Relativity of electromagnetic waves

I saw that some posters discuss a complex phenomenon, and not always easy
to understand: the relativity of electromagnetic waves.

In order not to get confused, since I said that the theory of relativity
is riddled with little pitfalls, you have to consider things from two
different points of view, otherwise, you no longer understand anything.

This means that it is necessary to understand what will happen from the
point of view of the sender in his frame of reference, and to understand
what will happen from the point of view of the receiver in his frame of
reference.

For example, a receiver transmits transversely in its frame of reference?

Does the observer observe a red-shift or a blue-shift?

Then, the observer sees a transmitter pass in a transverse position.

Does the observer observe a red-shift or a blue-shift?

If you are not able to answer these two questions very quickly, it is
because you do not master the concept of relativity.

A good relativist must immediately answer that in the first case, there is
blue-shift; and that in the second example, there is red-shift.

Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.

Which of you answered both questions in less than ten seconds?

R.H.

On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 13:02:04 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> This means that it is necessary to understand what will happen from the
> point of view of the sender in his frame of reference, and to understand
> what will happen from the point of view of the receiver in his frame of
> reference.

The problem is, however - "a point of view" is not a
physical object or quantity, and no idiot physicist
(or wannabe physicist) has a slighest clue what it
is and how it works.

Je remets donc deux petits schémas.

Le premier est le point de vue de l'émetteur, et ce qu'il pourra
considéré comme perçu par le récepteur.

Le second est ce que perçoit directement le récepteur dans son
référentiel.

Ces schémas devraient être appris par coeur.

Vema éviterait bien des problèmes et des confusions.

I am therefore submitting two small diagrams.

The first is the sender's point of view, and what he may consider as
perceived by the receiver.

The second is what the receiver directly perceives in his frame of
reference.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

These patterns must be learned by heart.

Vema would save a lot of trouble and confusion.

Good afternoon.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 14:12:40 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Je remets donc deux petits schémas.
>
> Le premier est le point de vue de l'émetteur, et ce qu'il pourra
> considéré comme perçu par le récepteur.
>
> Le second est ce que perçoit directement le récepteur dans son
> référentiel.
>
> Ces schémas devraient être appris par coeur.
>
> Vema éviterait bien des problèmes et des confusions.
>
>
> I am therefore submitting two small diagrams.
>
> The first is the sender's point of view, and what he may consider as
> perceived by the receiver.
>
> The second is what the receiver directly perceives in his frame of
> reference.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

Both, unfortunately, are driven by your total
incompetence of what a "point of view" is
and how it works.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.

If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj, what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?

On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 15:23:42 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj, what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?

Depends if you're talking about gedankenwelt
of your idiot guru or about the reality.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:23:42 AM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj, what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?
?

Le 05/10/2022 à 15:30, lostgold a écrit :
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:23:42 AM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
>> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj,
>> what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?
> ?

Stan asks me what would be the proper time Tr of a watch moving on an axis
of length x, during an observable time To.

R.H.

On Wed, 05 Oct 22 12:12:37 +0000, Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
wrote:

>
>Je remets donc deux petits schémas.
>
>Le premier est le point de vue de l'émetteur, et ce qu'il pourra
>considéré comme perçu par le récepteur.
>
>Le second est ce que perçoit directement le récepteur dans son
>référentiel.
>
>Ces schémas devraient être appris par coeur.
>
>Vema éviterait bien des problèmes et des confusions.
>
>
>I am therefore submitting two small diagrams.
>
>The first is the sender's point of view, and what he may consider as
>perceived by the receiver.
>
>The second is what the receiver directly perceives in his frame of
>reference.
>
><http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
><http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?aehUPkraWSdz5dmccFoE_XDD0f0@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
>These patterns must be learned by heart.
>
>Vema would save a lot of trouble and confusion.
>
>
>Good afternoon.
>
>R.H.
>

"learned by heart"???

dat is not where the memory is located...

but, i never been to paris.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wed, 05 Oct 22 11:02:01 +0000, Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
wrote:

>Relativity of electromagnetic waves
>
>I saw that some posters discuss a complex phenomenon, and not always easy
>to understand: the relativity of electromagnetic waves.
>
>In order not to get confused, since I said that the theory of relativity
>is riddled with little pitfalls, you have to consider things from two
>different points of view, otherwise, you no longer understand anything.
>
>This means that it is necessary to understand what will happen from the
>point of view of the sender in his frame of reference, and to understand
>what will happen from the point of view of the receiver in his frame of
>reference.
>
>For example, a receiver transmits transversely in its frame of reference?
>
>Does the observer observe a red-shift or a blue-shift?
>
>Then, the observer sees a transmitter pass in a transverse position.
>
>Does the observer observe a red-shift or a blue-shift?
>
>If you are not able to answer these two questions very quickly, it is
>because you do not master the concept of relativity.
>
>A good relativist must immediately answer that in the first case, there is
>blue-shift; and that in the second example, there is red-shift.
>
>Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
>
>Which of you answered both questions in less than ten seconds?
>
>R.H.

