Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

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