Re: the notion of relativity of simultaneity

Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :

The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
 

Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for

It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not understand why it works.
The equations then become covered in a fog of words, and no one has clear ideas anymore.
Let us ask a relativist to show us a photograph of what a novice or a seven-year-old child would see of a relativistic rotating disk, and he is completely unable not only to draw it, but to have any idea of ​​it, even a vague one.
We have here a fog of words, a fog of concepts, a fog of (false) equations.
Let's ask a relativist to explain why Stella will live nine years during her return, and why Terrence will live fifteen years, and the physicist will say that there is "a dilation of time", and will pose the equation
t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²). And he will start to think that it is not vague, that it is very simple, that there is no fog there. However, everything he says is already BEGINNING to be false, and if we tease a little, the fog will thicken in his mind, until it becomes intolerable and plunges him into arrogance and hatred; the fog of words and equations leading to human reactions.
So we will ask him over what distance this return is played out.
There, the fog will thicken a little more. He will say: there is a contraction of distances so D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²), or 7.2 ly instead of 12al.
Which is already a huge fog, not of equation, but of concept.
We are talking about contraction of distances, where Hachel, who sees more clearly,
talks about elasticity of lengths and distances.
The fog will thicken even more if we ask what will be the apparent speed of the earth (we have seen how Python, yet a great international critic, loses his mind) in the Stella frame of reference.
However, the good physicist will see very clearly that this apparent speed of the earth, which is hurtling towards Stella, will be Vapp=4c.
And he will pose an equation that this time is clear and obvious: Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
Here, the fog of concepts is no longer manageable, and only the clarity of words will be able to show it: "How do you explain that Stella sees the earth coming back on her with an apparent speed of 4c, over a distance of 7.2 al, and for nine years?"
It is obvious that this simple question shows how Hachel's concepts are of great clarity, while physicists swim in a conceptual fog, and are forced to go through the fog of words to define their biased concepts, or the negation of the question, which allows them not to answer, never to answer (or nonsense).
And I'm not talking about the rotating disk, and I'm not talking about the proper time of objects in uniformly accelerated motion, and I'm not talking about the Langevin paradox (very poorly and very incompletely explained), the Andromeda war paradox, and the Ehrenfest paradox, where everyone drowns.
All this is in a great fog that is not known, and in the intimate conviction of the physicist who BELIEVES that he understands something, and who in reality understands nothing at all except vague unclear ideas.
R.H.