According to SR...

I wouldn't say so, about either of your statements. As just explained, the ratio between frequencies is not the ratio between time measures, so if you were to say "Observer 1 sees twice the frequency as Observer 2" that doesn't mean "Observer 1 experiences a time dilation factor of 2 compared to Observer 2". This is demonstrated precisely by the fact Galilean transforms also give Doppler effects, thus in the relativistic case it cannot be said that Doppler and time dilation effects are interchangeable. Using them interchangeably would then be, at best, an abuse of terminology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Contrary to what you may think, the above is still a PAIR of frames. The fact that you added a multitude of receivers doesn't change the fact that the Doppler effect is between ONE receiver and ONE transmitter.

Well, the whole discussion started from your repeated fringe denials of the "reality" of length contraction. It took a detour through your denial of the explanation of synchrotron radiation, though you were provided a couple of references from reputed sources.

Sure it is. Except that you persist in misinterpreting it in zany ways. Most entertaining.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I pointed out that they did NOT in fact provide the equally empirically 'verification' DIRECTLY as has been obtained for time dilation and doppler effects.

And all you can do still is come back with more 'armwaving' about and 'pointing' to those self-same references which I have shown do NOT verify 'distance contraction' DIRECTLY but ONLY INDIRECTLY by application of theory overlay AFTER THE EVENT.

THe time dilation and doppler effects are DIRECTLY DEMONSTRABLE AND VERIFIABLE in experiments EVEN BEFORE ANY THEORY OVERLAY OR INTERPRETATIONS after the event are brought into it. Whereas DISTANCE CONTRACTION is only IN-DIRECTLY INTERPRETED by THEORY PERSPECTIVES after the event. There IS a world of real difference there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So we're all still waiting for DIRECT experimental evidence of distance contraction on an equal footing with the DIRECT experimental evidence for time dilation and doppler effects. Oh and by the way, time dilation and doppler effects are STILL NOT "one and the same effects" as you claimed, so your whole perspective seems to be somewhat compromised such that your handwaving and pointings and opinions and personal disparagements mean less and less to anything at all the more you post without admitting your faux pas there (at least to yourself if no-one else).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

Cheers!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When applied to the period (of time) of the two signals, of course they do.

You know, I gave a couple of references as to how the terms are used in the explanation of synchrotron radiation. The authors use the terms interchangeably. Would you like to read the references?

 

What you point out is a fringe opinion. Mainstream physics says the opposite. The fact that you have this bee buzzing under your bonnet droning that "length contraction is not as real as time dilation" is funny but it isn't physics.

...for the bee under your bonnet.

You might. No one else in mainstream physics has this kind of bee under the bonnet.

 

There is nothing "prejudiced" about evaluating your opinion based on EVERYTHING you've said. The conclusions about SR have been know for quite some time. Scientific discussion requires actual science. You've yet to provide any to support your "not claim" assertions.

I've countered everything you've said, whether you understand it or not.

And there's no end to this discussion in sight. Only pseudoscience forever denying actual science ad infinitum. What the mods do is completely dependent on their tolerance for pseudoscience.

 

I am not "contrary" to there being two frames in doppler scenarios. In fact I point out that it is precisely because there need be at least two frames for doppler effects that it is not the same effect as time dilation because only one clock will do for time (tick rate) changes to occur when accelerations give it different velocities ON THE SAME CLOCK.

I even went to the trouble of explaining the two or more frames doppler scenario in my experiment using a central emitter and many receivers, as previously described....hence making SIMULTANEOUS observations of MORE THAN TWO frame doppler effects. That is the context and no amount of pedantic selection by you is going to make your posts any way about the actual salient points in context.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact that you pedantically choose to pursue distraction out of context says you aren't really interested in the salient points but rather in pedantic distractions from those points. Good luck with the admin/mods there, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And have you admitted (to yourself at least if not to anyone else) that your claim "time dilation and doppler effects are one and the same effects" was faulty in logic and in fact....since just because one effect is used to demonstrate the other it doesn't make them "one and the same effects". Can you get the difference?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

Just more armwaving and pointing and insinuations etc and still no contextual counter to the salient points observed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you ever going to stop cluttering up the thread/discussion with your empty/gossipy opinionated posts just because you can't admit to yourself you made a faux pas?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No more, I beg you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

You did not even know how many frames were involved in the Doppler effect until a few exchanges ago.

Which is wrong, you need two frames in the calculation of time dilation. This is taught early on in SR, RC, so please stop making up your own fringe version. See here:

The Lorentz transform for time tells you that:

\(t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)\)

So, if you have a signal of period \(\Delta t\) in frame F, its corresponding period in frame F', moving at speed \(v\) wrt F is given by:

\(\Delta t'=\gamma(\Delta t-v \Delta x/c^2)\)

Since the notion of "period" is attached to the notion of time separation of signals with the same location, this means \(\Delta x=0\) so:

\(\Delta t'=\gamma \Delta t\)

Do you understand why TWO and NOT one frame are needed in the derivation of time dilation? Same for its experimental observation.

 

No, just a rebuke of your fringe repeated denials of the "reality" of length contraction.

 

The invariance of the speed of light is considered true in the air, which has refractive index n= 1.000277 or in ethyl alcohol (ethanol) with n=1.361 ?

 

The record shows your claim there is false. Please desist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The salient point was that time (tick rate) changes occur and are DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE in experiments even for the same clock/counter between accelerations to different speeds of the same clock/counter.

Doppler on the other hand needs two SEPARATE frames (clocks/counters) INTERACTING by exchanging photons ACROSS SPACE FROM ONE FRAME TO THE OTHER.

How many ways can one put it so you will get the salient point?

And have you admitted (at least to yourself) yet that time dilation and doppler effects are NOT "one and the same effcts" like you claimed before? Doing so would be a good start in your 'moving on' from there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

No, vacuum only.

 

You realize you are contradicting yourself, don't you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How long do you plan to entertain with you fringe version of SR?

 

Not denying anything. Just waiting for direct verification (as for time dilation and doppler effects) for distance contraction. You ahve not been successful in attempting to do so. And now you just make ridiculous posts just because you made faux pas. Not good.


Admin/Mods: How long must one put up with obviously false insinuations given the exchange so far?

I don't want to be sucked into a war of personal posts which may be used as an excuse by others to 'report' me but not Tach.

Is this the sort of tactics that trolls who don't like people and don't like being wrong resort to in order to 'curtail' discussion and 'frame another' for banning purposes?

It is becoming tiresome and does the site's reputation no good at all to allow ad nauseum such empty/gossipy and opinionated posts like Tach's above.

.

 

So there is no SR in the air.

 

Not so. The context is clear. You are not objective. Naturally you would say so. But you ignore the obvious point. Not good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

You've countered nothing. Like Tach, you've merely defaulted to referring to SR theory perspectives and not addressed the actual point: that while there IS direct evidence for time dilation and doppler effects evidenced EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SR OR ANY OTHER THEORY OVERLAY/INTERPRETAION, there is still in actual fact NO equally direct effects evidenced for distance contraction BEFORE ANY THEORY OVERLAY/INTERPRETATION.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, no-one is 'denying' anything; one is merely pointing to that deficiency in direct evidence 'before theory' status of 'evidence/interpretation' between what we can do for time dilation and doppler effects and what we have not done on an equal basis for distance contraction. The observation stands for itself.

See? No 'denying' or otherwise from anyone is needed for discussing that observation/lack. No more, no less. Anything else is merely YOUR interpretation/insinuation. Not needed or wanted in the discussion of what is presented on its own terms.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks.

.

 

Sure you are denying , especially after being furnished two different experimental verifications. They are accepted by mainstream physics, why can't you accept them. Oh, you don't have to answer that.

 

False.