Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pete said:
Neither James nor I have ever claimed that Doppler shift equates to time dilation.

If you bothered to read our posts, you'd find the repeated statement that Doppler shift is the result of signal delay and time dilation.

The reality is that in B's frame 1/436000 seconds pass between the transmission of each wave from A.

Your assertion that Relativity states that the doppler shifted signal equates to A's tick rate in B's frame is in ignorance of Relativity. I really wish that you would learn what Relativity is before trying to argue against it, so I wouldn't have to correct these silly mistakes. I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

You are making another mistake here.

The doppler shift only tells you the relative velocity, not the tick rate. That is the reason for the SBM of the carrier wave to transmit information of the true tick rate to B from A. Doppler is not considered in the calculation of tick rate. I have nver said it is.

You seem like a fair fellow but your tendancy to join others in statements like the above
Pete said:
"Your assertion that Relativity states that the doppler shifted signal equates to A's tick rate in B's frame is in ignorance of Relativity. I really wish that you would learn what Relativity is before trying to argue against it, so I wouldn't have to correct these silly mistakes. I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

which wrongfully cast innuendo at my intelligence, when it is you that are making the error needs to be pointed out. Should I note that I wish you understood Relativity so that I don't have to spend time correcting YOUR silly mistakes?
 
Pete said:
Mac,
Your claim to understand relativity is laughable.
Does that 0.229 figure look familiar?
Click to expand...

You are mixing apples and oranges Pete and getting grape juice.

Your calculations are completely off point. The 1 MHz signal becoming doppler shifted to 0.229 MHz has no bearing on transmitting the correct clock A tick rate to B nor B's view of clocks A's tick rate.

Other than that is the crux of the matter that B's view of A's tick rate is not reality. The reality has been transmitted to B via the SBM of the dilated carrier.

Take a deep breath. I am right and you guys are just twisting in the wind trying to find out why. If you would stop talking and listen I have told you why.

Relativity is perception of an event not the event itself. Only the Events local x,y,z,t are reality. Relativity is distorted perception.
 
MacM said:
You are mixing apples and oranges Pete and getting grape juice.

Your calculations are completely off point. The 1 MHz signal becoming doppler shifted to 0.229 MHz has no bearing on transmitting the correct clock A tick rate to B nor B's view of clocks A's tick rate.

Other than that is the crux of the matter that B's view of A's tick rate is not reality. The reality has been transmitted to B via the SBM of the dilated carrier.

Take adeep breath. I am right and you guys are just twisting in the wind trying to find out why. If you would stop talking and listen I have told you why.

Relativity is perception of an event not the event itself. Only the Events local x,y,z,t are reality. Relativity is distorted perception.
Click to expand...

If this is going to degenerate into "you are wrong, I am right", I'd rather not bother.
You were too quick for me... I edited that post while you were replying.
 
MacM said:
You are making another mistake here.

The doppler shift only tells you the relative velocity, not the tick rate.
Click to expand...
As shown, the received frequency plus the relative velocity is sufficient to determine the transmitted frequency.
Do you have a problem with the logic in that post?
Do you still think that V=D/T doesn't apply in SR?

That is the reason for the SBM of the carrier wave to transmit information of the true tick rate to B from A.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't work, unless you assume that A's transmitted frequency is the same in B's frame as it is in A's (I suggest that it isn't).
 
say we remove the human aspect from this perception debate.

say we use a computer that records all this information and humans read teh result after 1000 yeasr of travel.

are the results any different?
 
Pete said:
As shown, the received frequency plus the relative velocity is sufficient to determine the transmitted frequency.
Do you have a problem with the logic in that post?
Do you still think that V=D/T doesn't apply in SR?
Click to expand...

You can calculate anything if given the data and use the correct conversions. My point was you were attacking me for the difference between B's view of A via Relativity and B's view of A which coincides with A's view of a using the SBM, linking that to doppler shift calculations.


Which doesn't work, unless you assume that A's transmitted frequency is the same in B's frame as it is in A's (I suggest that it isn't).
Click to expand...

Then I must say you are mistaken. What you just claimed is in volation to Relativity itself which states that no change occurs at the local level. An observer in an inertial frame is considered at rest hence no transmission change can or does occur as a result of B's view of him as being in motion.

This has been the entire crux of this long debate.
 
The crux of the debate is that you don't know what Relativity states and what it doesn't.
Relativity says, and Mac agrees:
A's frequency in A's frame is 1MHz

Mac says, and Relativity disagrees:
A's frequency in B's frame is also 1Mhz

Can you not see the difference between these two statements?
 
Quantum Quack said:
say we remove the human aspect from this perception debate.

say we use a computer that records all this information and humans read teh result after 1000 yeasr of travel.

are the results any different?
Click to expand...

I wish you hadn't brought that up at this time. :D Because I feel like I have about exhausted all their arguements against the fact that A's tick rate is not affected by B's view.

Once that is accepted it becomes clear that both clocks are indeed ticking at the same rate and time dilation is only in the perception of the data and not real time which means the clocks and twins will return and be shown to actually be the same in contrast to Relavitists arguement in favor of it being real and hence a form of time travel.

IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Hence the real time data of muons and such are clearly from some other cause than time dilation. It really is simple once you take the blinders off.

What amazes me is that they can simultaneously (no pun intended) accept the view that a local tick rate of a clock at rest doesn't change. That physics are the same in all inertial frames and that Relativity itself dictates that relative velocity is mutually recipocal, such that inacccordance WITH Relativity, no such time dilation affects can be considered physically real.

The only rational understanding of Relativity is to understand the difference between the distorted perception of an event by a moving observer and the physical reality of such an event.

Otherwise Relativity comes into conflict with itself.
 
Are you able to work through the receiver's calculation of a source's transmitted frequency?

Do you agree with that derivation?
If not, please state which step diverges from your agreement.
 
Pete said:
The crux of the debate is that you don't know what Relativity states and what it doesn't.
Relativity says, and Mac agrees:
A's frequency in A's frame is 1MHz

Mac says, and Relativity disagrees:
A's frequency in B's frame is also 1Mhz

Can you not see the difference between these two statements?
Click to expand...

Of course I see the differance. But you don't. The difference is that B's view is not physical reality of A but only for B's perception of A. That is the function of this entire exercise is to show how B's view is not physical reality.

If you go back to argueing otherwise you go back to requiring clocks to posses two different clock rates simultaneously. There are no such things as two different realities. That is a distortion created by misinterpretation of data and throwing in the towel to physical science in favor of pure mathematics and simply saying "Oh, well it is counter intuitive". It isn't counter intuitive it is wrong.
 
Pete said:
Are you able to work through the receiver's calculation of a source's transmitted frequency?

Do you agree with that derivation?
If not, please state which step diverges from your agreement.
Click to expand...

Are you able to apply Lorentz Contraction to your value of D as in D = VT?
 
Of course I see the differance. But you don't. The difference is that B's view is not physical reality of A but only for B's perception of A.
Click to expand...
Mac,
No one says that B's view of A's frequency (229kHz) is A's reality.
We do say that in B's frame, the reality is that A's frequency is different from A's local frequency and B's view of A's frequency.
If you understood Relativity, you wouldn't be confused on this point.

Allow me to remind you that you have been challenged to prove that the reality of A's frequency in B's frame is the same as the reality of A's frequency in A's frame.

You are attempting to prove it simply by assuming it - that's circular reasoning.

So, can you prove that A's frequency in B's frame is also 1MHz, without simply assuming that the frequency is the same in different frames?
 
MacM said:
Are you able to apply Lorentz Contraction to your value of D as in D = VT?
Click to expand...
I can apply SR, certainly.
Applying Lorentz Contraction in isolation is often meaningless (as you'd know if you understood SR).
 
Pete, Macm, it seems teh old cliche of:

I know nothing until I am told someting comes to mind.

A can not know what B's clock rate is until A is informed and if B says he's ticking at 1 mhz than that is what B is ticking at. and vicer versa.

so both A and B say they are ticking at 1mhz but we assume know that time dilation makes them both wrong relative to a stationary frame. But the fact is they will both swear in court that they are ticking at the same rate.

so the reality for both clocks is 1 mhz because they can't percieve the dilation of the other clock either so they look at each other with their different perceptions and say hey one of us is wrong when in fact they are both wrong.

the guy that set the standard back on Earth is the only one that is right.
 
ok here goes, clock [a} is traveling to destination [x], clock is also traveling to destination [x].

they both leave earth at the same time but one gets to destination [x] ahead of the other, if clock [a] got there first and has to wait for clock how old are both clocks when clock touches destination [x]

the distance traveled is the same for both clocks but one has done it at a higher velocity but has to wait for clock to arrive. how old are clock [a] and relative to each other assuming they were the same age when they started their journey?
 
i got this sneaky feeling that time like everything else experiences our conservation laws.......you gain some then you loose some......hmmmm
 
Why guess when you can work it out properly?
Now's your chance to practice using the Lorentz transform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top