On 11-Dec-21 12:33 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:24, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> On 11-Dec-21 12:20 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:11, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>>> On 11-Dec-21 12:05 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 01:25, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>>>>> As Odd Bodkin has observed, determining the speed of the
>>>>>> spacecraft relative to Earth is trivial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you think we're interested?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are interested because you love science, and great ideas like
>>>>> mine can only interest you.
>>>>
>>>> It's comments like that that make it clear that you're outright
>>>> delusional.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, treatment is available.
>>>
>>> Give me another five minutes, and answer my last quick question about
>>> the apparent lengths of the rocket.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Because it is extremely important for the correct understanding of the
> theory of relativity.

So we're back to your delusions of grandeur then.

Sylvia

Le 11/12/2021 à 02:42, Sylvia Else a écrit :

> So we're back to your delusions of grandeur then.
>
> Sylvia

No no no. I don't care about myself, it doesn't matter.
Above all, don't be fooled by appearance.
What is important is to understand what I am saying and why I am saying
it.
Afterwards, we can always judge.
But first you have to understand what the other is saying.
At the moment, I have the impression that I am speaking to you in Chinese.
You can't say "We don't understand what you're saying" and "you're telling
us bullshit" at the same time.
It is contradictory.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> This VIRTUAL observer for which the speed of light is instantaneous,
>>> will see the terrestrial beep start, its arrival on the two mirrors, and
>>> the perception of all this by him in the same simultaneity.
>>> Now, this observer knows that, for him, the escape speed of light is
>>> 0.5c. when she returns (the return departures are obviously simultaneous
>>> for him)
>>> He also knows that t = 800 ns.
>>> The length of the rocket is therefore for him the = 0.5.3.10 ^ 8 * 80.10
>>> ^ -8 = 120m.
>>
>> Completely wrong.
>>
>>> We know that l '= l.sqrt [(1 + v / c) / (1-v / c)] for an observer
>>> placed in front of an object (cosµ = -1).
>>> Hence v = 5 / 13c.
>>> v ~ 0.3846c
>
> No, this is not wrong.

True; it’s such a nonsense, it’s not even wrong.

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 11-Dec-21 12:52 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:42, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>
>> So we're back to your delusions of grandeur then.
>>
>> Sylvia
>
> No no no. I don't care about myself, it doesn't matter.
> Above all, don't be fooled by appearance.
> What is important is to understand what I am saying and why I am saying it.
> Afterwards, we can always judge.
> But first you have to understand what the other is saying.
> At the moment, I have the impression that I am speaking to you in Chinese.
> You can't say "We don't understand what you're saying" and "you're
> telling us bullshit" at the same time.
> It is contradictory.
>
> R.H.

Bottom line is we have the Lorentz Transform. Unless there are
fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
transform is internally consistent.

So all thought experiments intended to show that special relativity is
wrong boil down to attempts to show that geometry is inconsistent, which
means they're futile.

It also means we know such attempts are wrong without needing to waste
time on the details. Sometimes the details get examined in this forum,
when people feel like doing it, but an absence of such examination
doesn't mean the person raising the thought experiment has a point. It
just means people have better things to do with their time.

None of this means that we know that special relativity is a correct
description of the universe, and indeed we know that, at the very least,
it needs the corrections that general relativity provides.

But it does mean that any demonstration that special relativity is
incorrect has to be based on actual experiments, not thought experiments.

Persistence with thought experiments despite this is, at the very least,
evidence of an enduring lack of understanding of basic mathematics.

A belief, by someone who does that, that they have something to offer
the science community, is a delusion.

Sylvia.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:42, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> So we're back to your delusions of grandeur then.
>
> No no no. I don't care about myself, it doesn't matter.
> Above all, don't be fooled by appearance.

… said the fraud to their potential victim.

> What is important is to understand what I am saying and why I am saying
> it.

What you are saying is confused nonsense, and you are saying it because
you have no clue, but are craving attention.

That was easy.

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Unless there are
> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> transform is internally consistent.

Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
disproved, far wider than just geometry.

Everything you said is true. All attempts to show an inconsistency in SR
via thought experiments are doomed -- anyone who attempts that has no
concept of what is involved in the foundations of mathematics.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > Unless there are
> > fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> > transform is internally consistent.
> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
> disproved, far wider than just geometry.

