I will not do it again now):

u(v, u') = (v + u')/(1 + v u'/c²).

As for the former, your wrong number maybe comes from a logical fallacy that
you are definitely committing there: Instead of stating a proper distance as
a *premise*, and then calculating the time it takes to traverse it with a
given speed, you are claiming that the distance can be calculated as a
*consequence* of the speed.

But that is only so in a frame of reference where origin and destination are
at rest, which I will call “unprimed frame” for brevity here. While the
traveler is in the primed frame that is moving relative to the unprimed
frame at speed v.

From the experimentally confirmed Lorentz transformation we have

Δt' = γ (Δt − v/c² Δx)
⇔ Δt = Δt'/γ + v/c² Δx

Δx' = γ (Δx − v Δt)
= γ (Δx − v [Δt'/γ + v/c² Δx]).

If we then consider that the traveler considers the distance to the
destination as the spatial difference between the destination and the origin
*at the same time* (that is how spatial distance is defined), then we must
set Δt' = 0, and

Δx' = γ (Δx − v²/c² Δx)
= Δx γ (1 − v²/c²)
= Δx γ/γ²
= Δx/γ.

This means that the distance to the destination is shorter for the traveler
the faster their relative speed relative to origin or destination, and

[A textbook example: If you have a fast enough starship (that is not a
warp ship, so all within the bounds of special relativity), you can
reach the center of the Milky Way, ≈ 37'000 ly away from here, within a
human lifetime (say 70 years) while traveling at *subluminal* speeds
(v ≈ < c). The only problem is that for everybody not traveling with
you it will take more than 37'000 years there and back, so when you
come back, you have to rely on that the knowledge of your journey was
preserved.]

I do not see any indication that you are considering that. Instead you
appear to be confusing yourself by introducing a motion of the origin
(Earth) relative to the destination. In the original thought experiment,
there is no such motion, and even that aside, an earthbound observer
trivially is *at rest* relative to Earth at all times.

And BTW, it is already beginner’s exercise to calculate the elapsed proper
times and solve the “twin paradox”. So your claim that only you could do it
(with your nonsensical calculations) is ridiculous, and another example of
your delusions of grandeur.

> Stop, please.
>
> Stop.

You’re acting like a kid holding hands on their ears because they cannot
bear the truth.

But that does not make the truth go away: You have no clue what you are
talking about, and your calculations are all wrong (even though the result
may be correct; I have not bothered to check – anyone can make good
guesses).

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> [A textbook example: If you have a fast enough starship (that is not a
> warp ship, so all within the bounds of special relativity), you can
> reach the center of the Milky Way, ≈ 37'000 ly away from here, within
> a human lifetime (say 70 years) while traveling at *subluminal*
> speeds
> (v ≈ < c). The only problem is that for everybody not traveling with
> you it will take more than 37'000 years there and back, so when you
> come back, you have to rely on that the knowledge of your journey was
> preserved.]

Minor correction: The distance from here to Sgr A* is ≈ 26'700 ly
≈ 27'000 ly.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> 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:
>>>>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Y2ddlxolANWaWw9twg3okrIBrzg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>>>
>>>
>>> Link doenst work.
>>
>> Try to clic on the adress Nemo.
>
>
> " 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.

Only your broken browser (probably broken by your broken “Web Protection by
Bitdefender”, the so-called “internet security software”, among actual
Internet security experts better known as “snake oil”) does not.

As I have already explained to you before. You are only embarrassing
yourself further. Why?

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)