Is there a green-shift?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Le 05/10/2022 à 15:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
>
> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj,
> what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?

We have to take the problem upside down.

First of all, it must be assumed that the rocket's watch gives its real
time.

That is to say its proper time (Tr or tau).

All the other observers will measure different times each with their own
watch.

This will be their local time to THEM.

This time that they will note in their frame of reference, I call it local
observable time.

I rate it To.

Now it is possible to speak of a time interval.

To each time interval in the rocket reference frame (ΔTr) corresponds a
time interval in the terrestrial reference frame (ΔTo).

We obviously have :
ΔTo=To2-To1
ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1

To obtain DTo in the observing frame, the following equation must be used:

R.H.

Le 05/10/2022 à 15:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
>
> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj,
> what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?

We have to take the problem upside down.

First of all, it must be assumed that the rocket's watch gives its real
time.

That is to say its proper time (Tr or tau).

All the other observers will measure different times each with their own
watch.

This will be their local time to THEM.

This time that they will note in their frame of reference, I call it local
observable time.

I rate it To.

Now it is possible to speak of a time interval.

To each time interval in the rocket reference frame (ΔTr) corresponds a
time interval in the terrestrial reference frame (ΔTo).

We obviously have :
ΔTo=To2-To1
ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1

To obtain DTo in the observing frame, the following equation must be used:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?EspVlT2y-BSN8FLBAVsiA5MpaWM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=EspVlT2y-BSN8FLBAVsiA5MpaWM@jntp>

R.H.

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:12:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj,
> > what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?
>
> We have to take the problem upside down.

What is the answer to the question? Again, if we have a grid of standard rulers and clocks, all at rest and synchronized in a given frame, representing the x,y,z,t coordinates, and a rocket moves at constant velocity through the grid, passing location xi,yi,zi at time ti, and then passing location xj,yj,zj at time tj, what is the elapsed time on the rocket's clock between those events?

Le 06/10/2022 à 13:12, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 05/10/2022 à 15:23, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:02:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Now I appeal to your honesty and your conscience.
>>
>> If a clock moves at constant speed from coordinates xi,ti to coordinates xj,tj,
>> what is the elapsed proper time on the clock?
>
> We have to take the problem upside down.
>
> First of all, it must be assumed that the rocket's watch gives its real time.
>
> That is to say its proper time (Tr or tau).
>
> All the other observers will measure different times each with their own watch.
>
> This will be their local time to THEM.
>
> This time that they will note in their frame of reference, I call it local
> observable time.
>
> I rate it To.
>
> Now it is possible to speak of a time interval.
>
> To each time interval in the rocket reference frame (ΔTr) corresponds a time
> interval in the terrestrial reference frame (ΔTo).
>
> We obviously have :
> ΔTo=To2-To1
> ΔTr=Tr2-Tr1
>
> To obtain DTo in the observing frame, the following equation must be used:
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?EspVlT2y-BSN8FLBAVsiA5MpaWM@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=EspVlT2y-BSN8FLBAVsiA5MpaWM@jntp>
>
> R.H.

Note that if ΔTo becomes smaller and smaller the equation tends towards
ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²), ie the same equation as for constant Galilean
motions.

R.H.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:46:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Note that...

But you still have not answered the simple question:
If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much elapsed time shows on the clock?

On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 14:16:50 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:46:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Note that...
>
> But you still have not answered the simple question:
> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much elapsed time shows on the clock?

Fortunately, we have GPS now, so anyone can check:
it's Δt.

Le 07/10/2022 à 14:16, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:46:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Note that...
>
> But you still have not answered the simple question:
> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
> elapsed time shows on the clock?

In constant move? ? ?

ΔTr

with ΔTo=ΔTr.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) or idem ΔTo=ΔTr/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

But you can't reduce it to an accelerated movement, and practice an
integration.

This is a major SR blunder.

Like the misunderstanding of spatial elasticity, and forgetting the zoom
effect as described by Dr. Hachel in Langevin.

R.H.

Le 07/10/2022 à 14:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 14:16:50 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:46:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > Note that...
>>
>> But you still have not answered the simple question:
>> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
>> elapsed time shows on the clock?
>
> Fortunately, we have GPS now, so anyone can check:
> it's Δt.

Yes.

Δt for the watch is Δt=ΔTr

R.H.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:49:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
>> elapsed time shows on the clock?
>
> Δt for the watch is Δt=ΔTr

As always, you contradict yourself. Previously you said a clock moving at constant velocity a distance Δx = 12 LY in the time Δt = 15 Y would show an elapsed proper time of Δtau = 9 Y. Now you claim Δtau = 15 Y, so you claim the twins have the same age when they re-unite. Why do you constantly contradict yourself? Were you kicked in the head by a mule?

Le 07/10/2022 à 17:47, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:49:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
>>> elapsed time shows on the clock?
>>
>> Δt for the watch is Δt=ΔTr
>
> As always, you contradict yourself. Previously you said a clock moving at
> constant velocity a distance Δx = 12 LY in the time Δt = 15 Y would show an
> elapsed proper time of Δtau = 9 Y. Now you claim Δtau = 15 Y, so you claim the
> twins have the same age when they re-unite. Why do you constantly contradict
> yourself? Were you kicked in the head by a mule?

But no! I'm not saying that.

Stan please, stay calme.

I said that a clock moving at constant velocity (Vo=0.8c) a distance Δx =
12 LY in the time Δt = 15 Y would show an elapsed proper time of Δtau =
9 Y.

No problem.

And if the movement is uniformly accelerated (10m/s²) stopped start,
Δtau=4.776 Y and To=12.914 Y.

No problem again.

R.H.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:03:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
> >>> elapsed time shows on the clock?
> >>
> >> Δt for the watch is Δt = Δtau
> >
> > As always, you contradict yourself. Previously you said a clock moving at
> > constant velocity a distance Δx = 12 LY in the time Δt = 15 Y would show an
> > elapsed proper time of Δtau = 9 Y. Now you claim Δtau = 15 Y, so you claim the
> > twins have the same age when they re-unite.
>
> But no! I'm not saying that.

You contradict yourself. Just up above you typed Δtau = Δt, and now you deny typing that. Now that you've admitted your denial is a lie, let's try this again, and please answer without lying or contradicting yourself this time:

If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much elapsed time shows on the clock?

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:03:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
> >>> elapsed time shows on the clock?
> >>
> >> Δt for the watch is Δt = Δtau
> >
> > As always, you contradict yourself. Previously you said a clock moving at
> > constant velocity a distance Δx = 12 LY in the time Δt = 15 Y would show an
> > elapsed proper time of Δtau = 9 Y. Now you claim Δtau = 15 Y, so you claim the
> > twins have the same age when they re-unite.
>
> But no! I'm not saying that.

You contradict yourself (again). Just up above you typed Δtau = Δt, and now you deny typing that. Let's try this again, and please answer without lying or contradicting yourself this time:

If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much elapsed proper time shows on the clock?

Le 07/10/2022 à 22:27, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
> elapsed proper time shows on the clock?

But I keep answering you.

Are you doing it on purpose?

I've already answered at least two or three times this week.

Plus everything I kept repeating the other weeks.

Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

tau=t.sqrt(1-v²/c²) in your usual form, with v=x/t

R.H.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:08:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
> > elapsed proper time Δtau shows on the clock?
>
> Δtau = Δt sqrt(1 - v²) in your usual form, with v = Δx/Δt

Great, so you are saying Δtau = Δt sqrt(1 - v²) = sqrt(Δt^2 - Δx^2).

Now, if a clock moves at constant speed from location x1 at time t1 to the location x2 at time t2, and then moves at constant speed from location x2 at time t2 to location x3 at time t3, what is the total elapsed proper time on the clock?

Please try to answer this question without contradicting what you just agreed above.

Le 08/10/2022 à 00:43, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:08:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> > If a clock moves at constant velocity a distance Δx in the time Δt, how much
>>
>> > elapsed proper time Δtau shows on the clock?
>>
>> Δtau = Δt sqrt(1 - v²) in your usual form, with v = Δx/Δt
>
> Great, so you are saying Δtau = Δt sqrt(1 - v²) = sqrt(Δt^2 - Δx^2).

Absolutly.

To²=Tr²+Et²

> Now, if a clock moves at constant speed from location x1 at time t1 to the
> location x2 at time t2, and then moves at constant speed from location x2 at time
> t2 to location x3 at time t3, what is the total elapsed proper time on the clock?

In this case, I think the same as you.

Tr=Tr1+Tr2

To=To1+To2

No problem.

R.H.

>
> Please try to answer this question without contradicting what you just agreed
> above.