Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

Since simultaneity is the issue, I think the stipulations are required otherwise there's no clear relationship between the times at which each ship stops accelerating.

We can still do it if you like, but it will be harder to visualize.

I don't think I agree. since distance is the same, relative velocity is the same and the speed of light is the same, each clock will see the doppler shift stablize at the same time with no simultaneity shift. Basically I am using a invariant light beam as a speedometer.

In my scenario one clock is considered at rest and only one clock accelerates but each clock is staying link with the other clock by identical light beams, so each should see the transition from acceleration to constant velocity at the same time since relativity must be reversable in this case.

I agree that normally one would stipulate acceleration and time to reach a given velocity but I am deliberately avoiding using time since it is time dilation that is being challenged.

In the alternative to the method I proposed it would also be just as valid to accelerate until one achieves a specified doppler shift. Now acceleration, time and distance are whatever they are and don't complicate matters.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I believe we have now agreed that if A sends out a 1 MHz signal to B, then B receives the signal at 0.229 MHz due to the Doppler shift. Is that correct?

We agree in principle. I hadn't given any specific frequencies. I believe we had asserted the relative velocity was going to be 0.9c and 0.229MHz would be the calculation using a 1 MHz carrier. I also had not envisioned transmitting a signal perse but was considering the base frequency of the light beam which is substantially higher, but I see no immediate reason to reject your 1 MHz signal, other than a frequency in the giga hertz range would yield greater accuracy for calibration purposes. i.e. - assuming an 1E14 carrier frequency with a 1E5 modulation. You have 1,000,000,000 pulses per tick or a (9) place decimal accuracy..

Now, if such a signal is used as a "carrier beam", then A and B are NOT calibrated, because when A sends out 1000 wavelengths to B in one second as measured on A's clock, then when B receives the signal he only receives 229 waves per second, as measured on his own clock.

You are missing the point. That is why the beam is modulated. The data is encoded by the ratio of the frequency between the carrier and the modulation. That ratio remains the same. i.e. a 100KHz modulation = 10 carrier waves per modulation. At 0.229MHz the received modulation would be 0.0229MHz. The number of carrier wave per module is still 10 waves.

You can goto 0.999999 c and still have a correct calibation of 10 carrier waves/modulation.

You are right to say that A sees no Doppler shift in his own emitted beam. But B DOES see a different frequency due to the Doppler shift.

So, I still need to know how clock B is going to measure the rate of clock A.

In the example given it would process (divide) the carrier frequency by the modulation frequency and get a result of 10 which tells B that A is ticking at 1.0 ticks per second. Not the 1.0 ticks every 2.294 seconds (0.43589 ticks/second) that the conventional relavistic view of "A" by "B" would predict.

Let me make a suggestion. A and B agree in advance that A will send out a 1 MHz signal, as measured on A's clock. When B actually receives this signal, he measures the frequency and finds it to be 0.229 MHz. Knowing this represents a 1 MHz signal for A, B sets his monitor of A's clock so that for every second that B's clock ticks off, B's monitor of A's clock only ticks off 0.229 seconds. In other words, B models A's clock as running slower than B's clock, and this keeps everything properly synchronised.
Do you agree? If not, why not?

No thanks. Synchronized to who's model.? Mine or Relativity.

Yes. That's irrelevant, as far as I can see. This is not a technological issue, but an issue of how your test is to be carried out. What is relevant is what I have written above.

I just wanted to be sure you understood the proposal doesn't have those nasty impossible particles as a basis for the result. This is actually doable today with today's technology.

 

[Pete]

I don't think I agree. since distance is the same, relative velocity is the same and the speed of light is the same, each clock will see the doppler shift stablize at the same time with no simultaneity shift. Basically I am using a invariant light beam as a speedometer.

Assuming the transition from acceleration to constant velocity actually happens at the same time on each ship, right?

 

[James R]

MacM:

It looks like we have reduced this to one sticking point, which means we are making progress.

You are missing the point. That is why the beam is modulated. The data is encoded by the ratio of the frequency between the carrier and the modulation. That ratio remains the same. i.e. a 100KHz modulation = 10 carrier waves per modulation. At 0.229MHz the received modulation would be 0.0229MHz. The number of carrier wave per module is still 10 waves.

I agree with this, but I still don't see how it lets you compare the relative rates of A and B's clocks. That is: I agree that B will detect, say, a carrier frequency of 0.229 MHz, and a modulation rate of 0.0229 MHz, giving 10 waves per modulation. But what we need to know is how much time passes for those 10 waves. By taking the frequency ratio, you are simply counting wavefronts, which doesn't tell you what you need to know about the relative tick rates of the clocks.

In the example given it would process (divide) the carrier frequency by the modulation frequency and get a result of 10 which tells B that A is ticking at 1.0 ticks per second.

I don't think it does. All it tells you is that A has fitted in 10 waves per modulation. To relate that to ticks per second you have to have some other measure of a second. Which is where A and B's clocks comes into the picture.

So, to summarise, I am not convinced that your procedure works as a synchronisation method for the clocks.

I suggested an alternative:

A and B agree in advance that A will send out a 1 MHz signal, as measured on A's clock. When B actually receives this signal, he measures the frequency and finds it to be 0.229 MHz. Knowing this represents a 1 MHz signal for A, B sets his monitor of A's clock so that for every second that B's clock ticks off, B's monitor of A's clock only ticks off 0.229 seconds. In other words, B models A's clock as running slower than B's clock, and this keeps everything properly synchronised.
Do you agree? If not, why not?

Notice I asked you why you reject this line of reasoning. Your only response so far has been:

No thanks. Synchronized to who's model.? Mine or Relativity.

This is not an answer to the question I asked. Tell me what is wrong with what I have written, if you can actually find any objection to it.

You shouldn't just reject things out of hand because you think they may be leading you to a conclusion you'd rather not reach. To do so is to delude yourself.

 

[Billy T]

To MacM
I thank you for taking the time to go thru and respond to my comments about your "there is absolute time" post. It is past mid night and I am tired, but I will get back and do more home work by reading some of your prior posts. My first reaction is that you are making a strong case and I agree that it can't be refuted by simple claim that it contradicts relativity theory, which am not so sure it does anymore.

I am new to the sciforms, not yet well versed, so I ask other to excuse this being a public post when a private msg would have served to tell MacM it may take a few days, but I will get back to him when I can think more clearly and remember how to get a private post off.

 

[MacM]

Assuming the transition from acceleration to constant velocity actually happens at the same time on each ship, right?

One is considered at rest. The relative motion between the accelerating/coasting clock also sees the other clock via its control beam as being the one in motion. Such that when it stops accelerating its view of the other clock is that it had stopped accelerating. There is only one event and it is linked by two way constant and invariable light speed. Both see the changes simultaneously between them.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I agree with this, but I still don't see how it lets you compare the relative rates of A and B's clocks. That is: I agree that B will detect, say, a carrier frequency of 0.229 MHz, and a modulation rate of 0.0229 MHz, giving 10 waves per modulation. But what we need to know is how much time passes for those 10 waves. By taking the frequency ratio, you are simply counting wavefronts, which doesn't tell you what you need to know about the relative tick rates of the clocks.

But it does. Both clocks have a local calibration of 1 MHz. That frequency doesn't change with relative motion it is local in both cases. Both clocks then have that base frequency for calibration to the same standards. The 10 waves or 10,000,000 waves per packet, what ever ratio and accuracy you choose to be able to calibrate to, represents 1 tick per second relative to the 1 MHz carrier.

This is not an answer to the question I asked. Tell me what is wrong with what I have written, if you can actually find any objection to it.

I did but it seems you don't realize what it is you want to do. See below.

You shouldn't just reject things out of hand because you think they may be leading you to a conclusion you'd rather not reach. To do so is to delude yourself.

I didn't. I rejected it because to calibrate to the 0.229MHz rate compared to my onboard standard of 1 MHz resets the clock readings to what you would get via Relativity. My whole process is to show that "A" is actually still running at 1 MHz or 1 tick per second not 0.1 ticks per second you would get if you use the dilated light signal.

By encoding the light signal in a manner that it does not become delayed and/or distorted you can now see that both clocks are defacto running tick for tick in real time and the 0.1 tick rate suggested by Relativity is being induced as an observational anomaly (perception) and that "A" didn't actually change clock rate at all.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Both clocks have a local calibration of 1 MHz. That frequency doesn't change with relative motion it is local in both cases. Both clocks then have that base frequency for calibration to the same standards.

That is true locally. Clock A sends out its beam at 1 MHz. Clock B sends out its beam at 1 MHz. Both frequencies are measured by the respective clocks. But when B receives A's beam, it is at 0.229 MHz as measured by B's clock. And when A receives B's beam, it is at 0.229 MHz as measured by A's clock.

So, the local oscillator frequencies do not match the received frequencies. Unless you account for the difference in some way, there is no way to guarantee the two clocks are correctly measuring the passing of time on the other clock.

The 10 waves or 10,000,000 waves per packet, what ever ratio and accuracy you choose to be able to calibrate to, represents 1 tick per second relative to the 1 MHz carrier.

I agree. But they represent 0.229 ticks per second according to the local receiving carrier.

I rejected it because to calibrate to the 0.229MHz rate compared to my onboard standard of 1 MHz resets the clock readings to what you would get via Relativity.

Yes, I know that is why you rejected that. However, so far you have given no good reason for doing so, other than the fact that you dislike relativity.

By encoding the light signal in a manner that it does not become delayed and/or distorted you can now see that both clocks are defacto running tick for tick in real time and the 0.1 tick rate suggested by Relativity is being induced as an observational anomaly (perception) and that "A" didn't actually change clock rate at all.

But you haven't encoded the light signal in a manner in which it doesn't become distorted. If you measure the frequency of the received beam, it is different from the frequency of the sent beam. And that applies equally to ANY information sent along the beam, no matter how you encode it. The rate at which that information will be received will vary in exactly the same way as the carrier frequency itself.

 

[dristam]

Well, well, well. ... Any grade schooler should recognize your failed logic...

I'm sorry I ever tried to speak with you, MacM, for you have proven yourself, in the cited post, to be utterly incompetent. I won't waste my time with any more explicit spelling out, for you are beyond redemption. Although Relativity is widely misunderstood, I would never have believed, before I ran across YOU, that it could be so GROSSLY misunderstood! No, I will not expound further. You are denseness incarnate, MacM; you are no Einstein. I hope you're at least getting your jollies, because you have absolutely nothing to offer this world in terms of intellect -- nothing.

This concludes my conversation with the UniKEF creep.

 

[Pete]

One is considered at rest. The relative motion between the accelerating/coasting clock also sees the other clock via its control beam as being the one in motion. Such that when it stops accelerating its view of the other clock is that it had stopped accelerating. There is only one event and it is linked by two way constant and invariable light speed. Both see the changes simultaneously between them.

It's not so easy. Even when treating one ship as stationary (which can't actually be done with SR, but can with GR), there is an event on each ship when the rockets are shut off, and the apparent inertial force that was felt on the ship as a reaction to the rockets goes away.

If we're in an inertial frame, these events simply correspond to when each ship stops accelerating.

If we're in the non-inertial frame of one ship, then there is one event when the pseudo-gravitational field (that had to be inserted into the model to explain why the rockets were required to stay in one place) disappears, and another when the other ship either stops accelerating (if the pseudo field has disappeared) or begins free-fall in the pseudo field.

 

[Pete]

Consider this:
From our POV here on Earth, ship A accelerates hard for a week, reaching a distance of one light-day, then shuts down its engines. Ship B accelerates gently in the other direction for a day, then shuts down its engines.

When Ship A shuts off its engines, it immediately sees that the doppler shift in B's beam is stable. However, B does not see A's beam stabilise until a day later.

