Re: Relativistic aberration

W dniu 15.07.2024 o 04:52, gharnagel pisze:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:30:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Beauty is the splendor of truth.
>
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.

 Socrates: the good, the beautiful and the true.
 

We are therefore going to talk about a sensitive subject, the notion of
relativistic aberration.
>
A cube is placed in front of an observer, the yellow front side of which
is the only one visible.
>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
This face is 60 meters away, and point M of the cube, relative to this
observer, is exactly 60 meters away.
>
Another observer placed in R', with relative speed Vo=0.8c in the x'ox
direction, crosses the first observer at the same place, at the same
time.
>
For the moment, we are not looking for anything too complicated, namely
what will become of the entire cube.
>
No.
>
We breathe, we breathe, we go very slowly so as not to fall into a
number of hidden traps or false concepts.
>
We just ask, to start...
>
Where will the point M' in R' corresponding to M in R be located?
>
Note that in Hachel, two joint observers have strictly the same vision
of the universe (but with an aberration in x). Everything that is seen
by
one is seen at the same moment by the other; everything that is seen is
seen
by the other and vice versa; nothing that is not seen by one can be seen
by the other, and vice versa.
>
This is very important to understand.
>
A contradictor who already comes to doubt, would show that he already
completely misunderstands SR as it should be taught.
>
R.H.

 Dr. Hachel isn't being honest here.  The two observers do NOT have the
same
"vision" of the universe.  The cube

Gary, poor halfbrain, a cube is an Euclidean
prejudice refuted by your idiot guru. Your
knowledge of your beloved Shit is surely
only skin deep...