Re: The mathematical Poincaré-Lorentz transformations

Le 24/09/2024 à 22:08, Python a écrit :

 Quite the opposite. They don't need hints to know you are talking
shit. By the way you should (you won't) think about the comparison
with a siren on an ambulance going forth and back. I'll post about
this soon, but you may want to find by yourself.

The sound Doppler effect is interesting, but well... Once again, you're going to waste your time.
You're going to show that the Doppler effect explanation works, and nothing more: you're not going to get to the bottom of things.
But you're not going to show why it works, because you take my equations for total crap, despite their logic and mathematical beauty that even Einstein or Poincaré didn't have.
But FUCK, that's not what's important, it's not your watermelon that's going to synchronize the watches, it's not your ambulance siren, but we don't care about all that.
That's not the important thing.
The important thing is to understand that the notion of a relativistic frame of reference is biased if we apply it to anything other than the observer himself.
The important thing is to understand that since each observer has his own relativistic hyperplane of simultaneity, it is mandatory to go through it to correctly and perfectly describe things.
The important thing is to understand that if we practice like this, for any observer, there is a perfect fluidity of times for all observers, and that talking about gap-time is particularly stupid.
What physicists do is stupid. They calculate time in the forward frame of reference (measured by a point M and its synchronization) then in the return frame of reference (with another point M' also placed on the normal but from another incredibly different frame of reference M').
Realizing that we cannot add the return and return times, they invent a tiem-gap that has absolutely no place in my home (which allows you to insult me ​​when you have understood NOTHING, once again).
I have referred you dozens of times to nemo.physics where you will find the perfect description of what is happening.
Such a description should make you think, after drinking two or three cups of coffee, maybe you will have the tilt, the mathematical illumination.
The perfection, the coherence and the beauty of the whole thing far exceeds all the bullshit invented by Minkowski and those who followed him, including the idiot Albert Einstein.
So if you want to show yourself up to it:
1. Study what I say without acting like a monkey.
2. Realize that it is as mind-blowing as no one has ever mind-blowed the theory (to better re-mind it)
3. Show that you have balls and attack scientific public opinion by telling them that you have understood and validated something
that they will never be able to understand if you do not help them.
And stop with your watermelons and your ambulances, it is grotesque.
Go into the depth and clarity of things.
With your ambulances, you will never be able to make them understand that the road on which the ambulance is driving is a reference mollusk, and that it is no longer the same depending on the speed.
They will never be able to understand that if there are twelve km to go, the ambulance will have to travel thirty-six, and that those who call me a monkey without having understood the beauty and logic of reasoning (see my little comics on Nemo) are themselves arrogant monkeys, criticizing a stroke of genius that they have not even understood and that they cannot even explain.
R.H.