According to SR...

[Tach]

But since you have yet to directly 'verify' for distance contraction' as we have already verified for time dilation and doppler effects,

Err, first off, time dilation and the Doppler effect , in the context of the cited description are the same thing, so this further shows that you don't understand it.
Secondly, the "verification" of BOTH Doppler effect AND distance contraction is done through the EFFECTS on the radiation wave (increased frequency). In other words, BOTH effects are "verified" to the same extent.
Where do you and OnlyMe get this kookiness in insisting that the distance contraction is not a "real" effect? Did you go to the same school of crackpottery?

We all wait

You mean you and OnlyMe? People that understand basic physics aren't waiting with you.

for real 'verification' of the assumed theoretical abstraction of 'distance contraction' on an equal objective empirical footing as for time dilation and doppler effects.

You realize that no one in real physics waits for the "real verification" that you two guys have been clamoring for, don't you?

[OnlyMe]

...only when interpreted by crackpots in a deep state of denial. OnlyMe came up with the same exact nonsense about 100 posts ago.

Tach, there is no where else for this to go.

The issue has been resolved and set to rest. However, since you are never wrong, there is no hope for you at all.

Unless something new comes up, I am done.

Responding to your nonsense has gone on long enough.

Edit: oops! That was settled long ago, distance contraction must be a real effect, it just has never been proven so, by imperical measurement. Once again if it were not real, the world would not make sense. You really need to keep up with the issues.

[Tach]

Tach, there is no where else for this to go.

Good, then you two stop making crackpot claims on the subject.

[RealityCheck]

Err, first off, time dilation and the Doppler effect , in the context of the cited description are the same thing, so this further shows that you don't understand it.
Secondly, the "verification" of BOTH Doppler effect AND distance contraction is done through the EFFECTS on the radiation wave (increased frequency). In other words, BOTH effects are "verified" to the same extent.
Where do you and OnlyMe get this kookiness in insisting that the distance contraction is not a "real" effect? Did you go to the same school of crackpottery?


You mean you and OnlyMe? People that understand basic physics aren't waiting with you.


You realize that no one in real physics waits for the "real verification" that you two guys have been clamoring for, don't you?

I bolded your opening sentence above.

Your contention there is not borne out by the facts.

Time involves an internal clock etc process IN ONE FRAME according to its speed.

Doppler effects arise ONLY WHEN TWO OR MORE FRAMES INTERACT according to their respective speeds.

See?

The directly observed time dilation can BE observed to occur in one frame according to speed affecting its internal processes.

The directly observed doppler effect can be observed to occur ONLY when two RESPECTIVE CLOCK RATES are effectively involved between frames interacting.



So your contention there is both logically and factually flawed....and hence 'explains' nothing and 'verifies' nothing about anything we are discussing here; which is 'distance contraction' abstraction.

So anyway, you have explained nothing by the above post/comments; so we still wait to actually observe 'distance contraction' on an equal empirical objective footing as for time dilation and doppler effects.

Cheers!

[Tach]

I bolded your opening sentence above.

Your contention there is not borne out by the facts.

Tough, since basic SR says that they are one and the same effect.

Time involves an internal clock etc process IN ONE FRAME.

Doppler effects arise ONLY WHEN TWO OR MORE FRAMES INTERACT.

"Frames interact"? Let me ask you a question: how do two frames "interact"?
Here is another question: how many frames are needed in explaining time dilation in SR? And how many for the explanation of the Doppler effect?

The directly observed time dilation can BE observed to occur in one frame according to speed affecting its internal processes.

Want to try again? You got it wrong.

So anyway, you have explained nothing by the above post/comments; so we still wait to actually observe 'distance contraction' on an equal empirical objective footing as for time dilation and doppler effects.

Cheers!

Continue waiting, it is only you two cranks waiting for it.

[RealityCheck]

Tough, since basic SR says that they are one and the same effect.

I just showed where your contention was flawed in logic and fact. What more do you want before you acknowledge your mistake there? And just vaguely pointing to "SR" and effectively saying "Is so!....Is so!" does not answer, since I have just explained where they are not "one and the same effect", either in logic or in fact. So perhaps your thinking that they are "one and the same effects" betrays that you yourself are not all that clued up to what SR actually means/says in logic or in fact.

And since the rest of your post is mere semantics ploy to distract from your above faux pas, I shall leave well enough alone because I don't wish to be drawn into a semantics war in lieu of actual discussion of the facts as presented.

Whether you deny (as you often and indiscriminately and most often unjustifiably accuse others of doing when you have no real answer) your latest faux pas pointed out to you just now about the difference between time and doppler effects, that is your business.

But please either keep to the point and stop your distraction tactics or just say you have no further explanations to offer than the already flawed/irrelevant ones you have tried to pass off as being the last word on the subject being discussed here (ie, 'distance contraction' not so far 'verified' as directly objectively as are time dilation and doppler effects).

Cheers!

.

[Tach]

And since the rest of your post is mere semantics ploy to distract from your above faux pas, I shall leave well enough alone because I don't wish to be drawn into a semantics war in lieu of actual discussion of the facts as presented.

No, the post shows that you don't know the basics regarding frames of reference, time dilation, the Doppler effect, etc. Who do you think you are fooling?

[RealityCheck]

No, the post shows that you don't know the basics regarding frames of reference, time dilation, the Doppler effect, etc. Who do you think you are fooling?

It seems you are fooling yourself. No-one else need lift a finger to that end.

I just showed you where YOU mistook time dilation and doppler effects as being "one and the same effects."

If you have not addressed that demonstrable faux pas on your part both in logic and in fact, then why should I try to fool you more than you are fooling yourself?

Either defend your demonstrated faux pas or stop posting such empty/gossipy posts that do nothing for your credibility regarding your supposed "SR" 'understandings'.

Cheers!

.

[Tach]

I just showed you where YOU mistook time dilation and doppler effects as being "one and the same effects."

They ARE the same effect. You don't even know the number of frames involved in the explanation.

[RealityCheck]

They ARE the same effect. You don't even know the number of frames involved in the explanation.

Saying "Is so!....Is so!" explains nothing about your contention that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects."

I Explained the effective difference in logic and in fact. You have only handwaved and pointed and said "Is so...Is so!" in return.

Please just make a cogent argument to back your "Is so!....Is so!" and stop your mere handwaving and pointing.

Thanks.

.

[Tach]

Saying "Is so!....Is so!" explains nothing about your contention that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects."

Anyone who took a class in SR knows that. If you ever took such a class, you would have known, for example, that the transverse Doppler effect is the purest form of time dilation (and it is used as a test for TD). Despite of all your posturing, you have demonstrated (repeatedly) that you have no clue on the subject.

[RealityCheck]

Anyone who took a class in SR knows that. If you ever took such a class, you would have known, for example, that the transverse Doppler effect is the purest form of time dilation (and it is used as a test for TD). Despite of all your posturing, you have demonstrated (repeatedly) that you have no clue on the subject.

That reference is not all that you make it out to be, mate.

Irrespective of type, doppler effect are only evidenced between two or more emitters/receivers. It is not intrinsic to either the emitter or receiver. Only a complete transfer of a photon from one to the other can show the doppler effect of their RESPECTIVE TIME RATES according to their RESPECTIVE SPEEDS. Whether it is....

The "Straight Line" doppler effect "used" to check/compare time dilation effect Between emitter and receiver involved in straight line motion, with their respective speeds and clock rates during emission/receiving determining what straight-line doppler value is observed. Nothing more.

The "Transverse" doppler effect "used" to arrive at the "modified" doppler effect associated with the "Aberration" component of the "interacting angle" relative motion/exchange (not straight-line relative motion component), and so shows only that compnent of the doppler effect.

In both cases, it is STILL relatively obtained BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS (emitter and receiver) and not ONE object as time dilation effect is inherently by ITS OWN SPEED effect in absence of other objects. So transveres doppler values obtained merely represent the effect of angled interactions component between TWO objects still.

Neither doppler measurement scenario is actually time dilation as such (since time dilation is ONLY inherent to each emitter and absorber ALONE....and ONLY when they interact by exchanging a photon, irrespective of straight-line or angled exchange, can anything be said about either kind of doppler effect.

The respective time dilations were ALREADY THERE IN EACH (emitter and receiver) even BEFORE their interaction to determine any doppler effects.

See?

Time dilation is unique and inherent to a body itself and only depends on its own speed. Period.

Doppler effect involves TWO or MORE objects interacting RELATIVELY bringing their respective 'time dilation states' and relative 'speeds' to a mutual exchange which may be doppler shifted straight-line or Transverse.


In short, there is no 'inherent doppler shift' of any kind associated with only one or the other body (emitter or receiver), rather there is only a RELATIVE effect called doppler shift when these TWO objects interact (exchange photon etc).

Time dilation is observable in just ONE moving body. Doppler shift effect needs TWO or more bodies and INTERACTING ANGLE/VELOCITIES associated with that interaction.

So your contention that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects" is still shown to be logically and factually faulty even when your latest references are taken into account.

Just because one effect is used to demonstrate the other it does not make them "one and the same effects" like you claim.

Cheers!

.

[Syne]

Hi Syne!

Mate, you seem to be missing the obvious point being made and instead insist in bringing in irrelevant overlays. Consider this.....

If the earth didn't exist and only a laser pulse and a fast/slow muon started off from the same location and just continued into empty space....where would a 'relative motion of Earth towards Muon' aspect come into it? Are YOU now arguing that motion is with respect to 'space' as an 'absolute' frame? No of course you're not. But if we removed the earth and everything else except the muons and the laser pulse of light as described, and created muons and they moved and lived according to inherent states of motion/decay process 'countdown' rates etc at speeds compared to the laser pulse, then what you're trying to do is say that the muons and laser pulse have velocities 'relative' to space?

There would have to be at least one observer of the relative speeds of the muons for there to be any comparison of lifetimes. Whether this is the Earth, emitter, or the other muon frame, it really doesn't matter. You need a bare minimum of two frames to make any such comparison, and light is not a frame of reference, as there is no frame in which light is at rest. If you don't make some comparison then you have no knowledge of either muon's speed/lifetime, i.e. no experiment is done.

But I'll humor you. How do you propose you'd measure a speed relative to light? As I've already told you, c is invariant as measured from either muon, IOW always observed to be c regardless of observer speed (basic SR). So are you simply exchanging an Earth observer for an emitter observer? If so, you have to admit that this is just sleight of hand that does nothing to alter the original.

But since you are not claiming that as a consequence of removing everything excpt the muons and the laser pulse, then I can only suggest you review the experiment and see for yourself that the earth is not needed, and hence neither is the 'earth relative motion' towards muon perspective. That perspective is superfluos since we have the empirical data set that tells us all we need to know before bringing theoretical overlay/interpretation post-experiment/observation perspectives into it. We already had our answer from the experimental data 'actually' obtained. Anything else is just window-dressing' for one theory or another perspective which is effectively superfluous given the empirical facts and direct observation/interpretation of same.

See? There is nothing especially clever or subtle or necessary in invoking some 'relative motion of earth towards muon' theoretical overlay.

Guess what? That "experimental data 'actually' obtained" was so obtained in a specific frame, and thus relative to this frame. Like I said above, we are free to vary this frame, but we cannot conduct any such experiment without at least one other admissible frame than those of the muons.

The fact that muons go faster or slower and the fact that we can gauge their speeds against the laser pulse lightspeed in our 'atmosphere-to-earth-surface' scenario merely adds convenience to our observational construct. That's all. Otherwise not necessary to view the experiment 'from the perspective of the earth' etc etc.

Please explain how you accomplish measuring the speed of a muon, or anything else for that matter, without any other admissible frame of reference. Are you assuming light is somehow an absolute frame of reference because it is invariant? If so, you are grossly mistaken, as light has the same speed for all observers, including both muons.

See? Clarify and simplify and avoid from the outset of experiments any unnecessary theoretical overlays and perspectives....and just concentrate on the empirical data set provided by the experiment IRRESPECTIVE of whatever theoretical overlays and relative perspectives one wishes to bring to the party AFTER THE EVENT/FACT.

Only in this way can we see what is happening 'clean' of uncalled for assumptions and presumptions regardless of where they come or who brings them. The unnecessary 'overanalysis' by bringing the earth frame/relative motion perspective only clutters up the direct observations and conclusions therefrom even before any further theoretical 'interpretations' are brought to bear from the various theories extant.

So please just look at the muon experiment/observation data clearly and leave out the post-experiment sophistry based on whatever one's theoretical perspective on it may be after the fact.

Yet again, you seem determined to get rid of relative motion, leaving only some absolute motion. There is no evidence of any such absolute motion. What you suggest does away with the experiment and any observations/measurements so obtained.

I guess you're right. No need to analyze anything at all if there's simply no data. What a brilliant simplification! But...that's not science.

PS: I would appreciate it if, before you made any further insinuations to James R or anyone else about what I am doing to SR theory, perhaps you would give our discussion the scientific and common courtesy of exhausting all points and concluding who is doing what to what. Since I had more to point out to you (as above) it is premature to make your own conclusions about me or the discussion.

You've done nothing by arm waving here, so my original estimation of your comprehension of SR not only stands but is further validated. If there's any lack of science content hammer around here, you're definitely one of the nails that sticks out.

[Tach]

[b]

Irrespective of type, doppler effect are only evidenced between two or more emitters/receivers.

It is not "two or more emitters/receivers". How many is it exactly? How many frames of reference are involved? I asked you this before, how about you stop moving the goalposts and answer this simple question?

It is not intrinsic to either the emitter or receiver. Only a complete transfer of a photon from one to the other can show the doppler effect of their RESPECTIVE TIME RATES according to their RESPECTIVE SPEEDS. Whether it is....

I'll have ranch with the above word salad.

The "Straight Line" doppler effect "used" to check/compare time dilation effect Between emitter and receiver involved in straight line motion, with their respective speeds and clock rates during emission/receiving determining what straight-line doppler value is observed. Nothing more.

I'll have Italian with the above. RC, you clearly have no clue about the Doppler effect, why don't you stop serving word salads?

The "Transverse" doppler effect "used" to arrive at the "modified" doppler effect associated with the "Aberration" component of the "interacting angle"

Huh?

relative motion/exchange (not straight-line relative motion component), and so shows only that compnent of the doppler effect.

This one goes with vinegar and oil.

In both cases, it is STILL relatively obtained BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS (emitter and receiver) and not ONE object as time dilation effect is inherently by ITS OWN SPEED effect in absence of other objects.

So, once again, how many frames are involved in time dilation? Think hard, you already flubbed this answer three times.

Neither doppler measurement scenario is actually time dilation as such (since time dilation is ONLY inherent to each emitter and absorber ALONE....and ONLY when they interact by exchanging a photon, irrespective of straight-line or angled exchange, can anything be said about either kind of doppler effect.

Mainstream physics says that you are wrong on all accounts.

The respective time dilations were ALREADY THERE IN EACH (emitter and receiver) even BEFORE their interaction to determine any doppler effects.

See?

I see, you have your own fringe view of how physics works.

Time dilation is unique and inherent to a body itself and only depends on its own speed. Period.

Period? "Its own speed" with respect to WHAT?

Time dilation is observable in just ONE moving body. Doppler shift effect needs TWO or more bodies and INTERACTING ANGLE/VELOCITIES associated with that interaction.

Repeating the same error doesn't make it right, it only makes it hilarious.

So your contention that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects" is still shown to be logically and factually faulty even when your latest references are taken into account.

Textbooks and scientific papers say that the above is wrong.

[Syne]

Time dilation is unique and inherent to a body itself and only depends on its own speed. Period.

Period? "Its own speed" with respect to WHAT?

RealityCheck has confirmed, many times, that he believes in absolute motion.

[Tach]

RealityCheck has confirmed, many times, that he believes in absolute motion.

Yes, clearly. And many more "ideas" like this. I find his self-assurance enormously entertaining, especially the way he phrases his "teachings".

[Syne]

Yes, clearly. And many more "ideas" like this. I find his self-assurance enormously entertaining, especially the way he phrases his "teachings".

"Teachings" is apt, as these do sound more like religious sermons than anything approaching science.

[Tach]

"Teachings" is apt, as these do sound more like religious sermons than anything approaching science.

Right

[OnlyMe]

"Teachings" is apt, as these do sound more like religious sermons than anything approaching science.

Right

I wake up this morning and these are the last two posts in this thread. These two posts/comments were proceeded by the following non-sense. Just exactly what part of all this is represents anything approaching science?

It is not "two or more emitters/receivers". How many is it exactly? How many frames of reference are involved? I asked you this before, how about you stop moving the goalposts and answer this simple question?

I'll have ranch with the above word salad.

I'll have Italian with the above. RC, you clearly have no clue about the Doppler effect, why don't you stop serving word salads?

Huh?

This one goes with vinegar and oil.

So, once again, how many frames are involved in time dilation? Think hard, you already flubbed this answer three times.

Mainstream physics says that you are wrong on all accounts.

I see, you have your own fringe view of how physics works.

Period? "Its own speed" with respect to WHAT?

Repeating the same error doesn't make it right, it only makes it hilarious.

Textbooks and scientific papers say that the above is wrong.

RealityCheck has confirmed, many times, that he believes in absolute motion.

Yes, clearly. And many more "ideas" like this. I find his self-assurance enormously entertaining, especially the way he phrases his "teachings".

Syne, just before all of this "non-sense" you raised some valid issues. Then as Reality Check left the conversation.., well you can see what happened...

You were right, there are generally two frames of reference in involved, in the case of a Doppler effect. Only one requires an observer, be present. The wave or photon source and the frame of the observer. And yes a Doppler effect can occur without an observer, but that is something we project as true from experience and observation that does include an observer.

But the story does not end there. Why? Because, astronomers observe light from distant parts of the universe which has interacted with interstellar and intergalactic dust clouds. In that case there is an intermediate frame of the gas cloud, making the total three frames of reference. Assuming as is often the case in astronomy, that the gas cloud was not the initial origin of the "light". IOW the gas cloud is back lit by a light source further away.

How many frames of reference can there be, with respect to a Doppler effect? It all depends on where the light source is, the point of origin of the Doppler effect, the point of observation and how many other atoms the photon may have interacted with, prior to being observed. And yes this does leave out the case where there is no observer. That is done with intent since in that case we are projecting what we have observed elsewhere, as a matter of logic.

There must always be two, there can easily be three and in the case of astronomical observations and sources, there really is no way to define how many times in total, any photon that has interacted once with an atom on its way to us, has interacted with other atoms, all between the point of its origin and detection.

One could argue that only the last two frames are relevant and it would be a legitimate arguement. Just as the one above is also a legitimate perspective on the issue as a whole. The answer always lies in the initial definning conditions, which seem to have been either assumed, were just missing, or were intentionally ignored in this case. Which at this point is unclear and I am not going to go back and re-read the thread to find out. There is just too much non-sense to wade through to make the effort worthwhile.

[Syne]

Syne, just before all of this "non-sense" you raised some valid issues. Then as Reality Check left the conversation.., well you can see what happened...

You were right, there are generally two frames of reference in involved, in the case of a Doppler effect. Only one requires an observer, be present. The wave or photon source and the frame of the observer. And yes a Doppler effect can occur without an observer, but that is something we project as true from experience and observation that does include an observer.

But the story does not end there. Why? Because, astronomers observe light from distant parts of the universe which has interacted with interstellar and intergalactic dust clouds. In that case there is an intermediate frame of the gas cloud, making the total three frames of reference. Assuming as is often the case in astronomy, that the gas cloud was not the initial origin of the "light". IOW the gas cloud is back lit by a light source further away.

How many frames of reference can there be, with respect to a Doppler effect? It all depends on where the light source is, the point of origin of the Doppler effect, the point of observation and how many other atoms the photon may have interacted with, prior to being observed. And yes this does leave out the case where there is no observer. That is done with intent since in that case we are projecting what we have observed elsewhere, as a matter of logic.

There must always be two, there can easily be three and in the case of astronomical observations and sources, there really is no way to define how many times in total, any photon that has interacted once with an atom on its way to us, has interacted with other atoms, all between the point of its origin and detection.

One could argue that only the last two frames are relevant and it would be a legitimate arguement. Just as the one above is also a legitimate perspective on the issue as a whole. The answer always lies in the initial definning conditions, which seem to have been either assumed, were just missing, or were intentionally ignored in this case. Which at this point is unclear and I am not going to go back and re-read the thread to find out. There is just too much non-sense to wade through to make the effort worthwhile.

You're confused. I haven't discussed the doppler effect at all in this thread, nor do I know why it was introduced. Doppler shift has no effect on speed.