Post by Maciej WozniakPost by Paul.B.AndersenPost by Richard HachelPost by Paul.B.AndersenPost by Richard HachelPoincaré-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.