As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
what matters is that the final conclusion is right.

On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Unless there are
>>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
>>> transform is internally consistent.
>> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
>> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
>> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
>> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
>
> As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
> A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
> what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
>

It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.

But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
or the other.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 12:43:08 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> Unless there are
> >>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> >>> transform is internally consistent.
> >> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
> >> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
> >> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
> >> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
> >
> > As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
> > A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
> > what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
> >
> It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.

And don't You see any flaw in the logic "Minkowski's
geometry is proven to be consistent so SR must
be consistent"? Are they the same? Godel, BTW,
has proven that the easiest theories to prove
consistent are the inconsistent ones.

> But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
> or the other.

So, why did Your guru perform them?
I will tell You. A neural network is programmable, and
it is programmed by examples. The twins from the
gedanken are an example of such example. That's
what gedankens are for - they're the examples necessary
to program neural networks. Samely as the tales
of Jesus in a gospel.

Of course, purists would rather say "teach" instead
"program" when talking about NN, but I'm not one.

extreme uneducated braindead troll, rotchm, wrote:

> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:59:05 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The question is asked in the first post of the thread.
>> We ask to find the speed of the rocket in space.
>> A surfer tried it, but he's having problems with his calculator.
>> l = 80 (at rest)
>> t = 0.80µs
>
> State the scenario & question clearly & w/o word salad. One small
> paragraph.

shut up you braindead uneducated troll.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 01:55, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 00:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Let’s see if you can calculate anything. Not just a claim, but a result. A
>>>> number in meters.
>>>
>>> I like it when people talk to me like that. It is concrete, direct,
>>> powerful.
>>> It's nice.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> And still no results. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
>
> I'm not done with my little relativistic problem.
> You still have to answer the question asked about the apparent lengths of
> the rocket observed in front of and behind it.
> Just a small measure (I have already half answered in the thread for that
> matter). Next, I'm going to ask you a question of vital interest to show
> you why I stoop to playing the monkey with you and why I have no other
> choice.

And still no results from you.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 02:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 00:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Let’s see if you can calculate anything. Not just a claim, but a result. A
>>>> number in meters.
>>>
>>> In the relativistic problem that I gave, we have a rocket which measures
>>> 80 meters at rest in the terrestrial frame of reference. We said that an
>>> electromagnetic signal from the earth was sent and then returned by two
>>> kinds of electromagnetic mirrors, one placed at the front, the other at
>>> the rear of the rocket, and that the difference received by the
>>> terrestrial detector was 0.80µs.
>>>
>>> A friendly surfer then gave the speed of the rocket.
>>> V = 0.385c
>>>
>>> He asks me how I get this result.
>>>
>>> Well.
>>>
>>> I don't do the same, but obviously I get the same result.
>>> In my way of seeing things, I first calculate the apparent length of the
>>> rocket for a VIRTUAL observer placed in the terrestrial inertial frame of
>>> reference, but placed not behind the rocket, but in front of the rocket,
>>> and who sees it arriving towards him .
>>> This VIRTUAL observer for which the speed of light is instantaneous, will
>>> see the terrestrial beep start, its arrival on the two mirrors, and the
>>> perception of all this by him in the same simultaneity.
>>> Now, this observer knows that, for him, the escape speed of light is 0.5c.
>>> when she returns (the return departures are obviously simultaneous for
>>> him)
>>> He also knows that t = 800 ns.
>>> The length of the rocket is therefore for him the = 0.5.3.10 ^ 8 * 80.10 ^
>>> -8 = 120m.
>>
>> Completely wrong.
>>
>>> We know that l '= l.sqrt [(1 + v / c) / (1-v / c)] for an observer placed
>>> in front of an object (cosµ = -1).
>>> Hence v = 5 / 13c.
>>> v ~ 0.3846c
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>
> No, this is not wrong.

Yes it is wrong. You got one number numerically correct by accident, using
an incorrect method, and you got two numbers wrong. Gamma is not 1.5, and
the length of the rocket in the earth frame or in Jupiter’s frame is not
120 meters.

> Obviously this is not wrong.
> It is you who do not understand what I am writing.

I understand very well what you are writing, and I can see very well that
you are incorrect. You have a hard time believing that you can be wrong,
and so you mistakenly assume that if someone finds fault with something you
say, he must not be understanding you. No sir, you are understood, and you
are also wrong.

