Le 09/05/2022 à 23:44, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 09/05/2022 à 20:22, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>
>> >> The correct equation for distances (and lengths) is:
>> >> D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo^²/c²)/(1+cosµVo/c)
>> >
>> > There is no evidence in science for length contraction.
>> > It has never been measured.
>> I don't like the term length contraction.
>>
>> I prefer that of elasticity of the lengths.
>>
>
> That would contract atoms. But that would interfere
> with chemistry... That is why it does not exist.

Non, non. Pas d'interférence avec la chimie.

Les élasticités (et non les contractions) ne sont qu'apparentes comme un
homme peut paraître plus petit
s'il s'éloigne sur la plage.

Mais à son niveau à lui, il faut toujours 1,75m.

Prenons un ballon d'un diamètre de 20 cms, et considérons qu'il se
déplace vers moi à 0.8c.

Pour moi, son diamètre transversal fera toujours 20 cms, mais, dans le
sens du déplacement, il me paraitra plus long, et prendra une forme
oblongue de 60 cms de diamètre (trois fois plus).

Par contre, une fourmi posée sur ce ballon n'observera rien de spécial.
Le ballon lui semblera tout à fait normal comme pour nous-même, quand il
est au repos sur la pelouse.

R.H.

Le 10/05/2022 à 00:24, JanPB a écrit :
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 09/05/2022 à 20:22, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>
>> >> The correct equation for distances (and lengths) is:
>> >> D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo^²/c²)/(1+cosµVo/c)
>> >
>> > There is no evidence in science for length contraction.
>> > It has never been measured.
>> I don't like the term length contraction.
>>
>> I prefer that of elasticity of the lengths.
>>
>> Contraction, this means that the object which has a size L will have a
>> size L' depending on how the relativistic eye will apprehend it.
>>
>> We then believe we can set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) and we say, the observed
>> object will always be smaller.
>>
>> It's a bad view of things.
>>
>> That's not how it works.
>>
>> The equation shows that it can contract or expand depending on how one
>> studies the motion of the object.
>>
>> I gave the correct equation in the previous post.
>>
>> Now, we will say: "Yes, but, maybe there is no contraction at all".
>>
>> But the contraction is implicit, because it concerns an obligatory visual
>> effect, and, if we assume that the notion of simultaneity is relative,
>> then the length of things that move in a frame of reference is also
>> relative.
>>
>> If we take the two ends of the same ruler and if we assume that the
>> simultaneity of their two ends is relative, their distance will be
>> relative and so on for the distance earth-moon, earth-Tau Ceti, etc. ...
>>
>> I don't think we can dispute that.
>>
>> Even if I accept without problem that there are flaws and pitfalls in this
>> very badly explained theory for a century and a half.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> You simply don't understand it.
>
> --
> Jan

L'arrogance est un vilain défaut partagé par beaucoup d'hommes :
"l'autre est un gros con qui n'a rien compris".

Je connais tout ça.

R.H.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 10/05/2022 à 00:24, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 09/05/2022 à 20:22, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> >>
> >> >> The correct equation for distances (and lengths) is:
> >> >> D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo^²/c²)/(1+cosµVo/c)
> >> >
> >> > There is no evidence in science for length contraction.
> >> > It has never been measured.
> >> I don't like the term length contraction.
> >>
> >> I prefer that of elasticity of the lengths.
> >>
> >> Contraction, this means that the object which has a size L will have a
> >> size L' depending on how the relativistic eye will apprehend it.
> >>
> >> We then believe we can set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) and we say, the observed
> >> object will always be smaller.
> >>
> >> It's a bad view of things.
> >>
> >> That's not how it works.
> >>
> >> The equation shows that it can contract or expand depending on how one
> >> studies the motion of the object.
> >>
> >> I gave the correct equation in the previous post.
> >>
> >> Now, we will say: "Yes, but, maybe there is no contraction at all".
> >>
> >> But the contraction is implicit, because it concerns an obligatory visual
> >> effect, and, if we assume that the notion of simultaneity is relative,
> >> then the length of things that move in a frame of reference is also
> >> relative.
> >>
> >> If we take the two ends of the same ruler and if we assume that the
> >> simultaneity of their two ends is relative, their distance will be
> >> relative and so on for the distance earth-moon, earth-Tau Ceti, etc. ....
> >>
> >> I don't think we can dispute that.
> >>
> >> Even if I accept without problem that there are flaws and pitfalls in this
> >> very badly explained theory for a century and a half.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > You simply don't understand it.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> L'arrogance est un vilain défaut partagé par beaucoup d'hommes :
> "l'autre est un gros con qui n'a rien compris".
>
> Je connais tout ça.

