Re: “What Is The Theory Of Relativity?”

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 1:03:57 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 01/01/2025 à 21:06, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

Albert Einstein, “What Is The Theory Of Relativity?” (November 28, 1919)
>
In the London Times, Einstein explained this fact about his theory:
>
"The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests,
is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This
principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of
propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of
the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this
principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of
Maxwell and Lorentz."
>
The velocity of waves does not include the velocity of the source
because compression waves are formed, constraining the speed to that
dictated by the medium.
>
The velocity of both particles and waves includes that of the observer.
>
To deny that light velocity involves that of the observer is stupid,
illogical, and irrational nonsense. It is a denial of relative motion
itself.

>
I see that you still do not understand the theory of relativity.
This is very unfortunate, and I feel like I am unfortunately speaking
into
the void.
The second postulate of Poincaré (and not of Einstein who NEVER
postulated anything at all except copied the work of others) proposes
something A PRIORI.
It is a postulate.
It postulates that the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant by change
of reference frame, which poses a double problem.
It is both true and false physically, and, secondly, it is a postulate
and
a postulate does not say why.
>
We do not have this double problem with Dr. Hachel.
>
In Hachel, who is very mean, not only is the postulate obviously derived
from another postulate that explains WHY (the notion of universal
anisochrony and the relativity of hyperplanes of simultaneity in the
same
stationary frame of reference) but moreover,
it explains that it is the transverse speed of light that is invariant,
and equal to c in all frames of reference.
>
I remind you, breathe, blow, do not feel unwell, that each observer, in
Hachel, observes his universe live. It then becomes obvious that a light
ray is instantly perceived by any receiver (it could be my retina), and
that this speed (infinite) remains so by change of frame of reference
(it
is me who moves), or whatever the speed of the source.
>
On the other hand, if a photon flees me, I would always see it flee in
the
same way, and at the same speed (Vapp=c/2).
>
And this in whatever frame of reference I am in.
>
Which means that the transverse speed of a photon will always be equal
to
c, whatever frame of reference I am in (even if I am in a uniformly
accelerated frame of reference).
>
The transverse speed of light will become a physical invariant.
>
So there is some truth and some falsehood in what physicists say.
>
They do not say that we observe the universe live, and believe that this
galaxy which is 13 billion light years away (notion of distance) existed
thirteen billion years ago (notion of time).
>
They do not understand that 13 billion years is a value given by a
geometric position of a distant observer who would observe the path of
the
photon transversely, but that it has nothing to do with my retinal
hyperplane of simultaneity.
>
They are absolutely incapable of passing Cape Hachel, and again, they
passed Cape Poincaré with some difficulty (they understand the notion of
relativity of the internal chronotropy of watches) but, and this is for
me
an extraordinary phenomenon, even miraculous, the notion of anisochrony
and correct spatio-temporal geometry.
>
They remain stuck in a completely abstract and mathematically stupid
Minkowskian block, and are incapable of seeing further.
>
This has always amazed me.
>
R.H.

Thank you. Someone had to step into the breach.
If the transverse speed of a photon remains the same as c even within a
uniformly accelerating frame, this is what both particles and waves do
within such a frame. This makes it unnecessary for any postulates other
than Newtonian.
To imagine this takes place across (between) frames regarding the
endpoint or observer is irrational.