Re: Relativistic aberration

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.
Absurdities and contradictions appear in the equations.
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.
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.
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?
I repeat it tirelessly, SR is very simple, much simpler than we teach it.
But it's full of little traps.
R.H.