Re: Oh my God!

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 22:26:50 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 22:18:12 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
>

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:24:31 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

Our frame, the S frame, is moving.

>
If it's "our" frame, then we are stationary by the first principle.

>
======================================================================
No. We are NOT obligated always to make ourselves the stationary
observer. In solving relativistic problems, we choose whichever frames
are most natural and convenient for solving the problem. Take a look
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect.

Remove the sentence period from the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

I am 74% author of this article. I did not write the section on
"Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect", nor did I write "Doppler
effect on intensity", nor did I create figures 1 or 8. Everything else
though, is my writing and my drawing (with some improvements by the
sharp eyes of Albert Gartinger).
>
Note how, in Figures 2, 4, 5 and 6, I compare analyses based on
stationary versus moving observers? The preferred analysis is not
always based on stationary observers.
======================================================================