Re: Incorrect mathematical integration

On 07/27/2024 12:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2024 01:59 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 26/07/2024 à 22:20, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

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

>

You mean the distance _in_ the space _in_ the frame?

>
We must be careful about our understanding of relativistic things.
>
Physicists make things too simple.
>
They say D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
Then they rub their hands.
>
However, this is completely false, it all depends on where we stand and
in which frame of reference.
>
I have already said a thousand times that D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), applied
hastily and haphazardly, is pure nonsense.
>
The true equation being D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
So we start again:
We have a particle with a constant speed Vo=0.8c that goes from A to B.
>
In the lab frame of reference, AB is 3 meters.
>
Whether I place myself at A or B, it is logical that AB is three meters.
>
Except that I beg you to understand something important.
>
I am inertial with A and B when I measure AB.
>
Now let's place ourselves at the level of the proton for example.
>
What is the distance AB?
>
Physicists answer me, insulting me when possible, threatening me or
hating me when they can: D'=3*0.6=1.8m.
>
Except that having said that, they have not said anything coherent at
all, and they make me laugh, they who believe, because they have studied
a adulterated SR,
that it is me who is making fun.
>
No, to say that is to say an abstract, incoherent sentence, and no more
real than "I like round squares" or "I would like to drink dehydrated
water", or "I prefer the color scarlet white".
>
It means NOTHING.
>
We come back to the proton, what is the distance AB for it?
>
Well, it all depends on its POSITION.
>
And this is what physicists have trouble understanding (I still have 40
SR, and it is logical that I am stronger than them).
>
When the proton passes through A, the distance AB is 9 meters.
>
When the proton passes through the center of AB (in the lab frame of
reference) AB measures 5 m (0.5+4.5).
>
When the proton arrives at B, AB is 1 meter.
>
Space is a reference mollusk.
>
R.H.

>
The SR-ians are sort of in a tiny sub-field of the theory,
a tiny local sub-field of the theory.
>
It's a big field, ..., it's one theory.
>
>
The notion of the space-contraction as satisfying Lorentz
in a FitzGeraldian way, while that the linear acceleration
and the rotational acceleration are fundamentally different
with regards to the freedom of rotating frames and the space
of a rotating frame or the space of a linearly accelerating frame,
keeping the linear also satisfying the Galilean, has here that
the quench of the beam-line, sees the detecter peter out as
quite reflecting the Galilean inputs.
>
... In "the time" of the emitter/detecter the linear accelerator,
for example SLAC.
>
According to Einstein, GR is first, and SR is just a local case.
>
>

>
Another real great thing besides JWST and SLAC
is the Z-Pinch, another high-energy or high-configuration
experiment helping illustrate things like "space contraction
is real and linear and rotational are different" and "the
electrical field is already a standing wave" and "the
fluid models of liquid and electrical current are about
opposites" and "mathematics owes physics better and
more mathematics of continuum mechanics the
mathematical physics".
>
>

It's like the other day there was an article about
muon physics, and it's like "no our log-normal g-2
totally agrees with our old derivation and now any
effect is also gone" and it's like, they biased it.
"It's reduced to 0.999... standard deviation, ...,
less than 1."
Or, you know, "definitely dark matter", and it's like,
"definitely that's a non-scientific non-explanation
that the more is found the less there is".
Then the flip side, "furthermore dark matter which
is about 100% is now about 1% and from a much,
much wider view, dark _energy_ is 100%", and it's
like "of invalidating the underlying theory".
Muon physics, beta decay, the squashing of orbitals
of larger atoms, all point to a real continuum mechanics,
while gravity writ large is quite gravific and the usual
old classical inverse square has a neat fall gravity explanation
that results why and how that is in the middle meso-scale,
and how it trails out either way thus that the underlying
theory actually just fits the data instead of
the other way around.
Yeah, whenever I see "g-2 after Higgs" or "spiral in-fall",
well spiral in-fall is OK, or "expanding" it's like, compounded bias.