Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
 

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-Vo?/c?)?
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.

 It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
 Jan

The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and other such joys.
You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.
All the bullshit of the relativists only obscures human knowledge, deflects it, and does not take it further.
I will never understand all this madness.
It is not mass that is relative, but speed, THEREFORE the quantity of movement, therefore energy.
The notion of rest mass is useless at all, except to make physicists look like Laurel and Hardy type comedians.
No need for that to give a beautiful, physical, mathematical, coherent, true theory.
Human beings are both idiots and pedants.
R.H.