> And there, if you do not make any effort, we are very badly for the rest.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 01:55, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 00:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Let’s see if you can calculate anything. Not just a claim, but a result. A
>>>>> number in meters.
>>>>
>>>> I like it when people talk to me like that. It is concrete, direct,
>>>> powerful.
>>>> It's nice.
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And still no results. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
>>
>> I'm not done with my little relativistic problem.
>> You still have to answer the question asked about the apparent lengths of
>> the rocket observed in front of and behind it.
>> Just a small measure (I have already half answered in the thread for that
>> matter). Next, I'm going to ask you a question of vital interest to show
>> you why I stoop to playing the monkey with you and why I have no other
>> choice.
>
> And still no results from you.
>
>
>>
>> R.H.
>>

No, no, no, we must not lie.
Neither insult nor lie.
The results, I gave them like you, and, moreover, we have the same.
For example you calculated in a correct way (different from mine but quite
correct) that the rocket had a speed v = 0.384c.
I then asked you what was the length of this rocket for the terrestrial
observer A, placed behind it, and who sees it fleeing, and for the
observer B placed in the terrestrial inertial reference frame but in front
of the rocket, and who sees it coming on top of him.
You didn't answer, but that's okay because, basically, I know very well
that you can do it.
I even add a third observer C, still inertial to the terrestrial frame of
reference, but placed far and perpendicular to the axis followed by the
rocket.
Here are the three lengths of the 80-meter rocket at rest.
For A: 53.33m
For B: 120m
For C: 73.85m
It is very important to understand this. These lengths that the
relativisers admit, are considered as only APPARENT and due, in part, to
the longitudinal Doppler effect. Now, and this is very important to
understand, with me (Hachel), it is NOT apparent. This is the reality of
things.
Once this is understood (with Hachel, it is the REALITY of things, and not
just an apparent phenomenon due to the speed limit of light, something
that does not exist with me), we will then confuse all physicists world by
telling them: "Do you understand what I'm talking about?"
They'll say "Yes, that's obvious, but what's the point?"
Sylvia Else will say the same thing.
That's where the point of reasoning is, and the thing relativists don't
understand: there is covariance. This means (it confuses everyone but it
is however what happens) that in the frame of reference of the rocket, the
same equations apply. The rocket ground distance is NOT
d'=d/sqrt(1-v²/c²) but d'= d.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]
If we don't understand that, we haven't understood anything about SR, and,
sad to say, but for decades I have been trying to explain it (which
moreover resolves the Langevin without passing by time-gaps or paradoxes)
I believe that this is one of the most difficult things to fit into a
human mind other than mine. I don't know who's to blame. Maybe me. Maybe
I'm doing the wrong thing to explain things. Or maybe it bothers my reader
to question himself.

R.H.

Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Gamma is not 1.5

? ? ?

Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333

That's not what I'm talking about.
In the example I give:
sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5

It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
of the rocket.

v=(5/13)c

R.H.

On 11-Dec-21 11:33 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 12:43:08 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> Unless there are
>>>>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
>>>>> transform is internally consistent.
>>>> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
>>>> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
>>>> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
>>>> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
>>>
>>> As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
>>> A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
>>> what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
>>>
>> It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.
>
> And don't You see any flaw in the logic "Minkowski's
> geometry is proven to be consistent so SR must
> be consistent"? Are they the same? Godel, BTW,
> has proven that the easiest theories to prove
> consistent are the inconsistent ones.

If an inconsistency were to be found in SR, then it would mean that
Minkowski space is inconsistent, which in turn would mean
inconsistencies exist in geometry and other parts of mathematics.

While mathematics cannot be proven to be consistent, it would be
surprising indeed if our first evidence of inconsistency in math were to
result from naive attacks on special relativity whose math is very simple.

>
>
>> But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
>> or the other.
>
>
> So, why did Your guru perform them?
> I will tell You. A neural network is programmable, and
> it is programmed by examples. The twins from the
> gedanken are an example of such example. That's
> what gedankens are for - they're the examples necessary
> to program neural networks. Samely as the tales
> of Jesus in a gospel.
>
> Of course, purists would rather say "teach" instead
> "program" when talking about NN, but I'm not one.
>

Thought experiments are useful for exploring the consequences of a
theory, and for explaining derivations.

Sylvia.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Gamma is not 1.5
>
> ? ? ?
>
> Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333

Y s that is correct.

>
> That's not what I'm talking about.
> In the example I give:
> sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5
>
> It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
> of the rocket.

No, that is incorrect.

>
> v=(5/13)c
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 00:22:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11-Dec-21 11:33 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 12:43:08 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>> Unless there are
> >>>>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> >>>>> transform is internally consistent.
> >>>> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
> >>>> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
> >>>> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
> >>>> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
> >>>
> >>> As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
> >>> A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
> >>> what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
> >>>
> >> It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.
> >
> > And don't You see any flaw in the logic "Minkowski's
> > geometry is proven to be consistent so SR must
> > be consistent"? Are they the same? Godel, BTW,
> > has proven that the easiest theories to prove
> > consistent are the inconsistent ones.
> If an inconsistency were to be found in SR, then it would mean that
> Minkowski space is inconsistent

How would it mean? Are they the same? Does Minkowski's
"axioms" include "alll laws of physics must be the same
in any frame", for instance?

> >> But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
> >> or the other.
> >
> >
> > So, why did Your guru perform them?
> > I will tell You. A neural network is programmable, and
> > it is programmed by examples. The twins from the
> > gedanken are an example of such example. That's
> > what gedankens are for - they're the examples necessary
> > to program neural networks. Samely as the tales
> > of Jesus in a gospel.
> >
> > Of course, purists would rather say "teach" instead
> > "program" when talking about NN, but I'm not one.
> >
> Thought experiments are useful for

for programming You to act, observe, measure
and claim the way guru wants.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> Unless there are
> >>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> >>> transform is internally consistent.
> >> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
> >> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
> >> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
> >> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
> >
> > As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
> > A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
> > what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
> >
>
> It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.
>
> But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
> or the other.

Thought experiments can provide information
about the self consistency of a theory.
But all that has been hammered out more than a hundred years ago,
to everybody's satisfaction. (only some crackpots excepted)

Jan

On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 11:41:57 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 11-Dec-21 7:27 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 06:59:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> On 12/10/21 8:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>> Unless there are
> > >>> fundamental problems with the mathematics of geometry, the Lorentz
> > >>> transform is internally consistent.
> > >> Minkowski geometry has been proven to be as consistent as is Euclidean
> > >> geometry, and also as consistent as is real analysis. So if an internal
> > >> inconsistency is found in SR, large swaths of mathematics would be
> > >> disproved, far wider than just geometry.
> > >
> > > As if The Shit was nothing more than Minkowski geometry.
> > > A logic of a fanatic idiot; no matter, how nonsensical it is,
> > > what matters is that the final conclusion is right.
> > >
> >
> > It matters whether special relativity is correct, for sure.
> >
> > But thought experiments will provide no information about that, one way
> > or the other.
> Thought experiments can provide information
> about the self consistency of a theory.
> But all that has been hammered out more than a hundred years ago,
> to everybody's satisfaction.

Every JJ Lodder, at least, and that's, of course, all thatr
really matters.
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.

Le 12/12/2021 à 02:17, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> Gamma is not 1.5
>>
>> ? ? ?
>>
>> Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333
>
> Y s that is correct.
>
>>
>> That's not what I'm talking about.
>> In the example I give:
>> sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5
>>
>> It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
>> of the rocket.
>
> No, that is incorrect.
>
>>
>> v=(5/13)c
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Le 12/12/2021 à 02:17, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> Gamma is not 1.5
>>
>> ? ? ?
>>
>> Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333
>
> Y s that is correct.
>
>>
>> That's not what I'm talking about.
>> In the example I give:
>> sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5
>>
>> It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
>> of the rocket.
>
> No, that is incorrect.
>
>>
>> v=(5/13)c
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Le 12/12/2021 à 02:17, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

>>
>>> Gamma is not 1.5
>>
>> ? ? ?
>>
>> Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333
>
> Y s that is correct.

Evidemment que c'est correct.

Dans quel monde vis-tu pour me dire si ce que je dis est correct ou pas?
>
>>
>> That's not what I'm talking about.
>> In the example I give:
>> sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5
>>
>> It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
>> of the rocket.
>
> No, that is incorrect.

