Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[AlphaNumeric]

I have always held the belief I guess that the use of preferred reference frames in SR is a biased approach.

Except there isn't.

If you have two objects traveling at relative velocity IMO it is illogical when considering that the space those two objects are in is effectively neutral and offers no resistance to their velocity, to ascribe velocity only to one of those objects and not equally to both objects.

'Resistance' in the same sense as friction or gravity would mean their relative separation velocity decreases with time, which is doesn't so there's no 'resistance'. And relativity doesn't 'ascribe a velocity to one and not the other', it says you can ascribe any sub-light speed to them provided the relative difference is the same. The reason physicists prefer such things as an object's rest frame or a centre of mass frame is because the mathematics is nicer. The prediction doesn't matter which frame you use but how much work you need to do to get to the answer is enormously dependent upon the frame you choose so why make life hard and not pick the simplest?

If you'd ever actually done any frame related mechanics you'd know QQ.

There is no reason to take on the notion that one observer can unilaterally declare he is at rest and the other observer has all the velocity as he has no way of knowing what his velocity is except by reference to the other observer.

Precisely, if noone can unilaterally say "I'm at rest" and demonstrate as such then there is no 'absolute rest frame', no prefered frame. That's precisely what relativity says, there's such frame. All that changes when going from one frame to another is the complexity of the mathematics, not the physical prediction. It's an axiom of special relativity, physics is frame independent.

The reality of two objects in a vacuum is that the only logical conclusion one can derive is that both objects are undergoing closing or separating velocity in an equal fashion.

No, the conclusion is that no one can say "My frame is better than yours", only "My frame makes the analysis easier". Saying "Let them have the same velocities" is just picking a frame with respect to which they are both moving with equal and opposite velocities. Often that's convenient, such as centre of momentum frames, as you know the total momentum is then going to be zero.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Was just thinking about simple doppler effects and what the observed doppler effect actually means to observers...which promted the post I made.

To say that star such and such is moving aways at such and such rate with out considering your own velocity in the effect observed would be potentially erronous IMO. [ in a two object sytem ]

hmmmmm...worth more thought me thinks....
i.e.
scenario:

If an aircraft was flying blind with only radar readings of another aircraft and no landmark type readings available how would he be able to determine his actual air speed? [ also no air speed meter available either.]
by using Doppler effects only ?
what is the only rational conclusion available to him?
hmmm.......

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To say that star such and such is moving aways at such and such rate with out considering your own velocity in the effect observed would be potentially erronous IMO. [ in a two object sytem ]

Except that if you say "X is moving away from me at velocity Y" then you're defining yourself to be at rest in your coordinates. It's a relative motion. It's not erroneous to say that.

If an aircraft was flying blind with only radar readings of another aircraft and no landmark type readings available how would he be able to determine his actual air speed?

Airspeed is simply defining your velocity relative to the ground. You can find your velocity relative to the air by using pressure gauges but that will not tell you your velocity relative to the ground as the air could be moving, hence why planes often used to go enormously off course, 6 hours at 500mph into a 100mph headwind puts your 600 miles off course.

Without anything other than a pressure gauge the pilot can only tell his velocity relative to the air, all physics is unaffected if the air he's moving through is moving at a constant rate.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Except that if you say "X is moving away from me at velocity Y" then you're defining yourself to be at rest in your coordinates. It's a relative motion. It's not erroneous to say that.

Airspeed is simply defining your velocity relative to the ground. You can find your velocity relative to the air by using pressure gauges but that will not tell you your velocity relative to the ground as the air could be moving, hence why planes often used to go enormously off course, 6 hours at 500mph into a 100mph headwind puts your 600 miles off course.

Without anything other than a pressure gauge the pilot can only tell his velocity relative to the air, all physics is unaffected if the air he's moving through is moving at a constant rate.

can the aircraft gain any information from his radar contact of the other aircraft?
And how would he interpret that information regarding his speed relative to that other aircraft? [ in the context of my earlier post #140]

Keeping in mind that if he thinks of himself being at rest he would surely plummet to the ground and crash...

 

[Oli]

can the aircraft gain any information from his radar contact of the other aircraft?

Of course.

And how would he interpret that information regarding his speed relative to that other aircraft?

As far as the pilot is concerned the only information worth having is that relative to his own plane.

Keeping in mind that if he thinks of himself being at rest he would surely plummet to the ground and crash...

