Both clocks see the other slower is not objective

Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?


Relativistic Doppler effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

On Feb 17, 10:05 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

Relativistic Doppler effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

It looks like Sam has a mental deficiency in understanding. The
previous post merely showed how yours truly tried to divorce time
dilation from the Doppler effect hoping to rectify common confusions.
shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
| On Feb 17, 10:05 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
| On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
|
| Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.
|
| Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
| encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
| perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
| to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
| received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?
|
| Relativistic Doppler effect
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect
|
| It looks like Sam has a mental deficiency in understanding. The
| previous post merely showed how yours truly tried to divorce time
| dilation from the Doppler effect hoping to rectify common confusions.
| shrug
|
Idiot Sam refers to relativistic blue shift, in which an object crossing
your path doubles in frequency when travelling at 0.866c crosswind.
Moving clocks ticck at half speed and double their frequency
simultaneously, which is a miracle as well as an oxymoron by a moron.

Sam Wormley says...

On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?


Relativistic Doppler effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

That reference doesn't help. To understand the relationship between
the relativistic Doppler effect and Koobee's would require a certain
amount of thought and calculation. If Koobee were capable of doing
that, he wouldn't be a crackpot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
| Sam Wormley says...
|
| On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
| Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.
|
| Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
| encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
| perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
| to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
| received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?
|
|
| Relativistic Doppler effect
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect
|
| That reference doesn't help. To understand the relationship between
| the relativistic Doppler effect and Koobee's would require a certain
| amount of thought and calculation. If Koobee were capable of doing
| that, he wouldn't be a crackpot.
|
| --
McCullough doesn't help. To understand how a moving clock runs slow
at an increased frequency requires a certain amount of insanity. If
McCullough
were sane he wouldn't be a ****in' idiot.

On Feb 18, 12:54*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). *So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

So, for instance, you're shooting a scene in which the pendulum on
a grandfather clock is swinging back and forth at 2 seconds per
cycle?

You encode this in NTSC format and transmit it, for instance, on
what seems to you to be a 400 megahertz carrier?

The receiver receives this on what seems to him to be a
200 megahertz carrier?

The receiver adjusts the playback speed by the requisite
2 to 1 factor and plays the scene. You are asking whether
the receuver will see the pendulum swing slower than one
cycle per two seconds?

No. It will swing at one cycle per two seconds in the
[adjusted] playback.


This seems pretty obvious. If The pendulum hits one
extreme at 100,000,000 cycles into the encoded
format then it'll hit the other extreme one second
later at 500,000,000 cycles into the encoded format.

If you adjust the playback speed to 400,000,000
cycles per second, that'll still be one second
per half cycle of the pendulum at the receiving
end.

On Feb 18, 1:05*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/17/11 11:54 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). *So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

* *Relativistic Doppler effect
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

Hey idiot....you have been told before...doppler shift got nothing to
do with the rate of a moving clock. Think about it....how can a clock
changes its rate instantly because it passes by you?

On Feb 18, 5:07 am, jbriggs444 wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:54 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

So, for instance, you're shooting a scene in which the pendulum on
a grandfather clock is swinging back and forth at 2 seconds per
cycle?

OK. Now, say the actual video has 10MHz of bandwidth.

You encode this in NTSC format and transmit it, for instance, on
what seems to you to be a 400 megahertz carrier?

Assuming a simple mixing of the video signal with the carrier, the
actual signal then resides in both the upper (400 to 410) and the
lower bands (400 to 390) around the 400MHz carrier.

The receiver receives this on what seems to him to be a
200 megahertz carrier?

Yes, the upper band of video signal should occupy from 200MHz to
210MHz, and the lower one from 200MHz to 190MHz.

The receiver adjusts the playback speed by the requisite
2 to 1 factor and plays the scene. You are asking whether
the receuver will see the pendulum swing slower than one
cycle per two seconds?

After mixing the received signal with 200MHz, the result is the
original 10MHz video signal. Thus, the Doppler effect does do jack
squat to time dilation. shrug

However, the Lorentz transform squeezes the original 10MHz of video
signal down to lower. In this case, it should be 5MHz (if 400MHz to
200MHz still holds). The video signal (which is the meat of the
discussion) and the carrier are relativistic and Doppler shifted
respectively.

The self-styled physicists cannot hide time dilation under the Doppler
effect any more. Thus, performing such an experiment would blow SR to
hell. That is why the self-styled physicists are so afraid to do.
shrug

On 02/18/2011 06:54 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please allow yours truly to ask you a question.

Say you make a movie of an event happening in your frame of reference,
encodes it to whatever your like such as the obsolescent NTSC or
perhaps PAL, and transmit to a receding frame of reference (relative
to you of course). So, after correcting for the Doppler shift in the
received carrier frequency, how much would the movie play slower?

Please explain how this is related to chemistry?