Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

On 08/07/2024 01:22 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

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
>

What, your sockpuppets tire out?
According to Maxwell the field's speed is actually a bit
greater than 3.06 x 10^8 m/s, ....
Not so much tachyonic though as according to "gravity's speed"
coming down or braking from the standing electrical field wave.
"... didn't have relativity in order ...", that's rich.