Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 06:44 On Apr 9, 6:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:055be373-32c0-4689-9cc9-897cc0076dcc(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 9, 2:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 9 Apr, 03:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:eb581e80-73ee-4f1b-b86a-729c49128d65(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > >> It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > >> >> > >> measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of > >> >> > >> another > >> >> > >> measurement. > > >> >> > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > >> >> > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > >> >> > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical > >> >> > > difference > >> >> > > of > >> >> > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > >> >> > You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and agree > >> >> > on > >> >> > that. > > >> >> > Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian > >> >> > model > >> >> > that > >> >> > you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... > > >> >> Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model here. > > >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And > >> >> > so, > >> >> > by > >> >> > your definition, A's velocity isn't real. > > >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And > >> >> > so, > >> >> > by > >> >> > your definition, B's velocity isn't real. > > >> >> We must be more clear about what is "real" here. You keep talking > >> >> about "A's velocity". What you mean, but didn't say, is A's velocity > >> >> *with respect to a certain frame*. I also explained that "frames" are, > >> >> in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real objects > >> >> (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation to a > >> >> real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" > >> >> would be useless in practical reality. > > >> >> Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame (which > >> >> is implicitly anchored to some other object), then that velocity is > >> >> real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same > >> >> relationship). > > >> >> A's velocity with respect to a different frame (and hence, with > >> >> reference to a different anchor object) is also real (again, all > >> >> observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). > > >> >> Finally, A and B's velocity relative to each other is also real (for > >> >> the third time, all observers get the same value when measuring the > >> >> same relationship). > > >> >> > However, the difference between A' not-real velocity and B's > >> >> > not-real > >> >> > velocity IS real. Similarly, the difference in their momentums is > >> >> > also > >> >> > real. However, the difference in their kinetic energies is not > >> >> > real. > > >> > =================== > > >> >> I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a > >> >> frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a > >> >> mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property or > >> >> relationship between physical objects. > > >> > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as > >> > fast as you can swing your leg. > > >> > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as > >> > fast as you can swing your leg. > > >> > Which of your toes is really broken and > >> > which of your toes is mathematically broken? > > >> > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. > >> > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. > > >> > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges > >> > of a conspiracy. > > >> > Sue... > > >> When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and > >> appearing > >> knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :) > > > No mining involved. > > > It is from a collection I started several > > years ago to advance discussions beyond > > nauseous page after page of ascii maths > > that had no hope of physically determining which > > light corpuscle hit the rail passenger first. ;-) > > > As Wikipedia has matured I find less > > need for my own collection and that > > may give the appearance of mining. > > > Support for a particular point of view > > is not what determines "relevance". More > > often than not, a controversy is perpetuated > > because someone has overlooked an important > > point of view. > > > Frequently a offered page is one that got me > > out of a rut or tail-chase. It is not > > irrelevant just because it doesn't help > > another in the same manner. > > > I admit to throwing a few gutter balls now and > > then and try to 'fess-up when I do. But > > is not nearly as many as my detractors accuse. > > Might I not-so-humbly suggest that you actually post your own words more > often, as they are far more likely to be relevant and far more > entertaining,. It will surely be entertaining when the rest of group takes off your head for suggesting they endure more of my typing ineptness. Honestly... If I suggested you don't express things with Einstein's equations but use your own you would laugh me out of town. The placement and meaning of words like imaginary real or apparent can be just as mathematically formal as an equation so I prefer to cut and paste just as an equation. Readers don't need my help misinterpreting formal statements. Of the railcar gedanken Mark Twain wrote: "The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." Maybe that is a stretch but you might fact check it with Halley's comet. Sue...