 

[Pete]

I'm missing something.
What data, exactly, is being sent by modulating the beams?
Is it a one-off signal? Or is each ship sending continuous timing info, or something?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

That is true locally. Clock A sends out its beam at 1 MHz. Clock B sends out its beam at 1 MHz. Both frequencies are measured by the respective clocks. But when B receives A's beam, it is at 0.229 MHz as measured by B's clock. And when A receives B's beam, it is at 0.229 MHz as measured by A's clock.

So, the local oscillator frequencies do not match the received frequencies. Unless you account for the difference in some way, there is no way to guarantee the two clocks are correctly measuring the passing of time on the other clock.

I agree. But they represent 0.229 ticks per second according to the local receiving carrier.

You seem to have the view of everything but what counts at the end. The frequency of the receive signal has no bearing on the calibration. It is the result of the carrier frequency divided by the modulation, which in this case equals 10. That derived firgue 10 always happens regardless of the relative velocity between clocks.

The transmission of the 10 ratio locally at "A" is based on the 1 MHz carrier. The receipt of the 0.229 MHz carrier with a 10 ratio to modulation is re-applied to the local "B" 1 MHz carrier frequency to reproduce the same tick/tick ratio between clocks.

Yes, I know that is why you rejected that. However, so far you have given no good reason for doing so, other than the fact that you dislike relativity.

It really has nothing to do with liking or not liking. It distorts reality. the reality is being shown in this scenario, that is that the other clock still in reality ticks at 1 per second even though Relativity would have you believe it is only ticking 0.229 ticks per second.

But you haven't encoded the light signal in a manner in which it doesn't become distorted. If you measure the frequency of the received beam, it is different from the frequency of the sent beam. And that applies equally to ANY information sent along the beam, no matter how you encode it. The rate at which that information will be received will vary in exactly the same way as the carrier frequency itself.

What about the ratio (unitless) of 1 MHz/100KHz = 10 and 0.229MHz/0.0229MHz = 10 do you not understand?.

You have not distorted the encoded ratio which when applied back to the local 1 MHz standard regenerates clock "A's" true tick rate which is 1 tick per second.

 

[MacM]

I'm sorry I ever tried to speak with you, MacM, for you have proven yourself, in the cited post, to be utterly incompetent. I won't waste my time with any more explicit spelling out, for you are beyond redemption. Although Relativity is widely misunderstood, I would never have believed, before I ran across YOU, that it could be so GROSSLY misunderstood! No, I will not expound further. You are denseness incarnate, MacM; you are no Einstein. I hope you're at least getting your jollies, because you have absolutely nothing to offer this world in terms of intellect -- nothing.

This concludes my conversation with the UniKEF creep.

Oh, another one that likes to dish it out but can't take it. Just as I thought. You were all wet and got cocky. When called to the carpet you cut and run. I am very impressed at your ability to call names and be a complete jackass but not with your understanding of Relativity nor application of common logic.

Just how is it that after 18 posts here you think you can start talking down to people and being an ass without getting your foot shoved in your mouth. You thought you understood Relativity because you read some popular magizine article I suppose and then start marking statements as fact when your statements are in fact exactly opposite of what you are claiming and you want to talk down to me just because I am involved in a discussion questioning Relativity. You assume therefore I don't know anything?

Bubba I may be no genius but I certainly seem to understand this issue far better than you. If you think my post was bad just wait until you piss off some of these other guys. You'll get torn to shreds. Don't be such a pussy and go off and cry, "gee he yelled at me" . LOL. If you really think you know something then put it here and prove it.

NOTE: I always try to be fair and honest. I have been to your cited home page and hereby note that yours is more than the view of a person from reading popular articles. Although I do not see a mention of your actual education in the subject. I have not finished scanning your site. I do like your speed of light antimation. Having said that however, I must also note that I have seen nothing of a unique contribution nature to the issue but more of a presentation parroting the claims.

That is you have never sought to challenge or question the consequences and/or processes being advocated but simply have accepted it as all valid in some absolute way.

You nor Relativity hold the keys to absolute truth. Science in fact demands that we prod and pry and challenge and not become complacent in the view we have learned all that there is.

