On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:41:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> "The effects of relativity are symmetrical by permutation of referential"..
>
> To put it better: there is no privileged frame of reference.
>
> In the episode of the Langevin twins, many (if not everyone) do not seem
> to understand that the situation is symmetric going out and back,

This is true, but that's not the whole story. You left out a VERY important
segment. There are not just two segments, there are three.

> and that each has a positive chronotropy with respect to the other twin
> without this leads to an obvious final paradox.

The paradox results from ignoring that all-important third segment.
Which leg of a three-legged stool is most important? Answer: the one that's
missing.

> To better understand, it is necessary to give an example that is easy to
> integrate.
>
> The equation, everyone knows it.
>
> t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

What I know is that your equation is NOT the Lorentz transform equation.
IOW, you start off on the wrong foot.

> Either on the way : t'=t.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
> and on return : t'=t.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)

You're confusing the Doppler equation with the Lorentz transform,
The former tells you what you'll actually observe, the latter explains what
you'll CONCLUDE (infer) about clocks.

> Thus, on the outward journey, each of the two twins sees the other's clock
> turn more slowly, ie (take Vo=0.8c) three times slower; and, on the way
> back, the equation is reversed.
> Each sees the other's watch spinning three times faster.

You will OBSERVE something like that, but that's the relativistic Doppler
effect.

> In relativity, you have to apply the symmetries, and apply them to the
> end.
>
> We then have a perfectly logical theory.
>
> I will speak later of the traveler of Tau Ceti in uniformly accelerated
> rectilinear motion.
>
> R.H.
>
> So why are the two twins not the same age in the end?
>
> Because when the twin turns, he is nine years old, and he sees his earthly
> brother (he has a good telescope) who is only three.
> It's logic.
> But for the other, when the brother turns, the brother is nine years old.
> But he has twenty-seven!
>
>
> That is to say that the equation is reversed for the first when he is nine
> years old, but that it is reversed for the other only when he is 27 years
> old.
>
> The situation therefore becomes unequal, not in the sense that the two
> equations are not symmetrical, but in the sense that they do not reverse
> "at the same time". The twin of the stars being warned directly that he is
> turning (obviously), but not the other, for whom the other is always on
> the way.
>
> For both, the watches of the other then begin to turn three times faster.
>
> The earth twin sees his brother come back for three years at full speed
> and age nine years
> additional.
>
> The twin of the stars for whom the terrestrial twin was only three years
> old sees returning to him, for nine years, an earth whose needles turn
> three times faster.
>
> For the two, in total, we have a twin aged 18 and the other 30 years old.
>
> It is very simple when you understand.
>
> It remains to understand the relativistic zoom effect that nobody in the
> world explains, unfortunately correctly (elasticity of distances) to
> finally admit (but here the problem is YOU).
>
> We then understand, if we make the effort to follow what I say, that each
> sees the other returning at an apparent speed of 4c.
> But especially that the twin of the stars sees the earth travel 36 al.
> It is this fantastic spatial zom-effect during the twin's U-turn (and
> which obviously concerns only him) that relativists around the world do
> not seem to be able to understand. If they are told that the rocket
> observed from the terrestrial reference frame seems three times larger,
> they understand.
> But if, conversely, they are asked to understand that for the other, it is
> the distance to the earth that will seem three times greater to them, they
> lose control.
> As if the intellectual effort exceeded them.
> I never understood why it exceeds them.
> It's not that hard to understand though.

Clocks (good ones) always count proper time. What you observe when you're
in motion relative to that clock isn't what the clock is actually doing.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The paradox results from ignoring that all-important third segment.
> Which leg of a three-legged stool is most important? Answer: the one
> that's missing.

that's the weakest leg, not the important.

> Clocks (good ones) always count proper time. What you observe when
> you're in motion relative to that clock isn't what the clock is actually
> doing.

not even correct grammatically. Clocks are not doing anything.

Le 25/01/2022 à 21:58, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

>> The equation, everyone knows it.
>>
>> t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> What I know is that your equation is NOT the Lorentz transform equation.
> IOW, you start off on the wrong foot.
>
>> Either on the way : t'=t.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
>> and on return : t'=t.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)
>
> You're confusing the Doppler equation with the Lorentz transform,

No. The confusion comes from you.
And it has remained the same indefinitely for decades now, and it is
ideological.

I-de-o-lo-gi-cal.

A good example is the frenzied harassment of the madman whose name I will
not mention here.

This ideology, almost a religious faith, is this:
"Richard Hachel doesn't speak like us, doesn't write like us, doesn't
compose music like us, doesn't write books like us, doesn't teach theology
like us, etc...etc.. .etc...: it is therefore that he is very stupid".

That's a religious ideology on your part. A belief.