You don't understand the theory. A normal person in that situation would
instinctively know this.

--
Jan

Le 10/05/2022 à 05:07, JanPB a écrit :
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 10/05/2022 à 00:24, JanPB a écrit :
>> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:40:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> Le 09/05/2022 à 20:22, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> >> The correct equation for distances (and lengths) is:
>> >> >> D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo^²/c²)/(1+cosµVo/c)
>> >> >
>> >> > There is no evidence in science for length contraction.
>> >> > It has never been measured.
>> >> I don't like the term length contraction.
>> >>
>> >> I prefer that of elasticity of the lengths.
>> >>
>> >> Contraction, this means that the object which has a size L will have a
>> >> size L' depending on how the relativistic eye will apprehend it.
>> >>
>> >> We then believe we can set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) and we say, the observed
>> >> object will always be smaller.
>> >>
>> >> It's a bad view of things.
>> >>
>> >> That's not how it works.
>> >>
>> >> The equation shows that it can contract or expand depending on how one
>> >> studies the motion of the object.
>> >>
>> >> I gave the correct equation in the previous post.
>> >>
>> >> Now, we will say: "Yes, but, maybe there is no contraction at all".
>> >>
>> >> But the contraction is implicit, because it concerns an obligatory visual
>> >> effect, and, if we assume that the notion of simultaneity is relative,
>> >> then the length of things that move in a frame of reference is also
>> >> relative.
>> >>
>> >> If we take the two ends of the same ruler and if we assume that the
>> >> simultaneity of their two ends is relative, their distance will be
>> >> relative and so on for the distance earth-moon, earth-Tau Ceti, etc. ...
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we can dispute that.
>> >>
>> >> Even if I accept without problem that there are flaws and pitfalls in this
>> >> very badly explained theory for a century and a half.
>> >>
>> >> R.H.
>> >
>> > You simply don't understand it.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jan
>>
>> L'arrogance est un vilain défaut partagé par beaucoup d'hommes :
>> "l'autre est un gros con qui n'a rien compris".
>>
>> Je connais tout ça.
>
> You don't understand the theory. A normal person in that situation would
> instinctively know this.
>
> --
> Jan

Oui, mais justement, tant que tu n'auras pas compris que je ne suis pas un
individu normal,
tu n'auras rien compris du tout. Tu vivras con et tu mourras con.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> Oui, mais justement, tant que tu n'auras pas compris que je ne suis pas
> un individu normal,

If normal means: able to learn, not demented, able to have a descent
conversation, not illiterete in basic math and physics, yes you
are not "normal", Richard.

> tu n'auras rien compris du tout. Tu vivras con et tu mourras con.

This is the résumé of your life.

On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 12:53:54 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...
> > Oui, mais justement, tant que tu n'auras pas compris que je ne suis pas
> > un individu normal,
> If normal means: able to learn, not demented, able to have a descent

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 110 years of stupid coffee talks, endless stories and imaginary tests ended
> in NOTHING.
>
> - Length contraction is temporal, and ceases if motion stops.
>

Are galaxies moving and where is their length contraction?

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 6:45:41 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 110 years of stupid coffee talks, endless stories and imaginary tests ended
> > in NOTHING.
> >
> > - Length contraction is temporal, and ceases if motion stops.
> >
>
> Are galaxies moving and where is their length contraction?

I meant according to Lorentz mathematics, which I believe is just fiction, not a physical thing.