Nonsense.
He thinks of himself at rest and everything else moving, relative to himself.
Otherwise disorientation would set in.

Simply because the pilot establishes his own reference frame based around himself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course.


As far as the pilot is concerned the only information worth having is that relative to his own plane.


Nonsense.
He thinks of himself at rest and everything else moving, relative to himself.
Otherwise disorientation would set in.

Simply because the pilot establishes his own reference frame based around himself.

I would have thought, obviously in error according to your post, that he would refer to his velocity regarding the other plane as either closing velocity or separating velocity...
Because he simply can't seriously consider himself as having zero velocity as his plane is still flying....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course.


As far as the pilot is concerned the only information worth having is that relative to his own plane.


Nonsense.
He thinks of himself at rest and everything else moving, relative to himself.
Otherwise disorientation would set in.

Simply because the pilot establishes his own reference frame based around himself.

Of course this is the standard approach using SR but I wonder why SR would force a pilot of a plane to ignore the knowledge he has of his circumstances?

That sort of self delusion could have disasterous consequences [ for the pilot and his plane]

The point about this scenario is to explore in an impatial way [ dropping SR ideology for a moment] what doppler effects could mean regarding velocities of observers....
sort of reminds me of the famous dude from history

wiki:
Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.[1] His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published in 1543 just before he died, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution. His heliocentric model, with the sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of modern science that is now often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.

Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, quadrilingual polyglot,[2] classical scholar, translator, artist,[3] Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Among his many responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation — yet it was in that field that he made his mark upon the world.

Note the emphasis in bold

 

[James R]

krokah:

I will admit that I have a hard time understanding this as it is outside my field of work. I do have a question. If A = earth, B ship #1 and C ship #2. If B and C are launched from earth in opposite directions, 180 degrees apart, with both ships eventual speed reaching 0.7c relative to earth, but relative to each other they should be 1.4c as an observer on earth.

You're confusing two (or three) different reference frames. The person on Earth sees B and C each moving at 0.7c, which is no problem. The apparent problem is the speed that B sees C as moving at relative to B, and vice versa. The solution to that problem is that relative velocities don't add in the "common sense" way you'd expect in relativity. That is, 0.1c + 0.1c does not equal 0.2c, but is in fact a little less than that. In your example, B sees C as travelling not at 1.4c, but in fact at 0.94c (calculated using the correct relativistic velocity addition formula).


MacM:

? The only correct physical frame is the local proper frame. The driver and the church are in two different frames.

But their "common local rest frame" is the frame of the church, is it not? This is YOUR theory that you explained to me before. Is it now incorrect?

As you and SR claim the drivers watch still ticks at it's local proper tick rate but unlike you and SR claim that tick rate is no longer physically the same as the observer still standing at the church's tick rate.

But you are claiming that the police car's siren is physically the same as it was when the car was stationary relative to the church, aren't you? But shouldn't the driver be hearing an "illusion of motion" for the siren, because he is out of the "common local rest frame" that he accelerated away from?

You claim two different things about the drivers tick rate. you claim it is dilated because he switched frames but then you turn around and claim indirectly that it and the church tick in unison which is what artifically generates the requirement that in the drivers frame distance has contracted.

You haven't asked me what SR claims in this case, so you're making incorrect assumptions. What I am trying to do is to work out what you claim. Because I don't think you know yourself.

Your Texas Two Step is by introducing a very logical (but in error) idea. That is that relative velocity is symmetrical. That is if I am moving away from you at 60 Mph you are moving away from me at 60 Mph.

Ok, let's clear this up. If you are travelling at speed v in my frame, please give me the mathematical formula for the speed v' that you are travelling at in my frame.

Also, I'd like to see you calculation of the speeds for a particular example: You accelerate away from me until you reach a speed (measured by me) of 0.6c. What speed do I now have in your reference frame? Show me how this is calculated.


QQ:

I have always held the belief I guess that the use of preferred reference frames in SR is a biased approach.

One of the postulates of SR is that there are no preferred references frames, so the rest of your post is based on a misconception.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ:



One of the postulates of SR is that there are no preferred references frames, so the rest of your post is based on a misconception.

yes I am aware of that postulate and no I haven't posted based on a misconception.
not sure how you missed it but miss it you did:

I have always held the belief I guess that the use of preferred reference frames in SR is a biased approach.
What I mean by prefferred is slightly different to normal interpretation.

