Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

On Mar 23, 10:17*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip all]

Double down on the stupidity! When you don't post under you real name,
there are no consequences for being embarrassingly stupid!

Koobee Wublee says...

On Mar 23, 6:27 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Alfonso says...

Doppler shift is about comparing two different complete cycles
for an electromagnetic wave: (1) At the sender, there is a time
T_s for a complete cycle, and (2) At the receiver, there is a
time T_r for a complete cycle. These are not measuring the same
intervals of time in different coordinate systems, they are
measuring *different* intervals.

It sounds like (f = 1 / dt).

It depends on what you mean by dt. We have *FOUR* different
events:

e_1 = the start of the cycle, at the sender
e_2 = the end of the cycle, at the sender
e_3 = the event at which the signal from e_1 reaches the receiver
e_4 = the event at which the signal from e_2 reaches the receiver

There are 4 relevant time intervals as well:

dt_12 = the time between e_1 and e_2, according to the frame of the
sender

dt_12' = the time between e_1 and e_2, according to the frame of
the receiver

dt_34 = the time between e_3 and e_4, according to the frame of
the sender

dt_34' = the time between e_3 and e_4, according to the frame of
the receiver.

The Doppler shift ratio is f'/f, where
f' = 1/dt_34'
f = 1/dt_12

The Lorentz transformations don't
directly give t_34' in terms of t_12,
they give t_34' in terms of t_34.
So you can't just use

dt' = gamma (dt - v/c^2 dx)

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:
On Mar 24, 7:40 am, wrote:
On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.

Yes.

b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/



c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.

Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind) You
have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
counting transmitted ticks.

You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
"measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the arrival
of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
which dilates.

What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
count". Not time. It cannot measure anything it simply increments each
tick. It cannot be "time" because it is not dilated, on the contrary the
reading on the clock is smaller than that on the local clock. It
registers (taking into account transmission time) the same as the moving
clock and it increments at the same rate.



What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

Dilate "To expand; to distend; to enlarge or extend in all
directions; to swell; -- opposed to contract"

The time interval between ticks dilates.
The value read on the clock gets smaller - contracts.

They cannot both be described as time. Does time contact or dilate?

On Mar 24, 4:40*pm, Alfonso wrote:
On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:









On Mar 24, 7:40 am, *wrote:
On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:39 am, * *wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.

Yes.

b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/

Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at rest.

See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone time.




c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.

Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind) You
have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
counting transmitted ticks.

You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
"measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the arrival
of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
which dilates.

What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
count".

What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.

Not time. It cannot measure anything it simply increments each
tick. It cannot be "time" because it is not dilated, on the contrary the
reading on the clock is smaller than that on the local clock. It
registers (taking into account transmission time) the same as the moving
clock and it increments at the same rate.









What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

Dilate "To expand; to distend; to enlarge or extend in all
* *directions; to swell; -- opposed to contract"

The time interval between ticks dilates.
The value read on the clock gets smaller - contracts.

They cannot both be described as time. Does time contact or dilate?

to bad, taht folks persist with newton's photon,
even though there is no empty space, at all. now,
recent results are that there is about an order
of magnitude of dihyrdrogen, compared
to singlet or ionized hydrogen in interstellar space,
but these were invisible to tehmethod used
for seeing the plasmic stuff, which has a dipole.

Yours truly has to hand it to you that after so many failed attempts
at fudging the mathematics you have finally cooked up something that
yours truly cannot refute. One good recipe among thousands of failure
should indeed qualify you are as a great alchemist in which Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not even achieve. So,
salute to you.

The derivation shows correctly the invariance in the wavelength under
non-relativistic condition as expected. However, the transformation
of wavelength is not expected to be in the relativistic condition
according to the FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction. So, don’t get
that over to your head too much. Yours truly now realizes that SR can
indeed reconcile with the Doppler effect all thanks to you. That does
not mean SR is flawless. The biggest flaw of SR is still the
manifestation of the twin’s paradox. So until then, we shall meet
again in the battle fields. The twin’s paradox is not something you
can cook up mathemagics to resolve with easily. So, until then, take
care.

On 24/03/11 22:34, PD wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:40 pm, wrote:
On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:









On Mar 24, 7:40 am, wrote:
On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.

Yes.

Why do you accept this statement yet query the one below?
Clearly in the context it is moving relative to you and you are
measuring it in your FoR


b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/

Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at rest.

So is the frequency "*unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is at
rest". You understood the first statement. The second statement relates
to the same scenario. Are you deliberately being bloody minded

See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone time.




c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.