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 09:08 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:30c086a4-e5cf-4b4d-b89a-0df736e9276e(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 6:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:055be373-32c0-4689-9cc9-897cc0076dcc(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 9, 2:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Apr, 03:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:eb581e80-73ee-4f1b-b86a-729c49128d65(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of >> >> >> > >> a >> >> >> > >> measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of >> >> >> > >> another >> >> >> > >> measurement. >> >> >> >> > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B >> >> >> > > is >> >> >> > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical >> >> >> > > difference >> >> >> > > of >> >> >> > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. >> >> >> >> > You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and >> >> >> > agree >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > that. >> >> >> >> > Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian >> >> >> > model >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... >> >> >> >> Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model >> >> >> here. >> >> >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. >> >> >> > And >> >> >> > so, >> >> >> > by >> >> >> > your definition, A's velocity isn't real. >> >> >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. >> >> >> > And >> >> >> > so, >> >> >> > by >> >> >> > your definition, B's velocity isn't real. >> >> >> >> We must be more clear about what is "real" here. You keep talking >> >> >> about "A's velocity". What you mean, but didn't say, is A's >> >> >> velocity >> >> >> *with respect to a certain frame*. I also explained that "frames" >> >> >> are, >> >> >> in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real >> >> >> objects >> >> >> (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation >> >> >> to a >> >> >> real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" >> >> >> would be useless in practical reality. >> >> >> >> Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame >> >> >> (which >> >> >> is implicitly anchored to some other object), then that velocity is >> >> >> real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same >> >> >> relationship). >> >> >> >> A's velocity with respect to a different frame (and hence, with >> >> >> reference to a different anchor object) is also real (again, all >> >> >> observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). >> >> >> >> Finally, A and B's velocity relative to each other is also real >> >> >> (for >> >> >> the third time, all observers get the same value when measuring the >> >> >> same relationship). >> >> >> >> > However, the difference between A' not-real velocity and B's >> >> >> > not-real >> >> >> > velocity IS real. Similarly, the difference in their momentums >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > also >> >> >> > real. However, the difference in their kinetic energies is not >> >> >> > real. >> >> >> > =================== >> >> >> >> I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a >> >> >> frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a >> >> >> mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property >> >> >> or >> >> >> relationship between physical objects. >> >> >> > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as >> >> > fast as you can swing your leg. >> >> >> > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as >> >> > fast as you can swing your leg. >> >> >> > Which of your toes is really broken and >> >> > which of your toes is mathematically broken? >> >> >> > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. >> >> > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. >> >> >> > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges >> >> > of a conspiracy. >> >> >> > Sue... >> >> >> When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and >> >> appearing >> >> knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :) >> >> > No mining involved. >> >> > It is from a collection I started several >> > years ago to advance discussions beyond >> > nauseous page after page of ascii maths >> > that had no hope of physically determining which >> > light corpuscle hit the rail passenger first. ;-) >> >> > As Wikipedia has matured I find less >> > need for my own collection and that >> > may give the appearance of mining. >> >> > Support for a particular point of view >> > is not what determines "relevance". More >> > often than not, a controversy is perpetuated >> > because someone has overlooked an important >> > point of view. >> >> > Frequently a offered page is one that got me >> > out of a rut or tail-chase. It is not >> > irrelevant just because it doesn't help >> > another in the same manner. >> >> > I admit to throwing a few gutter balls now and >> > then and try to 'fess-up when I do. But >> > is not nearly as many as my detractors accuse. >> >> Might I not-so-humbly suggest that you actually post your own words more >> often, as they are far more likely to be relevant and far more >> entertaining,. > > It will surely be entertaining when the rest > of group takes off your head for suggesting they > endure more of my typing ineptness. Your typing is fine :) > Honestly... If I suggested you don't express things > with Einstein's equations but use your own you > would laugh me out of town. True. > The placement and meaning of words like imaginary > real or apparent can be just as mathematically formal > as an equation so I prefer to cut and paste just > as an equation. I understand .. but your apparent hit-and-miss approach to posting from the same set of quotes and links gives the wrong impression. I'm sure you're trying to appear knowledgeable, but it has the exact opposite effect. > Readers don't need my help misinterpreting > formal statements. True again. > Of the railcar gedanken Mark Twain wrote: > "The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, > but that the lightning ain't distributed right." Bahaha :):) > Maybe that is a stretch but you might fact > check it with Halley's comet. Next time it passes by, I'll ask