If you have two objects traveling at relative velocity IMO it is illogical when considering that the space those two objects are in is effectively neutral and offers no resistance to their velocity, to ascribe velocity only to one of those objects and not equally to both objects.

If you re-read it properly ...but either way I posted it mainly to offer a clue if possible to MacM's regarding his approach to the "dilation of clocks issue"

maybe it will help and maybe it wont....so I will leave it to you...

 

[MacM]

Years ago you had an idea for a better wind machine. As I recall your were thinking of getting a patent - You hoped to "Eat their cake" Did you ever get the patent? If yes, what is the number. If No, and you care to, PM me a little about it. I have always thought you very clever, both in your simple approaches to experiments on gravity and creation of defenses of your POV. For all I know you do have a good wind idea there too.

Thanks for asking. The following is a complete list of my patents. I only filed one wind application but the patent office felt the system consisted of three different inventions and broke the application ddown and issued three patents.

NASA SATOP did an analysis on the design and gave it a thumbs up concluding my claims of less initial capital, less operating and maintenance cost (<$/KWHe); plus greater output per acre were justified.

A company in Albq, NM has the rights and is pursueing prototyping.

We also just this past January got a patent on my engine design. My original prototy;pe was a 265 in^2 displacement, 4 cylinder, 4 cycle. For comparison if you are un familiar with the in^3 terms a Ford Mustang uses a 289 in^3 V-8 which occupies the entire space under the hood and weighs several hundred pounds. My Rotary Opposed Piston Engine (ROPE) block was 6 inches long by 10 inches in diameter and weighed under 50 pounds.

If you click on the following link and then enter these patent numbers you can review my patents. To see Full Images you may need to download a special viewer called Altiff but it is free on the US Patent site.

http://patft.uspto.gov/

7,472,676 Differential with guided feedback control for rotary opposed- piston engine
7,116,006 Wind energy conversion system
7,098,552 Wind energy conversion system
6,952,058 Wind energy conversion system
4,322,798 Traction pressure control system
4,192,201 Traction controlled in-line transmission
4,192,200 Variable ratio gear transmission
3,292,365 60/412 60/495 60/497 60/565

You can see the engine run on u-tube. Be sure to scroll down from the main video because there are (5) videos showing the inside motion as well.

http://www.youtube.com/BigMacdaddyAZ

 

[MacM]

I will admit that I have a hard time understanding this as it is outside my field of work. I do have a question. If A = earth, B ship #1 and C ship #2. If B and C are launched from earth in opposite directions, 180 degrees apart, with both ships eventual speed reaching 0.7c relative to earth, but relative to each other they should be 1.4c as an observer on earth. Thus A light beam from ship and and ship B would be able to reach earth not would not be able to reach each other. I dont think I am stating this right but you get the gest. What about the clocks, relative to earth as well as each other...

To resolve this issue Einstein proposed that compound velociteis do not dirrectly combine. That is 2 + 2 = 3 not four.

Where "u" is one craft and "v" is the other craft.

In you case the formula called Velocity Addition is :

v = (u + v) /(1 + uv/c^2) But where velocity is state in terms of c:

v = c x (u+v)/(1 + uv) 0r (0.7 + 0.7) / (1 + [0.7 x 0.7]) = 1.4 / (1 + 0.49) = 1.4 / 1.49 = 0.939597c not 1.4c.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That engine design is so clever...
nice videos Dan...

 

[MacM]

Hey Dan, Sorry to hear of your condition. I had been wondering why you had left sciforums alone for so long...and now back with a vengence I see.

Well good for you and go for it.

I hope your family is coping well.

Thanks. Plenty of family support.

Regarding your postion on Sound dopler issue of the two attributes displaying for each observer, that being local rest frame attributes and dare I say "remote" other frame attributes has something about it that has yet to be quantified adequately. I don't know what that is yet.

Physical tick rate vs observed tick rate the distinction between actual physical and observed physical, hmmmmm...something about it that sticks.

Is that "Sticks" or was it "Stinks"?

 

[MacM]

I have always held the belief I guess that the use of preferred reference frames in SR is a biased approach.
What I mean by prefferred is slightly different to normal interpretation.

If you have two objects traveling at relative velocity IMO it is illogical when considering that the space those two objects are in is effectively neutral and offers no resistance to their velocity, to ascribe velocity only to one of those objects and not equally to both objects.

i.e. There is no reason to take on the notion that one observer can unilaterally declare he is at rest and the other observer has all the velocity as he has no way of knowing what his velocity is except by reference to the other observer.
To say that the police car, in the example given, is moving away from the church and not that they are moving away from each other is a fundamental problem of logic IMO.

The reality of two objects in a vacuum is that the only logical conclusion one can derive is that both objects are undergoing closing or separating velocity in an equal fashion.

Just an old opinion that hasn't had any reason to change over the years.
[might help with this problem- never know]

What is your opinion of my arguement against lorentz contraction by retaining the dilated tick rate of the clock in all frames.? That means at relavistic speeds relative veloicty is not symmetrical because the dilated clock observer will use a different time standard to compute v = ds/dt.

Also keep in mind that emperical data supports the view that only and accelerated clock dilates never the resting clock. In fact as applied physicists apply the "Switchied Frame" standard and only apply SR to the accelerated frame never the resting frame.

So the biggest problem with SR is the rehetoric and refusal to acknowledge that what they are doing is eliminating the "Relative Velocity" standard and are applying a form of "Absolute Velocity". "Absolute" merely meaning velocity distinguished as "Actual" motion rather than mere "Relative" motion.

What they have done is to actually return to the LOrentz Relativity concept.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

But their "common local rest frame" is the frame of the church, is it not? This is YOUR theory that you explained to me before. Is it now incorrect?

Correct

But you are claiming that the police car's siren is physically the same as it was when the car was stationary relative to the church, aren't you? But shouldn't the driver be hearing an "illusion of motion" for the siren, because he is out of the "common local rest frame" that he accelerated away from?

NO. He is in the proper frame with the siren so he hears the physically real frequency. He has no illusion of motion to the siren. He does to the church bells.

You haven't asked me what SR claims in this case, so you're making incorrect assumptions. What I am trying to do is to work out what you claim. Because I don't think you know yourself.

If you are refering to the analogy I'm not asking because I know and nothing I have said is in contridiction with reality. It may not agree with your SR BS but that is the point of this thread after all.

What SR says about relavistic doppler is not at issue here. Don't attempt to confuse others by getting overly technical or just citing what SR says. I'm talking in lay terms about what is a practical view using a simplified analogy.

Ok, let's clear this up. If you are travelling at speed v in my frame, please give me the mathematical formula for the speed v' that you are travelling at in my frame.

v = ds / dt (keeping in mind that t is your local proper tick rate which may be dilated.

Also, I'd like to see you calculation of the speeds for a particular example: You accelerate away from me until you reach a speed (measured by me) of 0.6c. What speed do I now have in your reference frame? Show me how this is calculated.

tb = ta(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5; where v is in terms of fractions of c:

tb2 = ta(1 - v^2)^0.5 = (1 - 0.6^2)^0.5 = (1-0.36)^0.5 = 90.64)^0.5 = 0.8

when ta (the resting reference clock clicks 10 times the traveling clock tb only ticks 8 times. i.e. tb = 0.8ta.

Hence:

When "B" has accelerated away brom "A" (which remains at rest) and "A" compurtes "B" as vb = ds /dta = 0.6c where ta = 1 and ds = 1 then "B" would compute:

va = 0.6c * ds/dtb = 0.6c * 1/0.8 = 0.75c.

QQ:
One of the postulates of SR is that there are no preferred references frames, so the rest of your post is based on a misconception.

Keep in mind QQ that a preferred frame is one in which only one view is permitted - i.e. as in GPS and the ECI frame.

Also keep in mind that the term postulate has different definitions.

WEBSTER:

Postulate: 2) to assume without proof to be true, real or necessary, esp as a basis for arguement.

 

[MacM]

That engine design is so clever...
nice videos Dan...

Thanks. It is actually almost hard to believe but in a 4 cylinder, 4 cycle engine one moving part inside the block is simultaneously performing the "Intake", Compression", "Power" and "Exhaust" strokes of all four cylinders.

The pistons then alternate acting as the stationary reaction reads and functional piston.

But other than just a bit unique it slightly better than doubles fuel economy compared to conventional engines, uses less raw materials, requires less fabrication, weighs far less and is compact.

Conventional engines (gasoline) typically get around 0.5 Hp/# weight. The ROPE can get 5 Hp/# weight. A conventional engine gets around 3-4 % Combustion Volume.

% Combustion volume is the cylinder(s) displacement over on complete engine cycle divided by the volume of the block.

ROPE actually can exceed 100% combustion volume. That blows engineers minds to hear that. The cylinder (s) volume is larger than the block volume!!!

But it is simple. If you look at the cylinders stroke it is around 150 degrees of the torus and (4) cylinders then equals 600 degrees. But you have the shaft volume, piston volume and block wall volume such that reaching 110% is feasible but 150% is not.

 

[James R]

MacM:

But you are claiming that the police car's siren is physically the same as it was when the car was stationary relative to the church, aren't you? But shouldn't the driver be hearing an "illusion of motion" for the siren, because he is out of the "common local rest frame" that he accelerated away from?

NO. He is in the proper frame with the siren so he hears the physically real frequency.

So, if there is a clock in the car, then the driver sees the physically real tick rate of that clock, too?

But I thought you said previously that the physically real tick rate of the car's clock would be the tick rate it had in the church frame, which is the common local rest frame of the car and the church.

Where have I gone wrong in what your theory says?

What SR says about relavistic doppler is not at issue here.

I know. As I said, I'm trying to work out what YOU say. I already know what SR says.

Ok, let's clear this up. If you are travelling at speed v in my frame, please give me the mathematical formula for the speed v' that you are travelling at in my frame.

v = ds / dt (keeping in mind that t is your local proper tick rate which may be dilated.

That formula doesn't mention v'. That formula is just the standard definition of velocity. It doesn't tell me how to convert from v to v', which is what I asked.

Also, I'd like to see you calculation of the speeds for a particular example: You accelerate away from me until you reach a speed (measured by me) of 0.6c. What speed do I now have in your reference frame? Show me how this is calculated.

tb = ta(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5; where v is in terms of fractions of c:

tb2 = ta(1 - v^2)^0.5 = (1 - 0.6^2)^0.5 = (1-0.36)^0.5 = 90.64)^0.5 = 0.8

when ta (the resting reference clock clicks 10 times the traveling clock tb only ticks 8 times. i.e. tb = 0.8ta.

Hence:

When "B" has accelerated away brom "A" (which remains at rest) and "A" compurtes "B" as vb = ds /dta = 0.6c where ta = 1 and ds = 1 then "B" would compute:

va = 0.6c * ds/dtb = 0.6c * 1/0.8 = 0.75c.

How do you know that ds is the same for both A and B?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

v

Keeping in mind that if he thinks of himself being at rest he would surely plummet to the ground and crash...

No, that's nonsense. He wouldn't plummet upon the realisation or assumption he's stationary, that'd be like cartoons where the character can run off a cliff but doesn't fall until he looks down. He'd only require that the difference between the air and his velocity to be enough to maintain lift. In wind tunnels the plane is fixed in place and air is blasted past it at high velocity. It's enough to produce lift, if the plane wasn't stuck in place.

Because he simply can't seriously consider himself as having zero velocity as his plane is still flying....

So you believe planes magically know the difference between flying in open air and sitting in a large wind tunnel?

Of course this is the standard approach using SR but I wonder why SR would force a pilot of a plane to ignore the knowledge he has of his circumstances?

That sort of self delusion could have disasterous consequences [ for the pilot and his plane]

The plane's ability to fly depends on the relative velocity between the plane and the air. If it's high enough, there's enough lift. This is why planes on aircraft carriers take off into the wind with the ship going full into the wind, it provides more lift because the relative difference between wing and air velocities is higher.

Special relativity doesn't 'force him to ignore it', it just points out that using the ground as a reference is only valid if you're asking 'How far am I from my destination?'. Asking 'How fast am I going' is still a relative question. Relative speed compared to the air is important to provide lift, relative velocity compared to the ground is important for journey time but ultimately you don't need to take either of those frames, any other one would be just as valid.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What is your opinion of my argument against Lorentz contraction by retaining the dilated tick rate of the clock in all frames.? That means at relativistic speeds relative velocity is not symmetrical because the dilated clock observer will use a different time standard to compute v = ds/dt.

Also keep in mind that emperical data supports the view that only and accelerated clock dilates never the resting clock. In fact as applied physicists apply the "Switchied Frame" standard and only apply SR to the accelerated frame never the resting frame.

