According to SR...

Did you make up this all by yourself? Besides, what does the above have to do with RC's repeated denial that there is no distance contraction effect in the explanation of synchrotron radiation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll accept that, I do get confused.

Without re-reading it was likely introduced because in Tach's link, a muon "seeing" the undulator as compressed and a Doppler effect as observed in the lab frame were both mentioned.

As to your part in that conversation, I stand corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I did right on the spot also. And it has nothing to do with RC. It was directed at your question, asking how many frames were involved in a Doppler effect.

Your question was as obviously unrelated to the issue being discussed, as my answer, to your question is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Based on your post, you are confused. There are only two frames of reference, the one attached to the source and the one attached to the observer.

I was questioning RC's "teachings" on the subject. You are a little less wrong on the subject than he is but you are still wrong nevertheless.

 

So a photon that began some 13 billion LYs away, was Doppler shifted on its journey, then interacts with a hydrogen atom and is reemitted, and experiences an additional Doppler shift, before it is observed, does not include Doppler effects, at the point of observation, that occur both before and after its interaction with the hydrogen atom? Which would be three frames of reference?

 

Source/H atom, first pair of frames.
H atom/Final Observer, the second pair of frames.
You have some very serious problems with basic physics.

 

Why be so pedantic and ignore the essential point about needing at least two (emitter and receiver) for doppler effects to happen while only one frame is needed for time (tick rate) changes to happen?


As for 'more than two' case: An experiment I have in mind has an emitter fire off many photons in many directions, then many receivers will be involved in the simultaneous-observation of the doppler effects differences (between each of the many radials) from emitter to the many receivers according to each receiver's velocity relative to the central emitter.

OK? So stop distracting tactics by obtuseness and pedantry and just try to concentrate on the essentials please.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you heard of "acceleration"?

Acceleration is observable within the same frame. So an emitter at one velocity state can then ACCELERATE, and so must thereby have acquired a different velocity state RELATIVE TO ITS FORMER PRE-ACCELERATION STATE.

Each time this happens we know by SR that the inherent clock processes are affected so time (tick rate) changes must occur irrespective of what other frames are doing or 'seeing'. OK?

So, anyway, your claim that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects" is still shown to be faulty in logic and in fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No amount of pedantry or obtuseness and distraction-attempt posts like yours above has changed that reality. Deal with it. Stop avoiding and wasting posts trying to deflect from that.

Admit (to yourself at least) that you made a faux pas when claiming that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects". And just move on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

Hi Syne.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is your game, mate?

I note again your penchant for making insinuations before a discussion is complete.

I also note your empty/gossipy posts with Tach.

Is this the way you discuss science with others? Using 'tactics' and 'gossip' in lieu of allowing the discussion to proceed to its conclusion without unwarranted and unscientific 'personal' disparagements and insinuations etc along the way?

Look to yourself. You are coming across as a schoolyard child interested more in 'games' than in objective science discussion of the points as presented.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Be better!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

.

 

...... begins reaching for the thread lock button again .....

Play nice everyone.....

 

Because it is false. Mainstream physics tells you that you need two frames for both cases.

Introductory relativity teaches you that they are one and the same.

 

Except that non-relativistic models, which don't have time dilation, can have Doppler effects too. It plays a part in Doppler effects, in that you need to account for two contributions when doing relativistic Doppler descriptions, but if you say "The universe is Newtonian" so time dilation is shut off you still get Doppler effects. Simply listening to a siren on an emergency vehicle tells you that.

Unless I'm missing some subtle issue from the discussion (I only read the last 3 or 4 posts)?

 

We are talking about relativistic effects in synchrotron undulators. At least, I am. RC, is all about denying the length contraction effects (amongst other mainstream effects).

 

Why do you persist in opinionating?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I 'deny' nothing. I dispassionately observe and dispassionately discuss the points made. Period.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You keep on bringing 'baggage' into the discussion with your insinuations and just handwave and say 'look' and 'it says' etc without actually addressing the points made in context.

The discussion had got to the point where YOU MADE THE CLAIM that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects".

I pointd out that ACCELERATIONS of ONLY ONE frame to DIFFERENT PRE-ACCELERATIONS speeds are sufficient for time (tick rate) changes to occur.

I then pointed out that at least TWO frames are required for the doppler effect.

I further pointed out that just because one effect is used to demonstrate the other, it does NOT make the two effects "one and the same effects" like you claimed.

Hence demonstrating that your claim that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects" is faulty in logic and in fact.


How many times are you going to try and deflect from that by making such unfounded insinuations about 'denying' by 'others' and trying to distract from your faux pas there? It does not make it look any better for you if the admin/mods are watching this.

Just admit (to yourself at least if to no-one else) your faux pas there and move on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

Nope, the discussion started with your fringe misinterpretation that length contraction is not "real" despite being furnished with theoretical and experimental evidence to the opposite.

...which is yet another basic concept that you got wrong: it is EXACTLY two frames that are involved in the explanation of the Doppler effect.

SR textbooks say that you are wrong. Again.

 

Are you a mod? Why are you trying to censure a comment I made to Tach? Just like you are free to express agreement, or not, with OnlyMe, I am free to do so with anyone I choose, and that includes my evaluation of the totality of what you present here. There is nothing personally disparaging about coming to the only possible conclusion based on history.

You might as well, Alpha, it's not like we're making any progress at all.

 

But that doesn't negate the fact doppler shifts and time dilations are not 'one and the same'. The latter contributes to the former but that's not all.

The Doppler shift due to motion, ie exists in Newtonian physics, gives \(f' = (1-\frac{v}{v_{w}})f\), which then becomes \(f' = \gamma (1-\frac{v}{v_{w}})f\) for relativistic speeds. If the wave in question is light so \(v_{w} = c\) then you get \(f' = \sqrt{\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}}f\).

Given one can exist without the other and the full result requires considering the effects together the statement they are 'one and the same' is false. What context the statement is made in is somewhat irrelevant, it would seem...... Similar things happen when you consider the red shifting of light in cosmology. There's the contribution due to the instantaneous motion galaxies have away from one another and then another factor due to the change in the a(t) factor in the FRW metric.

 

The fact that time dilation does not exist in galilean physics while Doppler effect does is irrelevant, you surely know that the galilean physics does not describe nature correctly. In the context of synchrotrons , the time dilation/ Doppler effect are used interchangeably and they mean the same thing.

 

You ignored that "the discussion HAD GOT TO THE POINT" bit, irrespective of how it started (and all I did was to ask for empirical verification for distance contraction that is as empirically on an as equally verified basis as is available for time dilation). So your insinuation there is also unfounded strawmanning by you trying to distract from the context and your lack of scientific argument in response. And what you 'furnished' was not all that you made it out to be, as I pointed out to you and now you just keep 'pointing' and 'armwaving' and saying 'see there' etc etc. even though 'there' provides no in-context support for your claims, as I have shown by using those same references.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I explained that at least two are necessary for doppler. The reason I used the 'at least two or more' is in context to my proposed experiment where a central emitter emits photons radially to MANY receivers at different relative velocities to the central emitter to simultaneously observe MANY doppler values respective with the MANY receivers and central receiver frames. Hence the two/more in THAT case. I explained that and you still came back as if you had not read that explanation. Ignoring is not helping you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's get this straight. I point out the logic that just because one effect is used to demonstrate another effect it does not make those "one and the same effects".

And you just come back 'handwaving' and crying "SR says" without answering my counterpoints where I show that your claim is supported neither by SR nor your referenced experiments?

I've pointed out where and why your claim is faulty in logic and in fact.

SR is safe. Leave it alone and stop trying to abuse it by making some claim that it supports in any way your faulty claim that "time dilation and doppler effects are one and the same effects".

It is your 'interpretation' and 'handwaving' nebulous claim that it supports your faulty claim which shows you are getting wild in your attempts to avoid admitting your faux pas in logic and in fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the admin/mods are watching this thread you may have to explain why you insist on these avoidance and pedantic distracting tactics, mate. Good luck with that.

Cheers!

.

 

I merely noted your empty/gossipy and insinuating post. That is all. What the admin/mods make of them is up to them and for you to explain to them.

My noting same was propmpted by the fact that your posts WERE mere empty/gossipy posts and insinuations which are not helpful to the progress of the scientific discussion of the points presented.

Moreover, you keep making prejudiced comments BEFORE the actual scientific aspects have been fully discussed and the conclusions arrived at. So what is your game there? Is a scientific discussion to be prejudiced so because you have no real constructive inputs or effective counters?

Please do everyone and the science discussion the common courtesy of keeping to the scientific discussion points and avoiding making empty/gossipy and pre-conclusionary chatter and insinuations, mate. That's all anyone can reasonably ASK of a fellow member of a science site. Up to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So YOUR opinion about the discussion even before it has concluded is supposed to mean something to the admin/mods? Look to your motives, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

..and you were given two examples:

-the explanation of the rate of survival of muons at sea level, as viewed from the frame of reference of the muons

-the explanation of the generation of synchrotron radiation via the bunching of the train of electrons in he undulators

Despite being given BOTH the theoretical AND the experimental explanations, you continued in your denial of the "reality" of distance dilation.