Re: Incorrect mathematical integration

On 07/25/2024 01:30 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 25/07/2024 à 22:00, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

>
Yeah, you might think so, then though to equip the model
where the frames, in the space, are space-frames and frame-spaces,
so that the particle's _space_ besides its _frame_ are moving,
what results that space-contraction in effect, is real, that
the particle brings its space with it.
>
The linear accelerators are mostly aggregates of quite a large
number of, abstractly, particles, as with regards to energy
input and energy arrived.
>
>
The linear accelerators, like SLAC, illustrate that space-contraction
can be observed, affecting the surrounds of the main beam-line as
it were, as if according to a space contraction, and indeed about
the Galilean, inputs and outputs.
>
>
In the cosmological setting, the larger body or system being
its own rotational frame altogether, illustrating again that
the space contraction is observable, the Lorentzian in the
rotational, helps explain why theories like MOND have a
physical explanation and not just an algebraic model.
>
I.e., MOND sort of answers why there is no dark matter,
then there's a sort of inverse-MOND also to explain why
there's no dark energy, that the effects otherwise are
quite simple and holistic, instead of the "missing link"
non-theory of non-science.

>
In the case you are proposing, there is no contraction of the distances,
because the particle is heading TOWARDS its receptor.
>
The equation is no longer D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) and to believe this is to
fall into the trap of ease, but D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/ (1-Vo/c)] since
cosµ=-1.
>
For the particle the distance to travel (or rather that the receiver
travels towards it) is extraordinarily greater than in the laboratory
reference frame.
>
R.H.

You mean the distance _in_ the space _in_ the frame?
Frame-space space-frames?  Rahme-Raumen Raume-Rahmen?