Standard SRT problem need a standard SRT solution.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just in closing, I thought I'd post a list of unanswered questions that I have posed in the last few pages of this thread:

1] How can choosing a RF make the pulses tick differently?

2] What will either observer see of the light pulses in the scenario diagram below? [closing v= 0.8c]

3] How is the pulse rate determined by RF choice and the bias placed upon that chosen RF?
4] What happens to the light pulse ratios if we make no rest frame assumptions?
5] What happens to the light pulse ratios as we artificially place a bias in our choice of rest frame?

6] What will our observers see on their respective reflectors regardless of our mathematical constructs?

7] If I am an observer and calculate my pulse timing I do so according to SRT on the basis I am at rest. However if I assume my rest frame is moving at the same rate of the other ship my perception, caused only by mathematics, changes. How can my perception change just because mathematics states this?

8] So I am questioning how we can establish the reality of what is being observed when what is being observed is totally dependant on our assumptions of our velocity?

9] Now I would ask you why would I assume anything else? What premise would I use to determine myself at rest relative to the othership?

10] I sort of get this idea that is if all the observer can see is the two light spots pulsing on his reflector what would he see?

11] so what do I see on my reflector?

12] The contention being that if only two objects exist in a universe the relativity of each object must be symmetrical, that a third object or Reference must be available to break that symmetry.

13] Maybe there is a need to define the causality of dilation due to velocity. I have a feeling that unless this is known we are just chasing the wind....?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well pardon me for getting blunt. But screw you. Your mealy mouthed innuendo BS is hardly a physical response to hard facts.


Fact is I know and understand the rhetoric but I also know you have NO supporting data.

All data currently in hand after 100 years ONLY supports a oneway gamma calculation. If you claim otherwise then the onus is upon you to provide data showing physical reciprocity due to relative velocity according to SRT.

Go ahead smart mouth post your data.

I've posted mine. It simply happens that GPS is the best and most modern source for factual information on the issue. How is it that you seem to want to distance SRT from GPS all of a sudden?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Asking "what time elapses between pulses" is much like asking "how far is that tree?"
Neither can be answered without specifying some reference.

The answer to "how far is that tree?" depends on the reference position, even though the tree doesn't actually move.

The answer to "what time elapses between pulses" depends on the reference frame, even though the pulse rate in the source frame doesn't change.

I assume your talking about observers on the ships? (there could be other observers, of course).
Each sees their own pulses leaving once per second, and the other's pulses arriving at three per second (one every 0.333 seconds).

Further calculations:
If the ship determines (perhaps from the intensity of the pulse) how far away the other ship was when the pulse was emitted, they will see that the other ship gets 1.333 light-seconds closer between each pulse.
From this, they can determine that the other ship must must be emitting pulses every 1.667 seconds (1.333 + .333), and must be approaching at 0.8c (1.667 / 1.333).

These calculations are all of quantities in the observer's frame, so they haven't needed to know any SR yet. If they want to calculate a quantity in some other frame (like the other ship's), they'll need a little SR.

For example, to calculate the pulse rate that the other ship is emmitting at in their own frame, they will need to calculate the time dilation factor for a relative velocity of 0.8 (L=0.6)and use that to adjust the pulse rate in their frame to the other frame: 1.667 seconds / 0.6 = 1
So, the SR savvy observer determines that the pulse rate in the other ship's frame must be once per second.

All rates are frame dependent, in exactly the same way that "how far to that tree?" is position dependent. The rate in the source frame is never changed, but the rate in the observer's frame depends on their velocity. You might like to think of this as a difference of perspective.

How far is that tree?
Thje question can't be answered without a reference point (for the tree) or frame (for the light pulses).

The distance to the tree changes when you choose a reference point. Choosing a reference point is an artificial bias that doesn't move the tree, but it does change its distance away.

See question one. Our mathematical constructs are what allows us to answer this question.

I don't know what you mean. The pulse timing is always the same in your frame. You can calculate the timing in another frame, but that doesn't affect the timing in your frame.

Not true.
<quote>9] Now I would ask you why would I assume anything else? What premise would I use to determine myself at rest relative to the othership?</quote>
You can't - you are not at rest relative to the other ship.

I think that's enough...


Pete

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That has been precisely my position and arguement. The issue is one of perspective and not physical reality with regard to the tick rate and hence accumulated time by the clock since it only ticks in its frame.