I never said otherwise


Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind) You
have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
counting transmitted ticks.

You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
"measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the arrival
of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
which dilates.

What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
count".

What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.

In note you say "measures" not "indicates".

" We may say of it the following three things:
Set I
(a) The journey occurred in time.
(b) The time of starting was 1 o'clock.
(c) The time occupied by the journey was 2 hours.

The same word, time, is used here in three quite different senses, as
may be seen by considering the corresponding statements about space:
Set II
(a) The journey occurred in space.
(b) The place of starting was London.
(c) The length of (or distance covered by) the journey was 60 miles.

Here we use three different words — space, place, length (or distance),
none of that could be substituted for either of the others without
depriving the sentence of meaning. The same distinctions, thus brought
to light, exist in the set I, but they are obscured by the use
of the same word, 'time', for three quite different ideas.

To distinguish the three meanings of 'time' I will re-express the set I
in the following not unnatural ways:
Set III
(a) The journey occurred in eternity.
(b) The instant of starting was 1 o'clock.
(c) The duration of the journey was 2 hours." Dingle

Note that only (c) has units of seconds. I think that part of the
problem is that we are all familiar with clocks# and think of them as
something which tells time in hours minutes and seconds. In scientific
terms we should perhaps not use the term clock but "duration meter" -
envisaging something with a digital reading which increments at some
interval 1/10^n seconds. The larger n then the better the resolution -
which is started by one detected event and stopped by another event.
Your statement:
"What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures".
Becomes
What time is, is what a "duration meter" locally at rest measures.
In terms of my scenario the only interval which the duration meter can
measure is the interval between the ticks - the reciprocal of which is
the frequency of the ticks.

#If one is pedantic the strict definition of a "clock" is something
which chimes. If it doesn't chime the correct terminology is a "time-piece".

"Alfonso" wrote in message
...
| On 24/03/11 22:34, PD wrote:
| On Mar 24, 4:40 pm, wrote:
| On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On Mar 24, 7:40 am, wrote:
| On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:
|
| On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
| On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
| I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
| time.
|
| Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.
|
| You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
| of frequency or it is what a clock measures.
|
| Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
| locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.
|
| You are ducking the issue:
|
| a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
|
| Yes.
|
| Why do you accept this statement yet query the one below?
| Clearly in the context it is moving relative to you and you are
| measuring it in your FoR
|
|
| b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means
increased)
|
| The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
| increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
| yes.
|
| I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/
|
| Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
| the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
| at rest.
|
| So is the frequency "*unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is at
| rest". You understood the first statement. The second statement relates
| to the same scenario. Are you deliberately being bloody minded
|
| See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone time.
|
|
|
|
| c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.
|
| Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.
|
| Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
| you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
| between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
| same two events.
|
| I never said otherwise
|
|
| Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind)
You
| have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
| one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
| counting transmitted ticks.
|
| You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
| "measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the
arrival
| of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
| which dilates.
|
| What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
| count".
|
| What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.
|
| In note you say "measures" not "indicates".
|
| " We may say of it the following three things:
| Set I
| (a) The journey occurred in time.
| (b) The time of starting was 1 o'clock.
| (c) The time occupied by the journey was 2 hours.
|
| The same word, time, is used here in three quite different senses, as
| may be seen by considering the corresponding statements about space:
| Set II
| (a) The journey occurred in space.
| (b) The place of starting was London.
| (c) The length of (or distance covered by) the journey was 60 miles.
|
| Here we use three different words — space, place, length (or distance),
| none of that could be substituted for either of the others without
| depriving the sentence of meaning. The same distinctions, thus brought
| to light, exist in the set I, but they are obscured by the use
| of the same word, 'time', for three quite different ideas.
|
| To distinguish the three meanings of 'time' I will re-express the set I
| in the following not unnatural ways:
| Set III
| (a) The journey occurred in eternity.
| (b) The instant of starting was 1 o'clock.
| (c) The duration of the journey was 2 hours." Dingle
|
| Note that only (c) has units of seconds. I think that part of the
| problem is that we are all familiar with clocks# and think of them as
| something which tells time in hours minutes and seconds. In scientific
| terms we should perhaps not use the term clock but "duration meter" -
| envisaging something with a digital reading which increments at some
| interval 1/10^n seconds. The larger n then the better the resolution -
| which is started by one detected event and stopped by another event.
| Your statement:
| "What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures".
| Becomes
| What time is, is what a "duration meter" locally at rest measures.
| In terms of my scenario the only interval which the duration meter can
| measure is the interval between the ticks - the reciprocal of which is
| the frequency of the ticks.
|
| #If one is pedantic the strict definition of a "clock" is something
| which chimes. If it doesn't chime the correct terminology is a
"time-piece".