As in this string and James R's UniKEF Analysis string, being shown to be in error by acceptable physical standards presents no antimosity what-so-ever. However, statements regarding the veracity of Relativity which are supported by nothing more than recitations of Relativity have no value what-so-ever either.

But more importantly the chastization of others simply because their views conflict with yours is not acceptable either from a common courtesy or scientific analysis vantage point.

There certainly is no absolute truths contained in UniKEF either but there has been testing, with results, which conflict with your views and to simply disregard those results is not just unscientific, it is an ignorant position to take.

I don't see you as an ignorant person (at this point) but perhaps just a bit to certain of yourself and of Relativity which you clearly champion. But you must learn that to continue to support Relativity you must meet challenges with inconvertable proof or evidence and not the attitude "That is not in accordance with Relativity", hence a false concept. To do so means you will never learn nor discover anything. That would be unfortunate.

The bottom line is that it would indeed be abslute foolishness to continue to advocate something that may be shown to not be possible or acceptable in light of appropriate evidence and that rule is absolute, which means it also applies to Relativity.

Posting this essay, I suggest you have possible contributions to make here and welcome you back into the discussion, on the basis that you learn not to insult others with a condesending attitude.

 

[MacM]

Consider this:
From our POV here on Earth, ship A accelerates hard for a week, reaching a distance of one light-day, then shuts down its engines. Ship B accelerates gently in the other direction for a day, then shuts down its engines.

When Ship A shuts off its engines, it immediately sees that the doppler shift in B's beam is stable. However, B does not see A's beam stabilise until a day later.

That is why the setup is that one is inertial, not two accelerating and stopping at different times. You must keep one inertial for the technique to be applied.

Of course you can create conditions where the system doesn't function but that hardly proves anything. It doesn't alter the underlying principles it simply makes in difficult to measure. Some new scheme would be required.

 

[MacM]

I'm missing something.
What data, exactly, is being sent by modulating the beams?
Is it a one-off signal? Or is each ship sending continuous timing info, or something?

One-Off.

What is being sent is at "A" its (using James R's frequencies) 1 MHz carrier is modulated by a 100KHz frequency which corresponds to a tick rate of 1/second. That is 10 carrier pulses per second = 1 tick/sec and an accuracy out to 1 decimal place. 1 tick/2 seconds would be modulated at 50KHz, etc.

Upon receipt by "B" receeding at 0.9c the carrier would be received at 0.229MHz (229KHz) with a modulated side band of 0.0229MHz (22.9KHz)

229/22.9 = 10 (unitless) that encoded 10 tells "B" "A's" true tick rate. That signal is applied so as to set the monitor counter of "A" to 1 tick per second by calibration via "B's" local 1 MHz carrier frequency.

NOTE: If the relative velocity happens to be 0.5 c then the received carrier signal will 577.35KHz and the modulation will be 57.735 KHz. 577.35/57.735 = 10 (unitless). Relative velocity does not alter the signal not the ability to view the true clock rate of "A".

 

[James R]

MacM:

The frequency of the receive signal has no bearing on the calibration.

I think it is fundamentally important.

It is the result of the carrier frequency divided by the modulation, which in this case equals 10. That derived firgue 10 always happens regardless of the relative velocity between clocks.

Fine. I agree with that.

The transmission of the 10 ratio locally at "A" is based on the 1 MHz carrier. The receipt of the 0.229 MHz carrier with a 10 ratio to modulation is re-applied to the local "B" 1 MHz carrier frequency to reproduce the same tick/tick ratio between clocks.

I dispute that it produces the same tick rate between clocks.

If you think the carrier frequency is ultimately unimportant, then I think I can reproduce the information effect of your setup in all respects with the following alternate setup:

1. Clock A transmits a message to B containing the digital number ten.
2. B sets his monitor of clock A to tick at 1 tick per second upon receiving the number ten.

There. That is the entire content of your "calibration", as far as I can tell.

But notice that B can only set his clock by referencing his own clock. He knows that he has to set his monitor to 1 tick per second, but how does he measure a second? He has no information from A on how long a second is. He only has his own clock to determine how long a second is.

So, using this setup, B has not really duplicated any feature of A's clock. He has made an assumption and produced a result based on B's own clock.

Your description with the modulated beam is no different from this, in essence. It does not capture anything real about the rate at which A's clock ticks relative to B's clock. It only captures information about how fast A's clock ticks, as determined by A himself.

In other words, your setup does not compare the two clocks, as far as I can see. You haven't provided any means of sychronisation which guarantees that the clocks tick at the same rate, or that the monitors are calibrated to actual tick rates.

There are therefore two options open to you. Either:

(1) Adopt my method for calibrating the clocks, given above; or
(2) Come up with some alternative method which actually transmits information about the clock rates from one clock to the other and which can be used to measure their relative rates.

Again, I look forward to your response.

 

[MacM]

I posted a full response this morning but for some reason it is not showing here. If it doesn't show up I will re-post but in the interim I want to post a proposal for your consideration which is less technical in its analysis.

I believe it shows irrefutably my point as well show your points in a correct light.

CASE:

My clock shall be earth and its orbit has a tick rate of (1) per year such that each year (ignoring leap years) may be cited as a tick.

Now you and I are twins being born this date at exactly noon. It was by "C" section and chords were cut simultaneously. We are born at exactly the same time.

We grow up aging 1 year per tick. We pass through enfancy, childhood, adolescance, young manhood and each are stipulated to die tall, lanky centurians exactly at 100 ticks later.

Now our differences are that as a young man you become an astronaut and go gally vanting around in space at some high relavistic velocity to me, while I sat back here on earth on a park bench watching all the young lovelies getting younger each year.

But being twins we didn't want to lose contact and so you invested into the finest of video equipment and we each have a video camera with a high power lens and a VCR such that we can continuously follow each others lifes events.

You, according to relativity, observe me sequencing through life as though you put your VCR on "Slow Motion" and you realize that you are getting much older than I appear to be. Indeed you die a centurian before you see me become a full grown man. But your camera continues to function after your demise.

I on the other hand obvserve you observing me. And I note that you are aging much slower than myself. I infact die a centurian while watching you watch me as an even much younger man., but my video camera continues to run also.

But the reality is that we both die as centurians and playing the tapes back our siblings can see that neither of us died as infants in diapers, we each died centurians. Side by side the tapes would show the affect of communication delay but shows no evidence that those views in any manner has altered time.

Our siblings can infact take each of our tapes and review the events and our ultimate ages and in playing these tapes, at the same speed, on the same VCR, will realize the tapes are identical - in time and length.

Time dilation, at best, is only shifting perception of time and does not constitute any change in the reality of time.

It is the perception of time that has been altered and not time itself.

 

[MacM]

]I think it is fundamentally important.

How? The only thing important is the conversion of the "A" clocks tick
rate to its real value locally at "B". This system does that. If you think
it doesn't then let me suggest that while you may know Relativity, you
clearly do not understand electronics.

That is not a put down but would be a simple fact based on evidence.

I dispute that it produces the same tick rate between
clocks.

I'm afraid you would have to show that to not be the case. It is
clearly an easy thing to do and prove without Relativity being involved.

I have two clocks, neither in motion but in addition to what I have
done in this system, after modulating the 1 MHz carrier at "A" I pass the
signal through a frequency converter and reduce its frequency to 229KHz and
transmit. I receive it at clock "B", I do the division and applly the number 10 to the digital to frequency converter which is running on "B's" 1MHz carrier frequency.

Result? 1 tick per second.

It does not matter that the frequency is shifted by electronics or
Relativity, the process loop regenerates the actual signal as it is in reality.

If you think the carrier frequency is ultimately unimportant,
then I think I can reproduce the information effect of your setup in all
respects with the following alternate setup:

1. Clock A transmits a message to B containing the digital number ten.
2. B sets his monitor of clock A to tick at 1 tick per second upon
receiving the number ten.

There. That is the entire content of your "calibration", as far as I
can tell.

