Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:58:50 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <54caf376a18495506c6cdaddac8bbb07@www.novabbs.com>
References: <GBEGTHyJnMpjHuJ0IoZO0OLSc1M@jntp> <0b2ff7832787b9d3165d93803b09df8f@www.novabbs.com> <74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp> <cda33e42de10aeee9283e500b47a63f9@www.novabbs.com> <AE2L2lzGJn13Z_4dg3bpJC59QsA@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1783025"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$K5pinlumjPuEo7EzBudnAOjaRRyqvLLWCMGVswZTwMkaNH4wJml3y
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4077
Lines: 77

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:44:15 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh.  Maybe an OMG!  Meaning, you just
> > realized that Jan is right.  Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
> > too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
> >
> > You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
> > contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
> > Vo.  LC is NOT so dependent.  It would be a VERY strange universe if
> > it were.
>
> You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
> And for sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
> Isn't it a Doppler shift?
> Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.

The classical Doppler shift is lambda' = lambda/(1 +/- v).  The
relativistic
Doppler equation is lambda' = lambda sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)/(1 +/- v/c). 
Which,
of course, is lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) for approaching
and
lambda' = lambda sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c) for receding.

> This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".

It is not a distance effect, and definitely not LC.

> Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is
> neither fair nor pretty.

Nope.  The transverse Doppler effect is simply time dilation.  Your
equation has longitudinal Doppler built into it.

> I am saddened to see how we can define the concepts so badly, and I
> understand why we have been stuck for 120 years without producing much
> (except me).

Au contraire, YOU are the one defining concepts badly.

> What differentiates physicists from me is that for me, there are
> not two effects, one relativistic, the other classical Doppler.
> For me, there is only one logical effect.
> Not two.

Of course there's only one in the REAL world (which isn't classical).

> The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.

Nope.

> When Römer observes the moons of Jupiter, his measurements are correct:
> but he will say: "When you cut a dog's legs, it no longer comes when you
> hit its bowl to eat: cutting a dog's legs affects its eardrums".
> I would prefer that we speak of internal Doppler effect, and external
> Doppler effect. The terms would be more accurate.

Nope.  There are only longitudinal and transverse.

> Longitudinal Doppler effect, I understand, and it is not necessarily
> wrong, but transverse Doppler effect, it is a bit ridiculous as a
> denomination (as if there were a transverse external Doppler effect). It
> is absurd.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

> The problem is internal and reciprocal and is diffused to all external
> emission, it is not "transverse".
>
> R.H.

As long as you insist on creating your own definitions, you will not be
able to communicate with Saint Isaac.

“People  who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.” – Isaac Asimov