So the biggest problem with SR is the rehetoric and refusal to acknowledge that what they are doing is eliminating the "Relative Velocity" standard and are applying a form of "Absolute Velocity". "Absolute" merely meaning velocity distinguished as "Actual" motion rather than mere "Relative" motion.

What they have done is to actually return to the LOrentz Relativity concept.

tell you the truth, I haven't tried to debunk SR for so long working with SR rational is like working with big ball of string the logic is so convoluted and self justifying along the way but mostly it is the invested interest and politics that gets me.

As the case of NO preferred frame postulate shows, yet using one observer to have all the velocity is certainly a preferred frame as you have suggested [ loosing the meaning of relative velocity in the process and making it frame dependent and absolute. no matter which frame you wish to use as your observer is always thinking in absolute velocity terms and not relative.
[ I think I got that correct but please if I am wrong please excuse me ]

So are we using Special Relativity to compute results for each observer(s) that are using Lorentz relativity? ...bah! [ now there's a thought...]

The end result of each clock ticking slower than the other is the bit that gets me...and I guess this is why the main angst against SR logic...yes?

However like I was suggesting with my aircraft scenario and Doppler effects there may be a way to clear this up.....but you would have to adhere to a strictly relative velocity scenario with out a dare I say it shhhh "preferred observer" as this I believe is the only way your will get rid of the two clocks dilated issue....and of course you step outside SR to do that.
note trying to force SR to adhere to the logic of "no preferred observer" wont happen easilly too I might add and I think that is what you are ultimately trying to do.

And you can thank me for drawing some of the flak my post will no doubt attract, off your back later...ok?

 

[Quantum Quack]

vNo, that's nonsense. He wouldn't plummet upon the realisation or assumption he's stationary, that'd be like cartoons where the character can run off a cliff but doesn't fall until he looks down. He'd only require that the difference between the air and his velocity to be enough to maintain lift. In wind tunnels the plane is fixed in place and air is blasted past it at high velocity. It's enough to produce lift, if the plane wasn't stuck in place.

So you believe planes magically know the difference between flying in open air and sitting in a large wind tunnel?

The plane's ability to fly depends on the relative velocity between the plane and the air. If it's high enough, there's enough lift. This is why planes on aircraft carriers take off into the wind with the ship going full into the wind, it provides more lift because the relative difference between wing and air velocities is higher.

Special relativity doesn't 'force him to ignore it', it just points out that using the ground as a reference is only valid if you're asking 'How far am I from my destination?'. Asking 'How fast am I going' is still a relative question. Relative speed compared to the air is important to provide lift, relative velocity compared to the ground is important for journey time but ultimately you don't need to take either of those frames, any other one would be just as valid.

you are serious yes?
You've missed the point all together yes?
uhm...whilst the pilot was in the wind tunnel did he scratch his back side once or twice?:bugeye:

I do however appreciate your serious approach to the silly scenario I posted even if the point has been missed no doubt to my lack of articulation.

The scenario is about doppler effects using a pure relative velocity scenario without using or utilising a preferred observer....my apologes if the scenario was too cryptic...I shall endeavor to think up a better one..

hmmmm.... ok try this

observer A and Observer B in a vacuum - space craft and only doppler effect measuring instrumentation for flight information [ maybe they are stupid ..I dunno ok] Flying blind [ can't see except the instrumentation]

the only info both observers have is doppler effect information.

Neither ship can assume rest as they both have records of accelleration at some point from some velocity to some velocity but because the entire universe is SR premised we have no idea what dilation and contractions have been incurred over millions of years any way so their historical velocity/acceleration data is utterly useless.

So all they have is doppler information that is the only real information available. They discover each others existence fro the first time and lock on with their doppler effect equipment, after thousands of years flying time at an undeterminable velocity without sighting anything else.


data available to them :
Closing velocity and separating velocity and if the doppler suggests zero velocity then they could actually be chasing each other around a central point/ circling and have no way of knowing other wise or literaly at rest regarding each other.

does that make it any clearer...?
If we study the doppler effect info without taking a preferred observer stance maybe it will help solve this sound atomic tick rate vs frequency issue that MacM was putting up as I think that is what MAcM is attempting to do, declare "no preferred observer" as to do so immediately creates the two clock dilation dilemma.