Re: Approximately 300,000 km/s With Respect To What?

Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 01:34 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 18/07/2024 à 08:20, Thomas Heger a écrit :

>
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
>
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
>
If you want to refer to something  else, then please write to what paper you want to refer.
>
I wrote about Einstein's paper.
>
This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a force free space.
>
>
...

 I think you are absolutely right: what we call today the theory of relativity is more a conglomeration of different hypotheses given by different physicists from all backgrounds and all nationalities, that is to say an edifice built in a fairly polymorphous way.
I had already noticed this forty years ago, and for forty years, I tried to bring all this together into a compact, logical, global, and very clear theory to hold whole in the brain of a single man or 'only one student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

In short, something which holds simply, logically, and in one conceptual piece, from Galilean frames of reference, to uniformly accelerated frames of reference, including rotating frames of reference.
Very quickly, I realized the magnitude of the task for two reasons:
- the appearance of obvious problems in the formulations of physicists, even if only to describe a simple Langevin, and the inability even today, in 2024, incredibly, to describe a coherent relationship even if only by passing in apparent speeds (what the two observers would see in their telescope). And I'm not talking about the madness of the masters in physics if we have to move on to more complicated frames of reference and the invention of surreal things like that (reverse saddle geometry, or fanciful integrations of relativistic time, etc...) .
- human madness and the navel-gazing of opponents (there, I don't even need to explain).
 However, we can give a complete and coherent theory using very simple mathematics (no need to calculate an integral).
Special relativity is very simple. Mathematically at high school level (16-18 years old). What makes it difficult is:
1. the understanding and genesis of the gamma factor by the logical invariance of the speed of light in an anisochronous medium.
2. the reciprocity of relativistic effects by permutation of frames of reference and in particular apparent effects on distances.
3. that if it is true that there is a dilation of times, by the simple fact of the denominator present in the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, there is ALSO, by the same denominator a dilation of lengths and distances ( physicists confusing this general dilation with the observation of an object passing transversely in the field of vision, and which actually appears contracted in this position).
 Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but there are no pitfalls.”
The opposite was true: “Relativity is a game for children or high school students, but it’s full of little conceptual traps.”
 Once you get rid of the bad concepts, all the equations become incredibly simple.
 And yet more beautiful and truer.

Maybe you like my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH