ralfcis » 05 Apr 2017, 18:26 wrote:Despite using the doppler ratio formula (which is 100% relativity approved) I managed to come up with some conclusions that I don't know how to jive with relativity. This next one really steps off the reservation even though it's a direct result of the STD. Ok follow along closely because the logic here can be very convoluted.
ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:Ok I've finished the math but I don't yet have an understanding of what it's telling me. This is what it's saying in a nutshell; hopefully I'll understand it once I write out all the details:
The doppler ratio R for separating velocities is 2/3 for .436c, 1/2 for .6c, 1/3 for .8c and 1/4 for .8824c. The ratio is inverse for approaching velocities. For example:
Alice separating from Bob at.8c
If Alice sends a signal to Bob at her 1 yr mark, the assumption is that if Bob sends a signal to Alice at his 1 yr mark, those signals are simultaneously sent. That assumption is based on the fact that in constant relative motion, there is no age difference between the two regardless of what the coordinate translation of time says. For me all that coordinate stuff is no different from time zones; my present is common to everyone else's present no matter how our clocks differ due to time zones.
ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:It can be shown that Bob and Alice will both be 3 when the signals arrive. This time is equal to 1/R. Yv for Alice will be 4/3 which also the point in space from which she sent her signal and how many yrs it'll take her light to reach Bob. When Alice receives Bob's signal, her point in space will be 4. 4/3 is Yv so the point where Alice gets Bob's signal is Yv/R. This Yv/R is a magic number so we'll call it X. Remember X=4 for this example.
ralfcis » March 27th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:What I can't understandi is light takes 4/3 years to get back to Bob who is 4/3 ly away. Bob ages 2 yrs in the time it takes for the light to hit him. Alice also ages 2 yrs for the light to hit her but she has a head start on Bob's light signal of 4/3ly. Light has to travel 4ly to hit Alice, that's 4 years. The two lights start out simultaneously and they hit simultaneously but one travels for 4/3 yr and the other travels for 4 yrs yet somehow they pull off the magic feat of starting and stopping simultaneously traveling for different amounts of time. I just don't understand how yet but it's definitely due to R. Put R in and all the math works out but what is the physical meaning of R?
we have SR and GR that do not have 'convoluted' logic - just physical and mathematical truths. Why would anyone need this?
ralfcis » April 6th, 2017, 6:57 am wrote:No, I'm not talking about reciprocal time dilation or even what each participant sees of the other on his TV monitor.
ralfcis » April 6th, 2017, 6:57 am wrote:Age difference, as is seen in the twin paradox, is a reality not dependent on perspective or simultaneity. The rules for relativity to establish age difference are that one of the participants must re-enter the same inertial frame (stop relatively) at a distance and then compare ages once the notification of the stop reaches his partner, or the two must cross each other in space so that the age difference can be compared.
No such TV monitors are possible unless what they display is simply a simulation based on the proper calculations.
ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 11:40 am wrote:No such TV monitors are possible unless what they display is simply a simulation based on the proper calculations.
Transmission of TV signals is at light speed. So often relativity depends on the old Galileo telescope to peer at what's going on in the other participant's frame. But there are so many physical limitations to that method. TV transmission has no limitations. In either case the signals received are delayed by the speed of light, they are both not in real time. So your idea that these monitors are impossible is because you assume the signal is in real time.
mitchellmckain wrote:This is because "at the same time" only has meaning within a single inertial frame and not between different inertial frames.
ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 2:51 pm wrote:I don't understand what's your definition of raw and post doppler effects to arrive at true age difference.
ralfcis wrote:There are too many popular misconceptions of relativity
ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:As I said I responded before I read the rest. So you're saying the TV monitors are impossible why? I don't understand what's your definition of raw and post doppler effects to arrive at true age difference.
ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:I gave a heads up some posts ago where the thread is heading. It will take months to get there but the jist of it is this: Age difference occurs between the time a participant makes a change in the velocity and the time it takes for that change to work it's way back to the observer.
mitchellmckain » 08 Apr 2017, 09:49 wrote:ralfcis » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:I gave a heads up some posts ago where the thread is heading. It will take months to get there but the jist of it is this: Age difference occurs between the time a participant makes a change in the velocity and the time it takes for that change to work it's way back to the observer.
Incorrect. There is no change in age due to acceleration. That doesn't really make any sense, does it? What changes are simply the measures of space-time.
On the contrary you can get anywhere as fast as you like if you spend enough energy.
The TV monitors are impossible because information cannot get from one place in space-time to another faster than the speed of light.
There is no change in age due to acceleration.
The only sensible interpretation is that "differential aging" happens progressively over the entire "twin paradox" scenario, but that it only becomes observable once one (or both) of the inertial frames experiences a change in inertial frame.
but that does not change the fact that the differential aging happened during the time from the start of the experiment until the change in frame.
As you have hinted, Ralf fails to appreciate the fact that there is a good part of the Doppler ratio that is pure Newtonian and has nothing to do with differential aging.
ralfcis » April 8th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote:No need for all your calculations in your scenario. The answer is no matter what spatial orientation between two participants equidistant from the earth and traveling that distance in the same time, the two participants won't experience any reciprocal time dilation or age difference because they will have the exact same time dilation and age difference relative to the earth. I went through the scenario at length in my ralfativity threads.
ralfcis » April 8th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote: If you're not going to take the trouble to read what I've written I'm just going to put you on ignore.
ralfcis » March 13th, 2017, 5:56 am wrote:
The doppler shift ratio is t_{tx}/t'_{rx} = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))
Graphically this relates the time t when the stationary frame transmits its spacetime info and the time t' when the moving frame receives it, each in their own proper time. (Relative aging is always a comparison of the frames' proper times as kept by on-board atomic clocks which are sync'd at the start of a journey and whose accuracy precludes the need for any sync'd distributed clock network.) v is negative if the frames are separating and positive if they're coming together.
ralfcis » 08 Apr 2017, 15:28 wrote:This should be a great place to attack my math but I'm getting no response. The only response I get is that I'm breaking relativity rules 1 and 2.
so why should anyone bother to read pages of verbiage in support of an invalid proposition?
ralfcis » 09 Apr 2017, 15:38 wrote:In the math Jorrie referenced, t=Yt'. That is the clock face comparison of time to define a common present between two participants for those who follow Einstein's philosophy about clocks and time. At its extreme, that philosophy has led Brian Greene to declare past, present and future all equally exist simultaneously because he believes the time read off the face of a clock is time itself.
Users browsing this forum: Andrex and 8 guests