Everything else is perception.

Funny when I say this over and over I am called a crackpot. When an SRTrist says it it is OK. What gives?

 

Mac, you appear to equate "perspective" and "perception".
I'm not using the word in that way. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I also wasn't making a declaration "this is only a difference in perception"... I was suggesting that QQ might like to think of it in that way as a stepping stone to fuller understanding.

We've been over this before, by the way.

The big difference is in the conclusions that you draw.

You might like to re-read my answer to QQ's question two, which I've just finished heavily editing.

 

Pete,

I won't argue your definition vs mine but your following statement:

Means to me that physical reality of the clock is not affected by motion of any observer and hence any such differance in the clocks tick rate is merely perception.

WEBSTER:

Perception - The understanding, knowledge, etc. gotten by perceiving or a specific idea, concept, impression, etc. so formed.

Perceive - To grasp mentally, to note; observe.

We are observing these clock tick rates. They are not the true rate of tick of the clock. Hence it is perception.

You may want to go back and do some further editing see below:

1.666n/1.333n = 1.25. You meant 1.333n/1.666n = 0.6

and

1.666n/0.6 = 2.7766n where you meant 1.666n * 0.6 = 1.000

 

Hi Mac,
To me, the 1.667 second pulse rate is real in the obsever's frame. Note that it's different to the perceived rate of 0.333 seconds.

The source pulse rate is certainly absolute (that's why its called the proper time), but I don't agree that different pulse rate in the other frame is not real.

 

Yes that is our disagreement. To me the only reality of the clock is the clocks accumulated time when viewed in the frame it ticks in. Otherwise in the twin paradox you are saying because I look younger, I am younger and I actually live and die by my own clock, not how you percieve the process.

 

Actually Mac, I believe that you misinterpret the twin paradox precisely because you believe that the different times in other frames are not real, which seems circular to me.

Correct application of the SRT model to the twin paradox shows that the accumulated time of the two clocks is actually different when they are brought back together. To me, this proves that the different times in other frames are, in fact, real. You actually live and die by your own clock. I actually live and die by my own clock. The clocks accumulate different times. Therefore you are, in fact, younger. Perception is irrelevant (which is why in QQ's example 1.667s is the actual time between pulses, not the perceived time of 0.333s).

You also fail to correctly apply the SRT model to the twin paradox because you assume absolute simultaneity.

This discussion has been covered in [thread=40447]laborious detail[/thread] in the past, so rather than draw it out again I'll let you have the last word until QQ responds.

Pete

 

Actually no. I do believe we each have our own universe and reality. The point is that to some high expotential number i.e. - 10E^1E6, of objects in our respective universes are common and the differances are only at the very edges and not perceived. The differances only exist either by distance or energy level (v = c) boundries.

I would argue that is a false conclusion in that if any measurement has meaning it is the measurement in the frame the physics occurs. As you have now agreed observers do not alter the physics of the others frame.

I totally disagree with this view. I was Born, Live and will Die only in my frame and any number of observers that see these events differently do not alter my proper time.

I agree the third frame is not absolute. It does however allow understanding ones velocity component to a composite relative velocity. It hence preclude the flawed concept of reciprocity by artifically disregarding the existance of other referances in the universe and then claiming such knowledge is not available and reciproicty must apply.

Actual data falsifies the reciprocity arguement. That supports the third frame and absolute nature of physical reality view.

You need to acknowledge that using only two frames is an arbitrary choice which disregards physical reality that there are other referances that establish component velocity of two such observers in a composite relative velocity figure.

Such component velocity means (if both have velocity) that each must dilate in proportion to such velocity relative to the common referance and not in relation to the assumption of one being at rest by limiting information about the true nature of the velocities forming the relative velocity.

This view is supported by hard physical data. This view prohibits physical reciproicty which is in complete accord with the fact that there is not one pice of evidence or data that supports the concept of reciprocity.

You need to go where the data is confirmed correct and stop going where there is no data.

When you write F = m*a rather than F = m, all you are doing is adding another level of complexiety but the result is to add the required information inputs to correctly calculate a physical reality. Using the third point of referance is required by the universe to properly calculate physical reality.

Your two point view is artifically restricted so as to eliminate the necessary information to make the calculation and you then use that fact to declare the non-existance of the information you have deliberately restricted.

You create your own false enviornment upon which to advocate a flawed view of reality.

