Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <gOwZpSJNKr-zHE8K5QhMMWOZ-1E@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics
References: <GBEGTHyJnMpjHuJ0IoZO0OLSc1M@jntp> <0b2ff7832787b9d3165d93803b09df8f@www.novabbs.com> <74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp>
 <cda33e42de10aeee9283e500b47a63f9@www.novabbs.com> <AE2L2lzGJn13Z_4dg3bpJC59QsA@jntp>
 <66b3d79f$0$3656$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <dlVAS4dgp1D4i_LVHm3d5U9hqow@jntp>
 <43ee5c178f7ae877c0c3e00e77386494@www.novabbs.com> <xHQxwI0qFFk4RXIOP_V9qQEYF6o@jntp>
 <03be6498d21bfde3edbac3669f10841c@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: x3MmtoRHgMPrhnWEOgloXwLu7GE
JNTP-ThreadID: azmKI4HvnEJnqvnVFsjpWB8pljI
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gOwZpSJNKr-zHE8K5QhMMWOZ-1E@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 24 20:29:55 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-10T20:29:55Z/8982278"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From:  Richard Hachel   <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr>
Bytes: 4108
Lines: 39

Le 10/08/2024 à 15:02, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 9:02:41 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
> It's a mystery to me what "RR" stands for, but your use of the term
> "apparent speed" is tenuous.  To me, it means an optical illusion, which
> has no place in solving relativity problems.  Velocity is the correct
> term, and it is measured as v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), where t2 and t1 are
> read from synchronized chronometers at points x2 and x1, respectively,
> as the object whose velocity is meing measured passes those points.

Two important things to answer.
First, you say that for you, the longitudinal Doppler effect is only an 
illusion. I understand what you are saying, although I consider it false. 
For me, I do not have this usual vision, and I use the concept "think 
different" so dear to relativistic physicists, but who do not apply it, 
leaving me alone to think differently, which is a shame.
For physicists, there "would be" something like a transverse effect (which 
is not only transverse since it concerns all directions and only affects 
speed); an effect to which would be added a false effect, a decoy effect, 
which we would call the longitudinal Doppler effect.
I do not find this very serious, even if it suits them.
For me, everything is live-live, and the two effects are cumulative 
live-live.
The terms must be as precise as possible so that things are as well 
understood and as well taught as possible, I will rather use the terms of 
internal Doppler effect which shows that it is not a traditional Doppler 
effect, neither transverse nor longitudinal.
To this internal Doppler effect (endowed with the gamma factor), is added 
an effect just as real, but externally this time, the external (or 
longitudinal) Doppler effect.
For me, both effects are real.
For me, Römer was wrong in proposing (the trap was fatal, we should not 
blame him) a LONGITUDINAL speed of light for the anomalies that he noted. 
He did not realize that he was constantly seeing Jupiter live (like the 
whole universe) but that by approaching or moving away from the body, he 
modified (to the first longitudinal degree) its universal anisochrony.
I implore you to understand the difference between "observable speed of 
light limited to c" and "spatial anisochrony with instantaneous transfer 
of visual information".

R.H.