Re: The mathematical Poincaré-Lorentz transformations

Le 24/09/2024 à 14:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 24.09.2024 o 13:06, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 23.09.2024 20:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 23/09/2024 à 19:51, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 23.09.2024 14:51, skrev Richard Hachel:

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations transpose the present coordinates of a frame of reference R to the homologous coordinates in a frame of reference R'.

>

>
x=12
y=9
z=0
To=-15

>
>
If the frame R'(t',x',y',x') move along the x axis in
the frame R(t,x,z,y) at the speed 0.8c,
>
Then the event with the coordinates
  t = -15 y, x = 12 ly, y = 9 ly z = 0 ly in frame R
>
Will have the following coordinates in frame R'
  t' = - 41 y, x' = 40 ly, y' = 9 ly, z' = 0 ly

>
Please pay attention to Hachel notations.

 I have made the transformation of the coordinates
of an event from R to R' as you asked for.

  Stella and Terrence, Bob and Alice may produce
their coordinate sets magically, it's easy
in fabricated tales. In the real world -
generating a reliable set of coordinates
is a serious task. We don't really have even
1 (one) real set of coordinates valid for
your precious transformations.

This is not magic, nor invented tales.
The theory of relativity is today an obvious theory (as long as we understand what is happening and why). The problem is that physicists do not understand correctly what is happening, and that their approach is mainly mathematical in seeking to fall back on their feet experimentally. I predict many disappointments for them if they do not read and understand what I wrote, and they will remain in their stupidity and arrogance "we do not want this little doctor to reign over us". History has repeated itself tirelessly since antiquity.
No, no, it is very logical and very coherent, I found everything that Poincaré said, and I even went further in the beauty and logic of the relativistic concept.
We must start from the basic principle that the notion of simultaneity is relative in a relativistic universe (and ours IS relativistic, all the experiments that will come will show this more and more).
In a Newtonian universe, if we take an orthonormal frame, and we place a point A(2,2) and a point B(4,2) and that from a point M(3,2) located in the middle we send any signal at equilalent speed (it can be the speed of light or another), we know that the reception (e1 and e2) will be simultaneous, but also that the reception by M of the return (e3 and e4) will be simultaneous.
On the other hand, e1 and e3 will not be simultaneous; and e2 and e4 will not be simultaneous.
It's very simple.
In an anisochronous universe too, like the relativistic universe, the real one, that of Hachel, things are a little different. M, of course, will consider that e1 and e2 are simultaneous, and that e3 and e4 are also simultaneous, but that e1, e2, e3, e4 all occurred at the same time.
This simple and obvious Hachette notion confuses both relativistic physicists and Newtonian physicists.
But let's go further.
What happens for the point O(0,0), the origin of the frame?
In Newtonian mode, the events e1 and e2 occurred simultaneously for M, and we say that, a priori, they necessarily occurred simultaneously for O. Then we say that, on the other hand, the reception by O (e3, e4) of the return will not be simultaneous, which seems obvious.
But the Newtonian mode is Newtonian, it is not relativistic, and it no longer describes the real world if we go very fast or if we go very far.
In correct relativistic mode, for O, the events e1 and e2 DID NOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY while this was the case for M.
And even if for O, e1=e3 and e2=e4 (direct-live), we will have neither e1=e2 nor e3=e4.
This is the first well-understood principle of relativity.
What is very strange is that most of the speakers do not understand it because of an unreasonable belief in a hyperplane of present time common to all points of the frame, to all points of the universe.
They do however understand the relativity of the chronotropy that will result from it, if I move very quickly from A to B, but NOT, it seems,
the notion of universal anisochrony.
Similarly they do not seem to understand what really happens when Stella turns at its aphelion, they speak of a kind of rot under the carpet that they call "gap time". However, this notion does not exist at all in Dr. Hachel, on the other hand, space being a mollusk of reference, there is a gigantic spatial zoom that they ignore, although it is written in black and white in the Poincaré transformations
(if we apply them correctly), with an earth rejected at 36 al, and which will return with an apparent speed of 4c on Stella, during 9 years of its own time.
D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
So relativity is true, but it is extremely poorly understood from its simplest bases.
R.H.