Hard data is now available that clearly demonstrates this fact.

 

Innuendo.

False. If I boild a three minute egg. the energy input is in my frame and occurs in my proper time. You observation of anything other than three minutes is devoid the knowledge and physics of the energy input. You are merely observing the physics process, you are not contributing to it and are not affecting it.

That is precisely what I have said all along. It is you that seem to want to have it both ways.

Yes. It is obvious that what you see is not what you get. My frame is the only physical frame. The freame where the energy exchange took place to boil my three minute egg. Your clock that said it to one hour violates the physics of the energy input. (note: To preclude the obvious diversion you might attempt to make claiming the rate of energy input is slower also, I applied all the energy instantaneously).

The proper use of the third referance would be Vb as seen by A (not Va as seen by B as you have diagramed) and Vb as seen by C. B is the common referance.

Really perhaps you can do better than this sort of reply.

Given the condition A has a relative velocity to B of 0.3c and C has a relative velocity relative to B of -0.6c.

(Excluding Velocity Addition for simplicity of the example) Use a relative velocity A-C as being 0.9c.

Show us how you now declare either as being at rest or that reciprocity can apply.

While you are at it explain how you justify calling this gibberish when this is the principle verified in GPS time dilation calculations where the 0.9c value would yield an incorrect result and the collective 0.3c time dilation and 0.6c time dilation yields a correct result.

You really should pay attention.

It sure as hell does.

Ditto. Now do more than make these unsupported snap remarks and show mathematically any error in my methodology. Keep in mind your result must be in compliance with current avialable data regarding how such motion affects should be calculated.

 

Pete, bear with me as this post may seem a little long, well certainly longer than I usually post any way


1] How can choosing a RF make the pulses tick differently?

Actually Pete we already know that the observers light pulse is one every second. The question relates to the comparison between two assumptions :
1/ that the ships have equal velocity or are co-moving and
2/ the assumption that the observer is at rest and the other ship has v=0.8c
each assumption gives a different tick rate synchronisation.

If ships are assumed to be co-moving
0.4c:0.4c the tick ratio is 1:1
O:0.8c the tick ratio is 1:0.6

The observer is only interested in what he sees on the reflector. Does he see according to assumption 1/ or assumption 2/?

Or does he refuse to assume anything and just see what he sees. I would almost bet my last dollar on the fact that he would see a ratio of 1:1.

I am not referring to distance to avoid complicating the issue with length and superluminal effects. I am deliberately focusing on tick rate ratios to get to the nitty gritty of how arbitarilly choosing a rest frame seems to place an artificial bias in our calculations of dilations.

I would argue that it is not choosing a reference frame but making assumptions about it's velocity that is the problem.

In a two ship universe there can only be symmetry in the velocity as there is simply no reason to assume that one is stationary relative to the other ship.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2] What will either observer see of the light pulses in the scenario diagram below? [closing v= 0.8c]

This of course is calculated on the premise that one ship is at rest and as I have asked earlier why would I assume anything other than the ships are co-moving? at 0.4c:0.4c tick rate ratio 1:1

What would make me assume that I am relatively at rest? [absolute in this case - as it is a two ship only universe.] Logically I would have to assume that we are co - moving.

This is in essence the nub of the issue....

3] How is the pulse rate determined by RF choice and the bias placed upon that chosen RF?

This is essentially a falacious arguement Pete. "How far is that tree?" is a bit like saying to ship observer his own tick rate of 1 second has no value to him. Which of course is incorrect. The observer is comparing his second tick rate with the tick rate sent by another ship, and that is all he needs to do.
Both ships had calibrated their clocks at rest to each other so they have a standardised tick rate.

4] What happens to the light pulse ratios if we make no rest frame assumptions?

Firstly I don't think distance has anything to do with it. The tick rate is the same whether the ships are separated by 1 LY or 20 l years.

The actual answer should be "none" as choice of rest frame should in no way effect the actual tick rate as a physical pheno. Light pulse tick rates don't care what frame your in when you see it....they just tick....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

5] What happens to the light pulse ratios as we artificially place a bias in our choice of rest frame?

Obviously if I just as easilly assume that the v ratio is 0.2c : 0.6c = net 0.8c instead of 0c:0.8c or 0.4c to 0.4c we will get different tick rates and my arguement is that I fail to see how assuming a bias can change the physical pheno that dilation is supposed to be.

6] What will our observers see on their respective reflectors regardless of our mathematical constructs?

If we assume a bias in the symmetry of 0c:0,8c or visa vera in a two ship universe we are I feel abitarilly assuming something that is not valid as I have heard no arguement that would justify such a bias. Co-moving symmetry to me is the only rational position in a two ship universe [no other references available]

7] If I am an observer and calculate my pulse timing I do so according to SRT on the basis I am at rest. However if I assume my rest frame is moving at the same rate of the other ship my perception, caused only by mathematics, changes. How can my perception change just because mathematics states this?

Possibly Pete you have failed to grasp the scenario shown in the diagram?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The observers tick rate is always the same, that is to say that the tick rate projected on to his reflector by his own ship is always his local 1 second pulse.
In calculating the rate ratio seen in another frame you have to make veliocity assumptions and it is those velocity assumptions that calculate an arbitary tick rate ratio. And it gets back to what reason is there to assume that in a two ship universe the velocities are not co-moving or symmetrical. thus ratio of 1:1 for both ships.

8] So I am questioning how we can establish the reality of what is being observed when what is being observed is totally dependant on our assumptions of our velocity?

But aren't we assuming it is always the other ship has all the velccity and dilation

9] Now I would ask you why would I assume anything else? What premise would I use to determine myself at rest relative to the other ship?

Pete please excuse my confusion but I repeat what asked earlier: Isn't it always the other ship that has the dilations thus velocity? May be you could clarify your above response to question 9]

******
Pete and others, It seems to me that it all comes down to the question of : On what grounds is a calculation to be made with the assumption that the othership has all the velocity and dilation in a two ship universe?
To me it is as simple as that.

If I was aboard a ship and the only other object in my universe was another ship I would be crazy to assume that the other ship had all the dilation and velocity.

Keeping in mind that the whole concept of a two ship universe is impossible any way.

The tick rate ratio can only reflect the symmetry of a two ship system IMO and show a ratio of 1:1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You conviently seem to forget that this is now claimed due to GR affects, not SR affects, since the SR claim has been generally rejected by most scientists, due in fact to the inherent reciprocity of SRT, as a basis for the Twin Paradox results.

 

Very good post QQ.
As another thought, which is only slightly skewed from your main thesis, the observers making the assumption he is at rest and the other ship moving with all the meaured velocity comprising the realtive velocity would, in general, get a more accurate ophysical result if they both took the average of the relatlve velocity and split the velocity equivalently between the two ships.

I know, this is a crude compromise, but physically more accurate and realistic.

Geistkiesel ​

 

Statistically I would agree but the reality would be in many cases it would still be gross error. 50% at least of the error assuming 50/50 velocity in case of actual rest of one clock in the three point view.

 

Geist I agreed and do agree. The only way to break the natural symmetry of a two ship universe is to add another ship. IMO

 

Always a pleasure.

That's like saying that we already know that the tree is right here. It doesn't tell us how far the tree is from a different reference point.
So, although we already know that the observer's light pulse is one every second in their reference frame, this does not tell us the rate in any other frame.

The observed tick ratio is independent of the arbitrarily chosen rest frame, of course.
The predicted observed tick ratio should also be independent of the chosen rest frame. If not, then the predictions must be based on a flawed model.

Fortunately for SRT, its predicted observed tick ratio is 1:3 regardless of the chosen rest frame.

I accept your prediction, but I'd like to restrict our discussion to what the predictions of SRT are, and whether they are internally consistent; i.e. whether there is any situation in which one can correctly apply SRT in two different reference frames and produce two different predictions of what an observer actually sees. (If such a situation exists, then this disproves SR.)

This is the same thing. "Choosing a reference frame" effectively means "deciding what is a rest". For example, "Observer A's reference frame" means "The Universe looked at from the perspective in which Oberserver A is at rest".

So to restate my earlier response, the answer to "what time elapses between pulses" depends on what is at rest in the perspective from which you are considering the Universe, even though the pulse rate in the source perspective (the perspective in which the source of the pulses is at rest) doesn't change.

By 'one', are you referring to us as independent analysts, or the observer on a ship?
The observer on a ship can't assume they're stationary relative to the other ship, of course. They can, however, use a model (like SRT) to predict what things look like from that other ship's perspective. In other words, they can answer the question "What if I were stationary w.r.t. the other ship?" Or "What if I were heading in direction x at y m/s?"