Re: Relativistic aberration

Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel:

 I'm not sure that everything went so well.
 It started with the equations of H.A. Lorentz, real complex and wrong blocks to find the right transformations.
 If Poincaré, the greatest mathematician in the world in 1905, who was not Breton, HIM, had not helped him, he would still be there.
 When the RR came out, 100 scientists proposed a manifesto, arguing that it was not all clear, and that there was obvious bullshit, and poorly explained. In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a hundred years after Poincaré.

Since you mention the Langevin paradox:
I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth
than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real
world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of
the version of Langevin paradox below:
The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on
the equator. They all have an atomic clock.
Ginette are always stationary on the Equator.
Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane.
Both are travelling once around Earth at equator.
Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational
blue shift can be ignored.
 From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated
after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that
the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days.
Please find what the duration of the journey will be
measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W.
Some data:
Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km
Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s
Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s
SR predicts:  τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns,  τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns
But that's not the right answer, is it?

 And today, while I propose a new approach to the problem, men spit in my face more than they themselves know how to explain a small Poincaré transformation with a small numerical example.
It is absolutely fantastic to weigh human stupidity with a good scale.

Now you have the opportunity to demonstrate your new approach.

 Simple example, you, O Moron who shows off to me, but you are not even capable of understanding what an apparent speed is in astrophysics, and I had to explain to you for three months, why we could set Vapp = Vo / (1 + cosµ.Vo / c).
 And I will have to spend twenty years (but I would be dead before), to explain to you a small TL: a star has just collapsed on itself over there 15,000 light years away. I start my stopwatch in front of the celestial event that I SEE. A rocket that is crossing the solar system at that moment also sees it (tautology).
Assuming that I set (x,y,z,To,t) in Hachel notation, without even needing to explain, it is so obvious, if I write E=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0) for me.
What will he, the rocket commander, have to write?
E=( )
But you're not even capable, hey, buffoon!
What are you coming to annoy Sylvia and Maciej?
The worst, if it turns out Sylvia, who is a woman will answer better than you.
You should be ashamed.
 No, no, my dear, it didn't go "that well".

What's the point with starting the watch when you SEE the supernova?
What are you trying to measure?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/