Great you got it. Conclusion doppler shift and simulataneity shift by
Relativity is null and void. Clock "A" is shown to be "Actually"
running at 1 tick per second and not 0.229 ticks per second according to
Relativity.

While "B" may think "A" has slowed its encoded data about its operation
clarifies the fact that it is actually unaffected in reality by "B's"
view.

But notice that B can only set his clock by referencing his own
clock. He knows that he has to set his monitor to 1 tick per second,
but how does he measure a second? He has no information from A on how long a second is. He only has his own clock to determine how long a second
is.

Absolutely, unless you are now going to argue that "B's" proper time
has changed? Of course not he is still at 1 MHz the common standard
between clocks. Relativity does not allow changes in the local proper time or
any other component of its physics. That is a hall mark of Relativity.

All physics in "B's" inertial frame are identical to the physics of "A's"
inertial frame although there is relavistic velocity between them.

Lets reduce this arguement to something easier to see. Lets forget all
about light signals, timing, frequency changes, ratios codes, etc.

Lets simply calibrate two clocks and install on them a digital display which
shows tick rate. Now from deep space moving at any velocity I view
clock "A" with a high power scope. What does "B" now see "A's clock rate as?

If it still reads 1 tick/second (which it will) then its accumulated time must be the same as it was at rest.

So, using this setup, B has not really duplicated any feature of A's clock. He has made an assumption and produced a result based on B's own
clock.

Nice try but no cigar. A and B have calibrated standards to each other.
Relativity does not allow changing that in each's own inertial system.

All physics are identical in both frames. There are no assumptions, only
transfer of real information about the status of operations in reality.

Every thing else is perception since it didn't and can't even by the
standards set by Relativity itself. That fact is indeed a conflict
with Relativity. It requires all inertial systems to remain equal in terms
of physics but then demands that the physics of inertial systems have
changed.

The only rational conclusion is that such change is perception otherwise it
violates the equality of physics in inertial systems. You just can't have
it both way as reality. Since the equality of physics in any inertial system can and has been tested and found true, then it is time dilation that is mere perception. Both cannot be reality. It violates Relativity.

Your description with the modulated beam is no different from
this, in essence. It does not capture anything real about the rate at which
A's clock ticks relative to B's clock. It only captures information about how
fast A's clock ticks, as determined by A himself.

In other words, your setup does not compare the two clocks, as far as I can
see. You haven't provided any means of sychronisation which guarantees that
the clocks tick at the same rate, or that the monitors are calibrated to actual tick rates.

There are therefore two options open to you. Either:

(1) Adopt my method for calibrating the clocks, given above; or
(2) Come up with some alternative method which actually transmits
information about the clock rates from one clock to the other and which
can be used to measure their relative rates.

As I just explained. According to Relativity their rates MUST be the
same.

Physics are the same in all inertial frames. The physics cannot change
based on another frames view. Your view of his physics, certainly I
will accept that but not a change in physics reality.

And no you can't use your system because it imposes relavistic data
upon the monitor that is in disagreement with "A" actual tick rate and serves no purpose other than to claim "artifically" that time has dilated.

Transfer of true information is in disagreement with that and is IN agreement
with the requirement that the physics remain unchanged.

 

[Janus58]

I have two clocks, neither in motion but in addition to what I have
done in this system, after modulating the 1 MHz carrier at "A" I pass the
signal through a frequency converter and reduce its frequency to 229KHz and
transmit. I receive it at clock "B", I do the division and applly the number 10 to the digital to frequency converter which is running on "B's" 1MHz carrier frequency.

Result? 1 tick per second.

Or better yet, take two clocks neither is motion, but clock A runs at .229 the rate of clock B and is modulated with a 229KHz carrier. I receive at clock "B", do the division...

Result? 1 tick per second! But clock "A" in this scenerio is running slower that clock "B".

Since any time dilation would effect the carrier frequency by the same factor as the clock, you would get a "1 tick per second" answer with your system whether time dilation occurs or not.

The only way your system "proves" that both clocks run at the same rate is to assume universal absolute time.

So just as you cannot prove SR with SR, you cannot prove universal time by assuming universal time.