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 10:07 On Apr 9, 9:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:30c086a4-e5cf-4b4d-b89a-0df736e9276e(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:055be373-32c0-4689-9cc9-897cc0076dcc(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 9, 2:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >> >>news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9 Apr, 03:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >news:eb581e80-73ee-4f1b-b86a-729c49128d65(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > >> It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of > >> >> >> > >> a > >> >> >> > >> measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of > >> >> >> > >> another > >> >> >> > >> measurement. > > >> >> >> > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B > >> >> >> > > is > >> >> >> > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical > >> >> >> > > difference > >> >> >> > > of > >> >> >> > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > >> >> >> > You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and > >> >> >> > agree > >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> > that. > > >> >> >> > Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian > >> >> >> > model > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... > > >> >> >> Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model > >> >> >> here. > > >> >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. > >> >> >> > And > >> >> >> > so, > >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> > your definition, A's velocity isn't real. > > >> >> >> > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. > >> >> >> > And > >> >> >> > so, > >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> > your definition, B's velocity isn't real. > > >> >> >> We must be more clear about what is "real" here. You keep talking > >> >> >> about "A's velocity". What you mean, but didn't say, is A's > >> >> >> velocity > >> >> >> *with respect to a certain frame*. I also explained that "frames" > >> >> >> are, > >> >> >> in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real > >> >> >> objects > >> >> >> (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation > >> >> >> to a > >> >> >> real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" > >> >> >> would be useless in practical reality. > > >> >> >> Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame > >> >> >> (which > >> >> >> is implicitly anchored to some other object), then that velocity is > >> >> >> real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same > >> >> >> relationship). > > >> >> >> A's velocity with respect to a different frame (and hence, with > >> >> >> reference to a different anchor object) is also real (again, all > >> >> >> observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). > > >> >> >> Finally, A and B's velocity relative to each other is also real > >> >> >> (for > >> >> >> the third time, all observers get the same value when measuring the > >> >> >> same relationship). > > >> >> >> > However, the difference between A' not-real velocity and B's > >> >> >> > not-real > >> >> >> > velocity IS real. Similarly, the difference in their momentums > >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> > also > >> >> >> > real. However, the difference in their kinetic energies is not > >> >> >> > real. > > >> >> > =================== > > >> >> >> I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a > >> >> >> frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a > >> >> >> mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> relationship between physical objects. > > >> >> > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as > >> >> > fast as you can swing your leg. > > >> >> > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as > >> >> > fast as you can swing your leg. > > >> >> > Which of your toes is really broken and > >> >> > which of your toes is mathematically broken? > > >> >> > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. > >> >> > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. > > >> >> > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges > >> >> > of a conspiracy. > > >> >> > Sue... > > >> >> When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and > >> >> appearing > >> >> knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :) > > >> > No mining involved. > > >> > It is from a collection I started several > >> > years ago to advance discussions beyond > >> > nauseous page after page of ascii maths > >> > that had no hope of physically determining which > >> > light corpuscle hit the rail passenger first. ;-) > > >> > As Wikipedia has matured I find less > >> > need for my own collection and that > >> > may give the appearance of mining. > > >> > Support for a particular point of view > >> > is not what determines "relevance". More > >> > often than not, a controversy is perpetuated > >> > because someone has overlooked an important > >> > point of view. > > >> > Frequently a offered page is one that got me > >> > out of a rut or tail-chase. It is not > >> > irrelevant just because it doesn't help > >> > another in the same manner. > > >> > I admit to throwing a few gutter balls now and > >> > then and try to 'fess-up when I do. But > >> > is not nearly as many as my detractors accuse. > > >> Might I not-so-humbly suggest that you actually post your own words more > >> often, as they are far more likely to be relevant and far more > >> entertaining,. > > > It will surely be entertaining when the rest > > of group takes off your head for suggesting they > > endure more of my typing ineptness. > > Your typing is fine :) > > > Honestly... If I suggested you don't express things > > with Einstein's equations but use your own you > > would laugh me out of town. > > True. > > > The placement and meaning of words like imaginary > > real or apparent can be just as mathematically formal > > as an equation so I prefer to cut and paste just > > as an equation. ============= > > I understand .. but your apparent hit-and-miss approach to posting from the > same set of quotes and links gives the wrong impression. I'm sure you're > trying to appear knowledgeable, but it has the exact opposite effect. Ya see, there are some posters that guard their delusions so jealously they forget their failed arguments after about a month or so and try to resurrect the argument for a new fairy-tale. If I had Shakespeare's email I would forward the responses to him for a little custom polishing each time so they will appear fresh and original. I console myself with my own delusion that if a reader sees the same words over and over and over, after some finite number of repetitions they will commit to memory. But experience shows otherwise. Sue... > > > Readers don't need my help misinterpreting > > formal statements. > > True again. > > > Of the railcar gedanken Mark Twain wrote: > > "The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, > > but that the lightning ain't distributed right." > > Bahaha :):) > > > Maybe that is a stretch but you might fact > > check it with Halley's comet. > > Next time it passes by, I'll ask
From: paparios on 9 Apr 2010 10:24 On 8 abr, 21:59, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Apr, 14:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not about "faith over evidence". The evidence is meaningless > without interpretation. The real question, which is the same as it > ever was in human history, is *how* we are to interpret evidence, not > *whether* we are to interpret it. Let us explore this for a moment, in the form of a very simple gedanken (I have used this on several occasions). No frame of references are needed. You are aboard a space ship in intergalactic space (meaning you are very far away from gravitational effects). While in this condition, you do not feel any force acting on your body (you are weightless floating inside your space ship). Also, you have aboard a small window and you are looking through it and, of course you see just a complete darkness, without galaxies, stars or any other stellar object in your surroundings. Suddenly, you start to see, far away, an object which, with the help of a telescope, you identify as another space ship (by its use of flashing red and green beacons). The object appears to be approaching your location. Now, which of the following assertions is true and which is false. a)Your space ship is not moving and the other space ship is approaching at a speed v (closing speed measured with a laser gun). b)Your space ship is moving at a speed v and the other space ship is not moving. c)Your space ship is moving at a speed 0.4v towards the other space ship, which itself is moving at a speed 0.6v towards you. d)There are infinite solutions of relative speeds satisfying the observation. e)All of the previous assertions are true, since speed is a frame dependent variable. So for escape from this multitude of compatible solutions, you have to choose one of them, which is equivalent to select one of the frames of reference to calculate the different physical quantities. So for you, it is easier to select a given point (x0,y0,z0) and given axes (x,y,z) somewhere inside your ship, as that frame of reference which allows you to discard all alternatives except (a). This is exactly what scientists do in their experiments. They select a given point in their labs and perform their experiments using those coordinates. They do not have, in general, to consider that their labs are moving along with the ground at around 1500 km/hr, or with the whole Earth around the Sun at about 30 km/sec, or with the whole Solar system towards Vega at about 240 km/seg and so on... Miguel Rios
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 10:45
On Apr 8, 8:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Apr, 14:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > And what we really mean by "reference frame" is that > > > > > certain real objects have defined mathematical values for their > > > > > properties (like defining certain objects to be at rest, and facing a > > > > > certain direction), and the values of all other objects are calculated > > > > > in relation to that. > > > > > > But certainly, there is no need to make reference to a "frame" in > > > > > order to calculate a "relative speed" between two objects. > > > > > Yes, there is. > > > > Is there? (And I'm assuming we're disregarding SR). > > > I'm talking about how nature works. If what you mean by "calculate a > > relative speed" you intend to produce a result that corresponds to > > something measurably verifiable, then yes, you do need to include > > reference to a frame, because a measurable relative speed (or to use a > > more carefully defined physics term, closing speed) is frame- > > dependent. Now, if you wish to say, "I can certainly calculate > > anything I want, regardless whether it has any relevance to anything > > measurable, and I can certainly choose to do so in a way that is frame- > > independent," then you are certainly free to do that, just as you are > > free to suppose everlasting souls and the presence of angels. It's > > just that there's no scientific interest in doing so. > > The beauty of theory Paul is that you can perform measurements without > involving (or having reference to) any observer. You're quite right > that, in real experiment, the observer himself must have a velocity > with respect to the two objects of interest. But the point is to > isolate and iron out the observer effects, and leave only a "real" > remainder. First of all, no measurement is made in a theory. A gedanken is not an experiment of any kind. At most what you can do in a gedanken is say, "IF this model is correct, then the following will be true. And IF this model is correct, then when a real observer makes so-and-such measurements, then this is what we would expect the result to be." But there are some things for which it is foolish to suppose even in the first place. For example, it is foolish to suppose that there is a real and invariant velocity of an object that would remain if only the effects of observers were removed. What possible "real" and invariant velocity would remain, and how would it be defined? > > So for example, if you're talking about the frequency of an audio > source, then you isolate the Doppler effects and correct for them, > leaving the "true" value for the source frequency. This is not removing an "effect". By "true" source frequency, you are simply stating what the frequency is as observed in the reference frame in which the source is at rest. There is no "true" frequency other than that. By "isolating the Doppler effects and correcting for them," what you are doing is switching from the reference frame in which the source is moving to the reference frame in which the source is stationary. There is nothing in that which is separating "real" from "distorted perception". It is simply recognizing the frame dependence of the frequency and choosing a particular frame and LABELING it (arbitrarily) as the "true" frequency. This is an important point, because it is a common misunderstanding by amateurs that the values of physical properties of an object are somehow more "real" when measured in the rest frame of the object. There is no earthly reason to suppose this, but some people do. To give you an example of where this runs into problem, this suggests that the only "real" value of velocity, momentum, kinetic energy, magnetic field (etc) of objects is zero. Since this seems foolish, then one should ask why then it would seem that the frequency of a horn is more "real" when measured in the horn's rest frame, or the length of a rod is more "real" when measured in its rest frame. > > > > > And it turns out that the relative speed between two > > > > objects as *measured* in different reference frames, is frame- > > > > dependent. Observationally. Whether you think this is nonsense or not. > > > > And of course, I do think that. > > > Then you should be encouraged to do some measurements. > > Again, the fundamental issue is that you seem to insist on believing > > in the unverifiable reality of certain things because those things > > make sense to you. > > No, it's simply because I hold that not everything "real", and of > relevance, can be directly measured and verified. As would be claimed by people who hold that they can infer the existence of angels from other evidence, even though angels themselves cannot be directly measured and verified. > > > And you are more willing to believe in those things > > than you are in statements that are contrary but confirmed by > > measurement. As long as you do that, then you are simply favoring > > faith over evidence, and that has nothing to do with science. > > It's not about "faith over evidence". The evidence is meaningless > without interpretation. The real question, which is the same as it > ever was in human history, is *how* we are to interpret evidence, not > *whether* we are to interpret it. |