Re: Relativistic aberration

Le 02/08/2024 à 21:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 01.08.2024 23:03, skrev Richard Hachel:

I give this notation because it is the best.

 It isn't so different from what astronomers use.

When you want to make things understood, you have to speak with the simplest languages ​​and the most understandable words.
Like the greatest geniuses of humanity (Blaise Pascal, Berkeley, Hugo, De Gaulle) I only use the simplest concepts or equations whenever possible).
So when physicists write (x,y,z) to locate a point in a plane, well, I use the same notation, so that it is simple and obvious.
However, I sometimes make small changes, and where they write t, I write To, because it is necessary for the song.
The fact of putting a capital letter shows that it is not a real physical term, but an abstract term. On the other hand, the concrete time noted by the watch, I write t. We therefore have, to locate an event, which can only be, in relativity, located by another unique observer:
E=(x,y,z,To,t).
If we take the case of the explosion of a supernova at 15000 ly,
and that I have just noticed in the sky (that is to say which is an integral part of my "present time", of my own and real simultaneity in the well-understood Hasselian sense), I will therefore be able to note R=(12000,9000,0,-15000,0).
The last two components are temporal.
t=0 means that, really, the explosion has just occurred, and that I see it as it is, without intermediary, in pure direct-live.
To=-15000 means that spatial anisochrony, which induces a pure decoy for the speed of light, makes me believe that this happened already 15000 years ago.
Once this is well understood, my notation turns out to be perfectly simple and intuitive.
Why is it that we do not adopt it?
Because the anisochronal decoy is very large, very powerful, and it will be very difficult to make it known. It is very difficult to say "this horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this telescope, you see them instantly, in pure present, live,
without intermediary or pretense".
Always, always, always, there will be an idiot to reply: "But no, there is the speed of light, it is not infinite, we know it, we have measured it to the nearest centimeter per second".
This is obviously a grotesque response from someone who knows his subject.
R.H.