You say that I confuse the Doppler effect with the Lorentz
transformations.

I am not doing the CONFUSION, but the voluntary integration of the Doppler
effect IN the Lorentz transformations.

It's very different.

Physicists make an abstraction between the numerator and the denominator
of this equation.

I don't.

For me, this is an integral part of the relativistic effect.

And not a transverse relativistic effect, followed by a second
longitudinal effect called the Doppler effect, which would be due to the
limit speed of light.

That's not how I think at all and I'm absolutely sure that's not how you
should think.

But we are in a democracy.

Even in the manner of science one can think as one wishes.

Just please don't twist my ideas, and only criticize them if you fully
understand them.

It's not always the case.

R.H.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 5:38:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 25/01/2022 à 21:58, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> > > The equation, everyone knows it.
> > >
> > > t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >
> > What I know is that your equation is NOT the Lorentz transform equation..
> > IOW, you start off on the wrong foot.

Silence implies consent.

> > > Either on the way : t'=t.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
> > > and on return : t'=t.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)
> >
> > You're confusing the Doppler equation with the Lorentz transform,
>
> No. The confusion comes from you.

So you don't even know that the LT is

x' = g(x - vt)
t' = g(t - vx/c²)

My, but that's ignorant!

> And it has remained the same indefinitely for decades now, and it is
> ideological.
>
> I-de-o-lo-gi-cal.

That would be the one who is so ideological that he rejects the LT.

> A good example is the frenzied harassment of the madman whose name I will
> not mention here.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

> This ideology, almost a religious faith, is this:

You are describing YOUR ideological.

> "Richard Hachel doesn't speak like us, doesn't write like us, doesn't
> compose music like us, doesn't write books like us, doesn't teach theology
> like us, etc...etc.. .etc...: it is therefore that he is very stupid".
>
> That's a religious ideology on your part. A belief.

Nope. YOU are the ideologue.

> You say that I confuse the Doppler effect with the Lorentz
> transformations.

Exactly.

> I am not doing the CONFUSION, but the voluntary integration of the Doppler
> effect IN the Lorentz transformations.

Which results in confusion.

> It's very different.

Yes, it's different, all right.

> Physicists make an abstraction between the numerator and the denominator
> of this equation.
>
> I don't.

Baloney!

> For me, this is an integral part of the relativistic effect.
>
> And not a transverse relativistic effect, followed by a second
> longitudinal effect called the Doppler effect, which would be due to the
> limit speed of light.
>
> That's not how I think at all and I'm absolutely sure that's not how you
> should think.
>
> But we are in a democracy.

No, we're not. That's just more of your confusion.

> Even in the manner of science one can think as one wishes.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

> Just please don't twist my ideas, and only criticize them if you fully
> understand them.

I know EXACTLY what your "ideas" are. No one can twist something
that's already so twisted it doesn't agree with experiment.

> It's not always the case.
>
> R.H.

And you've completely ignored the crux of your problem: you studiously
ignore the third leg of the stool.

Le 26/01/2022 à 03:06, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

> So you don't even know that the LT is
>
> x' = g(x - vt)
> t' = g(t - vx/c²)

Yes. And the inverse transformations (if v = -v) are :
x' = g (x + vt)
t' = g (t + vx/c²)

I know all that.

I even explained quite precisely what it referred to and how to interpret
these equations other than in a rather abstract way.

I know all that.

These equations can also be written differently depending on the needs of
the student.

We can also write.

x' = g (x - vt) = g (x + √(x²+y²+z²).v/c)
t' = g (t - vx/c²) = g (-√(x²+y²+z²)/c - vx/c²)

> My, but that's ignorant!

Je n'ai pas dit ça.

I am going to redo a little table for you which will show you that I did
not say that.

Simply that we could write things differently.

And that, sometimes, it was very useful.

R.H.

On 1/25/22 8:06 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Silence implies consent.

Not around here, nor in general.

Silence can imply disgust, and often does.

Tom Roberts

Op 26-jan.-2022 om 15:47 schreef Tom Roberts:
> On 1/25/22 8:06 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>  Silence implies consent.
>
> Not around here, nor in general.
>
> Silence can imply disgust, and often does.
>
> Tom Roberts

I think that most of the time it implies facepalm induced
stupefaction :-)

Dirk Vdm

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/25/22 8:06 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> Silence implies consent.
>
> Not around here, nor in general. Silence can imply disgust, and often
> does.

both wrong. Thinking on the silence of the students, hearing about speeds
higher than the speed of light, without causality violation.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 25/01/2022 à 21:58, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>
>>> The equation, everyone knows it.
>>>
>>> t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> What I know is that your equation is NOT the Lorentz transform equation.
>> IOW, you start off on the wrong foot.
>>
>>> Either on the way : t'=t.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
>>> and on return : t'=t.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)
>>
>> You're confusing the Doppler equation with the Lorentz transform,
>
> No. The confusion comes from you.
>
> And it has remained the same indefinitely for decades now, and it is
> ideological.
>
> I-de-o-lo-gi-cal.

