Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 09/08/2024 à 22:07, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :

>
Notice I didn't say "the problem is you" because it's not a problem
to have no talent for something in particular. The only time it

becomes

an emotional problem is when a person somehow falls into the trap of
convincing oneself that it's absolutely essential to "work with" the
domain one cannot possibly succeed in..
>
--
Jan

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb
a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -- Albert
Einstein

It's not a question of science, I've never stopped repeating it.
It's like in many other areas a question of human power relations.
"We don't want this man to rule over us".
Always, always, always, the same phenomenon is reproduced, and on all
human knowledge (sociology, criminology, journalism, medicine, theology,
philosophy, politics, scientific theory).

At first, Einstein was ignored, and it took quite a while for the PTB to
come around.  But it didn't happen until experimental evidence
prevailed.

Prove to me that a single equation or a single concept that I have given
is not mathematically coherent,

Do you mean like this:
"The correct formula is not the one given by Mr. Einstein, and it is not
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) that must be applied, but
D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)]."
"Coherency" is not the issue (even though your two equations are mixing
two
different things: length contraction and relativistic Doppler effect),
but
equations must describe what is.

or prove to me that a single thing that I have said can be
experimentally
rejected.

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²), length contraction, is the one side of the coin of
nonsimultaneity, time dilation (TD) is the other. TD and nonsimultaneity
are experimentally confirmed, so LC must be accepted on logic alone.
However, it has been shown that LC is responsible for magnetism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Magnetic_forces

I have no worries about the battles that may be made against me, since
they are already won in advance on the theoretical point (the RR is
mathematically absurd from the outset if you use apparent speeds even in
a simple Langevin, it therefore has no chance of being true as taught).

It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
"apparent speed" is tenuous.  To me, it means an optical illusion, which
has no place in solving relativity problems.  Velocity is the correct
term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

Similarly, the concept of direct-live is absolutely obvious if we
understand that instantaneous information transport is possible in
certain geometric conditions, that is to say longitudinal in the
source-receiver direction.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "direct-live" neither do I know
what you mean by "certain geometric conditions" -- but I doubt that
"instantaneous information transport" can be achieved.

The future will show that I am right.

Only by tachyons or warp metrics, perhaps.

....
>
"is universal anisochrony physical? or, "is there a relativity of the
internal chronotropy of watches by change of reference frame?
We do not answer questions, we attack man.
This is not scientific.
>
R.H.

I replied to your assertions.  You seldom seem to have questions:
“Unanswered questions are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers.”
-- Collectively Conscious
“A wise person is full of questions.  A dull person is full of answers.”
– Paulo Coelho