An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
to the star
Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
reference frame.
We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
relativistic particle at speed
Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
axis of the
aimed at Sirius.
According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
direction and speed
of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
reference.
R.H.

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
> to the star
> Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
> reference frame.
> We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
> In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
> relativistic particle at speed
> Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
> axis of the
> aimed at Sirius.
> According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
> direction and speed
> of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
> reference.
>
> R.H.

A frame can only add to its own motion and energy.
Your motion does not give order to another frame.
How can your acceleration give kinetic energy
to any another frame? Multiple frames would give
multiple kinetic energies to the one same frame.
Relativity predicting multiple results show it
could never be an accurate theory.

Mitchell Raemsch

Le 04/09/2023 à 05:01, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
>> to the star
>> Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
>> reference frame.
>> We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
>> In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
>> relativistic particle at speed
>> Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
>> axis of the
>> aimed at Sirius.
>> According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
>> direction and speed
>> of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
>> reference.
>>
>> R.H.

> Relativity predicting multiple results show it
> could never be an accurate theory.

? ? ?

> Mitchell Raemsch

It is precisely the genius of relativity to predict different things for
different observers.

Let’s pose Elisabeth and Mary.

Elisabeth goes to look for eggs on Monday in Father Joseph's henhouse. She
finds seven eggs.

Mary goes to look for eggs on Tuesdays in Mother Michel's henhouse. She
finds nine.

It's not the same observer, the same day, the same place.

Different observers placed in different places have different notions of
simultaneity (depending on their position), chronotropy (depending on
their relative speed), lengths and distances.

Doctor Hachel has already explained it a hundred times, and many have
difficulty understanding.

The most difficult to understand is the relativity of distances.

Humanity is completely confused by Hachel's depth of thought when he says
that the effects on distances are reciprocal
by reference permutation.

This inability of human beings to follow his simple thought is
extraordinary: and it is said: "He is arrogant."

They don't realize that they are the stupid people, not me.

They do not understand, for example, that when we move at 0.8c towards
something, the lengths but also the distances are multiplied by three.

It overwhelms them and confuses them.

And they say "I'm an expert in physics, and Doctor Hachel is a crank".

They understood nothing of their own theory.

Their blindness is total and ridiculous.

R.H.

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 04/09/2023 à 05:01, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:45:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> An intergalactic rocket in uniform Galilean motion connects the earth
> >> to the star
> >> Sirius with a constant speed of Vo=0.8c measured in the terrestrial R
> >> reference frame.
> >> We assume that the rocket moves on the axis Ox of R.
> >> In the frame of reference R' of the rocket, we then eject a
> >> relativistic particle at speed
> >> Uo=0.6c, whose trajectory in R' forms an angle α =60° relative to the
> >> axis of the
> >> aimed at Sirius.
> >> According to the special Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, the
> >> direction and speed
> >> of the particle will be different depending on the chosen frame of
> >> reference.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > Relativity predicting multiple results show it
> > could never be an accurate theory.
> ? ? ?
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> It is precisely the genius of relativity to predict different things for
> different observers.

Then how is it accurate in that multiple?
How do you measure the difference between relative and absolute motion?
The atom can compete with light speed at a motion BH. How are they relative?
if the atom can compete with light's absolute speed?

Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed an alternative in 1905.
What motion does a frame have if there is more than one motion for it?

Mitchell Raemsch
> Let’s pose Elisabeth and Mary.
>
> Elisabeth goes to look for eggs on Monday in Father Joseph's henhouse. She
> finds seven eggs.
>
> Mary goes to look for eggs on Tuesdays in Mother Michel's henhouse. She
> finds nine.
>
> It's not the same observer, the same day, the same place.
>
> Different observers placed in different places have different notions of
> simultaneity (depending on their position), chronotropy (depending on
> their relative speed), lengths and distances.
>
> Doctor Hachel has already explained it a hundred times, and many have
> difficulty understanding.
>
> The most difficult to understand is the relativity of distances.
>
> Humanity is completely confused by Hachel's depth of thought when he says
> that the effects on distances are reciprocal
> by reference permutation.
>
> This inability of human beings to follow his simple thought is
> extraordinary: and it is said: "He is arrogant."
>
> They don't realize that they are the stupid people, not me.
>
> They do not understand, for example, that when we move at 0.8c towards
> something, the lengths but also the distances are multiplied by three.
>
> It overwhelms them and confuses them.
>
> And they say "I'm an expert in physics, and Doctor Hachel is a crank".
>
> They understood nothing of their own theory.
>
> Their blindness is total and ridiculous.
>
> R.H.

Here is the spatial Lorentz Transform used by textbooks for velocity addition. Notice positive +vt′.

x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )

Does the train move with positive speed-v down the track?

No. The track moves with negative speed-v under the train, negative speed-v with respect to the ground.

Does the train fire off point-x′ which will be observed on the track, on the ground?

No. The ground discharges point-x′ with positive speed-w.

Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is ( x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

Not quite right: Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is ( x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

Total displacement observed on the negatively moving track is not ( x′ + vt′ ), it’s the transformed value of ( x′ + vt′ ), namely gamma × ( x′ + vt′ ).

Speed sum ( w + v ) is not the value observed on the negatively moving track. Speed on the track is the speed of point-x-unprimed, x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ ).

Le 09/09/2023 à 11:36, xip14 a écrit :
> Here is the spatial Lorentz Transform used by textbooks for velocity addition.
> Notice positive +vt′.
>
> x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )
>
> Does the train move with positive speed-v down the track?
>
> No. The track moves with negative speed-v under the train, negative speed-v
> with respect to the ground.
>
> Does the train fire off point-x′ which will be observed on the track, on the
> ground?
>
> No. The ground discharges point-x′ with positive speed-w.
>
> Total displacement of point-x′ observed on the negatively moving track is (
> x′ + vt′ ) or ( w + v ).

There are two ways of looking at things.
The positive transformations of Poincaré, or the negative transformations
of Einstein.
But it's the same transformation except that in one we put +v and in the
other -v.

Poincaré lands in the frame of reference R of the train, motionless, then
in that of the campaign R' which sees him pass from left to right.

He is the first to have obtained the real transformations.

The French mathematician then wrote (here in doctor Hachel script):
x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

and he then gives the inverse equations.

Einstein considers, on the contrary, that the train is fixed in its frame
of reference R' but that it travels from right to left in R' (or what is
equivalent, but a little strange, that it is the countryside which runs
from left to right under the train).

He then obtains the obviously opposite transformations.

x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
To'=(To-x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

It's extraordinarily simple.

The difficulty is not in x, but in To.

The hardest thing to understand is that when I write, for example:
x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
To'=(To-x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²);
where when I write the inverse equation, To and To' are negative.

We are always talking about an event that happened To or To' ago.

R.H.