No, sir, the problem is really with you.

The ONLY person who has the difficulties you are encountering is you. It is
not a frustration shared by countless others.

But you are deflecting and saying that it cannot be you because you cannot
have problems, and therefore the problem must lie with others.

So, let’s be clear here about what the CAUSE of your problem is.
You have not read textbooks that describe special relativity.
Instead you have elected to read crappy online resources, participate in
discussion forums, and worst of all, relied on your own head to try to
figure it out.
Those are BAD CHOICES you have made. They have not made you stupid, but
they have made you ignorant about the subject matter. Ignorance is
correctable, but it does mean making different choices.

>
> A good example is the frenzied harassment of the madman whose name I will
> not mention here.
>
> This ideology, almost a religious faith, is this:
> "Richard Hachel doesn't speak like us, doesn't write like us, doesn't
> compose music like us, doesn't write books like us, doesn't teach theology
> like us, etc...etc.. .etc...: it is therefore that he is very stupid".
>
> That's a religious ideology on your part. A belief.
>
> You say that I confuse the Doppler effect with the Lorentz
> transformations.
>
> I am not doing the CONFUSION, but the voluntary integration of the Doppler
> effect IN the Lorentz transformations.
>
> It's very different.
>
> Physicists make an abstraction between the numerator and the denominator
> of this equation.
>
> I don't.
>
> For me, this is an integral part of the relativistic effect.
>
> And not a transverse relativistic effect, followed by a second
> longitudinal effect called the Doppler effect, which would be due to the
> limit speed of light.
>
> That's not how I think at all and I'm absolutely sure that's not how you
> should think.
>
> But we are in a democracy.
>
> Even in the manner of science one can think as one wishes.
>
> Just please don't twist my ideas, and only criticize them if you fully
> understand them.
>
> It's not always the case.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/01/2022 à 03:06, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>
>> So you don't even know that the LT is
>>
>> x' = g(x - vt)
>> t' = g(t - vx/c²)
>
> Yes. And the inverse transformations (if v = -v) are :
> x' = g (x + vt)
> t' = g (t + vx/c²)
>
> I know all that.
>
> I even explained quite precisely what it referred to and how to interpret
> these equations other than in a rather abstract way.

I do not understand what you find “abstract”. They are coordinates of
events, where those coordinates are measured by something that serves as a
ruler and something that serves as a clock adjacent to the event. Note,
ADJACENT TO THE EVENT, not at the origin.

Your artifice of assuming there is only one observation point at the origin
is unfounded and it confuses you.

There is absolutely nothing abstract about the Lorentz transforms.

>
> I know all that.
>
>
> These equations can also be written differently depending on the needs of
> the student.
>
>
> We can also write.
>
> x' = g (x - vt) = g (x + √(x²+y²+z²).v/c)
> t' = g (t - vx/c²) = g (-√(x²+y²+z²)/c - vx/c²)
>
>
>
>> My, but that's ignorant!
>
> Je n'ai pas dit ça.
>
> I am going to redo a little table for you which will show you that I did
> not say that.
>
> Simply that we could write things differently.
>
> And that, sometimes, it was very useful.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Le 26/01/2022 à 03:06, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

> x' = g(x - vt)
> t' = g(t - vx/c²)

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?5GDLHIkoHpelA9HLPCoc9_2l9GA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=5GDLHIkoHpelA9HLPCoc9_2l9GA@jntp>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

Le 26/01/2022 à 17:05, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> There is absolutely nothing abstract about the Lorentz transforms.

The time t used by scientists is abstract in the case of Lorentz
transformations.
I am not saying that it is not useful, it is obviously of capital use.
I am simply saying that it is abstract, and does not correspond to any
time measured by any watch.
Now, if any of you is very intelligent, he will answer me that it could be
the time measured by watches placed in the reference frames studied, and
that we would put infinitely far from the events and in a purely
transversal way to the plan that we study. This already poses two problems
for me, putting a watch infinitely far away is abstract and only
positioning it for a plane (and not for a three-D space), that's the
limit.
People will tell me: we could then invent a fourth spatial dimension to do
so.
LOL.
This is precisely what scientists do without realizing it, but by proving
what I am saying: this watch and this time are abstract and only
correspond to abstractions allowing simpler calculations to be made.
But that's not the reality of things. The problem is that very quickly,
from abstraction to abstraction, no one understands what he is really
doing.
We just base ourselves on mathematics that we find logical, but which we
apply anyhow - as we do for Langevin's voygaur) everyone understands
mathematical equations, but no one anymore, in the end race, does not
understand what is really going on from an intellectual point of view.
It's just equations that seem to work "average well on paper".
Paper which however is not even reliable.
Do the same using apparent speeds, and you'll never get there without
going through me.
Just as Jesus Christ said: "No one comes to the Father except through me",
I would say "no one can really understand a Langevin except through me".
The rest is intellectual manipulation: "We don't understand as well as you
do." It is a manipulation that is not known. A lie that is not known.