The English "Clock" is derived from the German "Glocke" for "bell".
plural Glocken = bells. Glockenspiel = play bells.
Church towers had bells, then mechanical devices were added to ring
them once an hour. Initially clocks only had an hour pointer, the minute
hand was added later. The correct term is "chronometer."

On Mar 25, 7:27*am, Alfonso wrote:
On 24/03/11 22:34, PD wrote:









On Mar 24, 4:40 pm, *wrote:
On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:40 am, * *wrote:
On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:39 am, * * *wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.

Yes.

Why do you accept this statement yet query the one below?
Clearly in the context it is moving relative to you and you are
measuring it in your FoR

I shouldn't have, in retrospect. The frequency of the moving clock is
reduced relative to the frequency of ticks on a clock stationary in
this frame.

There is no reduction in any intrinsic frequency in the moving clock's
frame.




b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/

Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at rest.

So is the frequency "*unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is at
rest". You understood the first statement. The second statement relates
to the same scenario. Are you deliberately being bloody minded

I should have corrected the first statement as well.


See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone time.

c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.

I never said otherwise



Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never mind) You
have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two clocks
one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
counting transmitted ticks.

You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
"measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the arrival
of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units seconds)
which dilates.

What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a "tick
count".

What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.

In note you say "measures" not "indicates".

" We may say of it the following three things:
Set I
(a) The journey occurred in time.
(b) The time of starting was 1 o'clock.
(c) The time occupied by the journey was 2 hours.

The same word, time, is used here in three quite different senses, as
may be seen by considering the corresponding statements about space:
Set II
(a) The journey occurred in space.
(b) The place of starting was London.
(c) The length of (or distance covered by) the journey was 60 miles.

Here we use three different words � space, place, length (or distance),
none of that could be substituted for either of the others without
depriving the sentence of meaning. The same distinctions, thus brought
to light, exist in the set I, but they are obscured by the use
of the same word, 'time', for three quite different ideas.

To distinguish the three meanings of 'time' I will re-express the set I
in the following not unnatural ways:
Set III
(a) The journey occurred in eternity.
(b) The instant of starting was 1 o'clock.
(c) The duration of the journey was 2 hours." Dingle

Note that only (c) has units of seconds. I think that part of the
problem is that we are all familiar with clocks# and think of them as
something which tells time in hours minutes and seconds. *In scientific
terms we should perhaps not use the term clock but "duration meter" -
envisaging something with a digital reading which increments at some
interval 1/10^n seconds. The larger n then the better the resolution -
which is started by one detected event and stopped by another event.
Your statement:
"What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures".
Becomes
What time is, is what a "duration meter" locally at rest measures.
In terms of my scenario the only interval which the duration meter can
measure is the interval between the ticks - the reciprocal of which is
the frequency of the ticks.

#If one is pedantic the strict definition of a "clock" is something
which chimes. If it doesn't chime the correct terminology is a "time-piece".

Alfonso says...

To distinguish the three meanings of 'time' I will re-express the set I
in the following not unnatural ways:
Set III
(a) The journey occurred in eternity.
(b) The instant of starting was 1 o'clock.
(c) The duration of the journey was 2 hours." Dingle

Note that only (c) has units of seconds. I think that part of the
problem is that we are all familiar with clocks# and think of them as
something which tells time in hours minutes and seconds. In scientific
terms we should perhaps not use the term clock but "duration meter" -
envisaging something with a digital reading which increments at some
interval 1/10^n seconds. The larger n then the better the resolution -
which is started by one detected event and stopped by another event.
Your statement:
"What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures".
Becomes
What time is, is what a "duration meter" locally at rest measures.
In terms of my scenario the only interval which the duration meter can
measure is the interval between the ticks - the reciprocal of which is
the frequency of the ticks.

Right. Time in the sense of (b), which is a way of assigning
labels to events, requires two things: (1) a clock for measuring
durations, and (2) an initial setting.

The Lorentz transformations involve both.

The Doppler shift involve only duration, though.
There are two events, e_1 and e_2 occurring at the
sender. There are two corresponding events, e_3 and e_4
occurring at the receiver, where e_3 = the event in which
the receiver gets the light signal from e_1, and
e_4 = the event in which the receiver gets the light
signal from e_2. The Doppler shift is about the ratio

T_r/T_s

where T_r = the time between e_3 and e_4, as measured
by the receiver's clock, and T_s = the time between
e_1 and e_2, as measured by the sender's clock.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY