Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:35:40 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 10/08/2024 à 23:32, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:08:21 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
As a relativistic reminder:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

>
u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2) [A]
Nope.  Only the relativistic velocity composition equation is
necessary (Equation [A]), which comes directly from the LTEs:
>
dx' = gamma(dx - vdt)
dt' = gamma(dt - vdx/c^2)
>
dx'/dt' = (dx/dt - v)/(1 - vdx/dt/c^2)

>
 Absolutely, but...
>
 And y? And z?

>
Surely you know that y' = y and z' = z since the motion is solely
along x.  I can only conclude, therefore, that you are obfuscating
in the grand manner of Walnut-brain Wozzie.
>

But that's not what I'm talking about!
I'm talking about the notion of universal anisochrony, and the fact
that, very strangely, if we observe transverse motions,
we can never measure a speed greater than c.

>
So?
>

But that in the longitudinal direction, and everything proves it, both
theory and experiment, we can observe things live.

>
Not live.  Light transit time delayed.  Stop saying live.  You cheapen
yourself by lying.
>

There is a geometry of space-time that is real, and lots of others
(including Minkowski's that are not).

>
Is there a "real" geometry of spacetime?  Geometry is a human concept.
>

You give me the equation for adding longitudinal relativistic speeds as
if I didn't know it, are you kidding?

>
You don't act like you know it.  Not deep down in your innards where it
counts.
>

No, only do I know it, but I can give it to you in general observable
form, in general real form or in vector form.

>
All I've seen is childish attempts to invent fantasies.
>

I'll remind you of it here, in observable form and in real form.
>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?h2AZmvcBZlMRhA47eIHkP9jDtT4@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
>
R.H.

>
Since one can always align motion with the x-axis when dealing with two
bodies,
there is no purpose in sines and cosines.  Doing so is just being a
stuffed
shirt.  And it's wrong anyway: "cosu.U" means what?  What is u.U?  Do
you mean
cos(u.U), which makes no sense. Cosines and sines are dimensionless. You
need
some formal education in correct mathematical expression.
>
You always try to run before you can walk.