R.H.

On 1/26/2022 9:47 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 26/01/2022 à 03:06, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>
>> So you don't even know that the LT is
>>
>> x' = g(x - vt)
>> t' = g(t - vx/c²)
>
> Yes. And the inverse transformations (if v = -v)  are :
>  x' = g (x + vt)
>  t' = g (t + vx/c²)
>
> I know all that.
>
> I even explained quite precisely what it referred to and how to
> interpret these equations other than in a rather abstract way.
>
> I know all that.
>
>
> These equations can also be written differently depending on the needs
> of the student.
>
>
> We can also write.
>
> x' = g (x - vt) = g (x + √(x²+y²+z²).v/c)
> t' = g (t - vx/c²) = g (-√(x²+y²+z²)/c - vx/c²)

"We" don't write that since that is something of your own creation.

Since, for simplicity, distances related to events are assumed to take
place along the x/x' axes, so y and z are 0 and ignored, your
expressions simplify to:

x' = γ(x - vt) = γ(x + √(x²)v/c)
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (-√(x²)/c - vx/c²) which becomes:

x' = γ(x - vt) = γ(x + vx/c)
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (-x/c - vx/c²)

which simply means (in the 1D case) that you're substituting -x/c for t,
for some odd reason. Why? Or are you still using your own, strange,
t/t' definition?

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/01/2022 à 17:05, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> There is absolutely nothing abstract about the Lorentz transforms.
>
> The time t used by scientists is abstract in the case of Lorentz
> transformations.

No, it’s not. As I said, it is a time coordinate as measured by something
acting as a clock adjacent to the event. That is not abstract at all. It’s
very concrete.

> I am not saying that it is not useful, it is obviously of capital use.
> I am simply saying that it is abstract, and does not correspond to any
> time measured by any watch.

That is incorrect. As I said, t is the time coordinate as measured by
something acting as a clock adjacent to the event.

> Now, if any of you is very intelligent, he will answer me that it could be
> the time measured by watches placed in the reference frames studied, and
> that we would put infinitely far from the events and in a purely
> transversal way to the plan that we study.

No, nobody said anything about infinitely far away. Just near the event.
That is not hard to do, and it is not abstract at all.

And nobody said only doing it for a plane either.

I have no idea why you think putting a clock near an event is abstract.
It’s an experimental reality.

> This already poses two problems
> for me, putting a watch infinitely far away is abstract and only
> positioning it for a plane (and not for a three-D space), that's the
> limit.
> People will tell me: we could then invent a fourth spatial dimension to do
> so.
> LOL.
> This is precisely what scientists do without realizing it, but by proving
> what I am saying: this watch and this time are abstract and only
> correspond to abstractions allowing simpler calculations to be made.
> But that's not the reality of things. The problem is that very quickly,
> from abstraction to abstraction, no one understands what he is really
> doing.
> We just base ourselves on mathematics that we find logical, but which we
> apply anyhow - as we do for Langevin's voygaur) everyone understands
> mathematical equations, but no one anymore, in the end race, does not
> understand what is really going on from an intellectual point of view.
> It's just equations that seem to work "average well on paper".
> Paper which however is not even reliable.
> Do the same using apparent speeds, and you'll never get there without
> going through me.
> Just as Jesus Christ said: "No one comes to the Father except through me",
> I would say "no one can really understand a Langevin except through me".
> The rest is intellectual manipulation: "We don't understand as well as you
> do." It is a manipulation that is not known. A lie that is not known.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 17:05:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 25/01/2022 à 21:58, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> >>> The equation, everyone knows it.
> >>>
> >>> t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>
> >> What I know is that your equation is NOT the Lorentz transform equation.
> >> IOW, you start off on the wrong foot.
> >>
> >>> Either on the way : t'=t.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
> >>> and on return : t'=t.sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)
> >>
> >> You're confusing the Doppler equation with the Lorentz transform,
> >
> > No. The confusion comes from you.
> >
> > And it has remained the same indefinitely for decades now, and it is
> > ideological.
> >
> > I-de-o-lo-gi-cal.
> No, sir, the problem is really with you.

Yes, sir, I-de-o-lo-gi-cal.