Re: Relativistic aberration

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:59:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 15/07/2024 à 22:24, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:08:01 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
As a physicist, I do say that.  But physicists have been wrong before,
so prove
that I'm wrong.

>
What is interesting about you is that you do not despise, you do not
insult, and you seek to understand things.
>
You also seem to understand my position without saying anything.
>
My position is this: the theory of relativity is true, at least in some
beginnings, but if we carry the ideas to the end, there are things that
go wrong, both experimentally, and at the same time ( and above all)
theoretically.

Speaking of SR, I've found that to be true in only two cases: when
gravity
is significant and when dealing with faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena.

Absurdities and contradictions appear in the equations.

Nope.  They occur when misapplying the equations, either in the two
cases
above or doing what David Morin says not to do:
"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to
plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through
your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along
the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees
such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way,
because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities
that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin,
"Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.

Already forty years ago, I noticed that things did not fit, and today, I
am strong enough to:
1. Show irrefutably that it does not hold using apparent velocities
(what we could see in telescopes).
2. Explain why.
3. Give what I believe to be correct for the whole theory, (including
uniformly accelerated frames and rotating frames).
>
Now, there is no other theoretical explanation in the world that does
not hold up except mine, so all the others have no chance of being true.
If it is already false on paper, it is necessarily even more false on
the
ground.
>
But talking is no use to me, even if I have the theoretical proof.
>
Experimental proof is needed.
>
A good experimental proof would consist of testing the validity of:
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax)]^-(1/2) which gives a much lower instantaneous
observable speed, significantly much lower than the instantaneous speeds
predicted by physicists during particle accelerations.

I doubt if you could convince a particle physicist :-)
Another way would be to derive your equation from first principles, as
Wright did in
http://www.zitterbug.net/future/casr0715.pdf

It is clear that if we know the acceleration with certainty, the mass of
the particle, as well as the energy or momentum of the particle at this
instant, we can easily deduce Voi (instantaneous observable speed).
And see that my equation is correct.

It's okay to assume the acceleration and the mass, then use the correct
equations for E and p.

Now, I have doubts about the feasibility of the experiment with regard
to acceleration: how can I be sure that it is indeed the acceleration of
the > particle that is taken into account, and not the acceleration
measured in the laboratory?

There is a known relationship between the two.

I repeat it tirelessly, SR is very simple, much simpler than we teach
it.  But it's full of little traps.
>
R.H.

There are lots of little traps for the unwary.  Morin has pointed out a
way
to avoid many of them.  Being well-versed in algebra is another.  Being
well-versed in basic mathematical rules (like PEMDAS) is another for
FTL.