Ce que je dis est correct.

>
>>
>> v=(5/13)c

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 20:13, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 01:55, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Le 11/12/2021 à 00:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let’s see if you can calculate anything. Not just a claim, but a result. A
>>>>>> number in meters.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like it when people talk to me like that. It is concrete, direct,
>>>>> powerful.
>>>>> It's nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And still no results. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
>>>
>>> I'm not done with my little relativistic problem.
>>> You still have to answer the question asked about the apparent lengths of
>>> the rocket observed in front of and behind it.
>>> Just a small measure (I have already half answered in the thread for that
>>> matter). Next, I'm going to ask you a question of vital interest to show
>>> you why I stoop to playing the monkey with you and why I have no other
>>> choice.
>>
>> And still no results from you.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>
> No, no, no, we must not lie.
> Neither insult nor lie.
> The results, I gave them like you, and, moreover, we have the same.
> For example you calculated in a correct way (different from mine but quite
> correct) that the rocket had a speed v = 0.384c.

Yes my way was correct, yours was incorrect.

> I then asked you what was the length of this rocket for the terrestrial
> observer A, placed behind it, and who sees it fleeing, and for the
> observer B placed in the terrestrial inertial reference frame but in front
> of the rocket, and who sees it coming on top of him.
> You didn't answer, but that's okay because, basically, I know very well
> that you can do it.

Yes, indeed, since we agree on gamma, and the length of the rocket in the
earth frame was a very simple term in the first equation I gave.

> I even add a third observer C, still inertial to the terrestrial frame of
> reference, but placed far and perpendicular to the axis followed by the
> rocket.
> Here are the three lengths of the 80-meter rocket at rest.
> For A: 53.33m

Incorrect.

> For B: 120m

Incorrect.

> For C: 73.85m
> It is very important to understand this. These lengths that the
> relativisers admit, are considered as only APPARENT

Incorrect, they do not consider that at all.

> and due, in part, to
> the longitudinal Doppler effect.

Incorrect reason as well.

You do not understand relativity or what physicists say is going on.

> Now, and this is very important to
> understand, with me (Hachel), it is NOT apparent. This is the reality of
> things.
> Once this is understood (with Hachel, it is the REALITY of things, and not
> just an apparent phenomenon due to the speed limit of light, something
> that does not exist with me), we will then confuse all physicists world by
> telling them: "Do you understand what I'm talking about?"
> They'll say "Yes, that's obvious, but what's the point?"
> Sylvia Else will say the same thing.
> That's where the point of reasoning is, and the thing relativists don't
> understand: there is covariance. This means (it confuses everyone but it
> is however what happens) that in the frame of reference of the rocket, the
> same equations apply. The rocket ground distance is NOT
> d'=d/sqrt(1-v²/c²) but d'= d.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]
> If we don't understand that, we haven't understood anything about SR, and,
> sad to say, but for decades I have been trying to explain it (which
> moreover resolves the Langevin without passing by time-gaps or paradoxes)
> I believe that this is one of the most difficult things to fit into a
> human mind other than mine. I don't know who's to blame. Maybe me. Maybe
> I'm doing the wrong thing to explain things. Or maybe it bothers my reader
> to question himself.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 12/12/2021 à 02:17, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Gamma is not 1.5
>>>
>>> ? ? ?
>>>
>>> Gamma is γ=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>
>>> Here γ = 1/sqrt(1-(5/13)²)=1.08333
>>
>> Y s that is correct.
>
> Evidemment que c'est correct.
>
> Dans quel monde vis-tu pour me dire si ce que je dis est correct ou pas?
>>
>>>
>>> That's not what I'm talking about.
>>> In the example I give:
>>> sqrt(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) = 1.5
>>>
>>> It is the dilation of the lengths perceived by an observer placed IN FRONT
>>> of the rocket.
>>
>> No, that is incorrect.
>
> Ce que je dis est correct.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> v=(5/13)c
>
> R.H.
>

In English, por favor.

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

Le 12/12/2021 à 15:03, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> incorrect.

> Incorrect.

> Incorrect.

> Incorrect.

> Incorrect.

Donc j'ai raison.

Si je n'avais pas raison, inutile de le répéter cinq fois.

Une seule fois suffirait.

R.H.