Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :

>
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
I laughed.
>
R.H.

 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.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither fair nor pretty.
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).
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.
The longitudinal Doppler effect is already a relativistic effect.
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.
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.
The problem is internal and reciprocal and is diffused to all external emission, it is not "transverse".
R.H.