Using a PULSAR to measure Time Dilation

436 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 5:29:08 PMAug 12
to
Imagine that there is a pulsar 4,000 light years away that rotates once per second. It can be viewed this way:

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0

The pulsar is the circle on the right. The HORIZONTAL dotted
line is the beam of photons that stream out of the pulsar like a
light beam from a lighthouse. The beam rotates and hits that
VERTICAL line on the left once every TEN seconds.

The vertical line has the earth at the bottom and a planet (Planet X)
orbiting around Alpha Centauri at the top.

BOTH Earth AND Planet X count one pulse every TEN seconds.

Now assume that I get in a rocket ship and travel to Planet X at
99.4988339567% of the speed of light. At that speed, due to
Time Dilation, one second for me will be 10 seconds back on
earth (and on Planet X).

I will count 1 pulse from the pulsar every second because my
seconds are ten times longer than seconds on the two planets.

If the round trip to Planet X takes 1 year for me, it will be 10 years
as measured on Earth and on Planet X.

During that time, I will count the SAME number of pulses as they
counted on Earth and on Planet X, BUT I counted those pulses in ONE
YEAR of spaceship time, while on Earth and on Planet X it took them
10 years to count the pulses between my departure and my return.

What this thought experiment does is eliminate all arguments that
people on earth will see my clock running slow while I will see the
clocks on earth as running slow. We both used the SAME clock,
and that clock ticked 10 times faster for me than for people on the
"stationary" planets.

Discussion?



Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 5:59:18 PMAug 12
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:29:08 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Discussion?

What you have described is a very old and well known paradox, and the resolution of the paradox is provided by correctly accounting for aberration.

Basically you have parallel rays of light arriving from a (nearly) infinitely distant source, and if you just consider clocks moving perpendicularly to the rays (all in the same state of motion in the direction parallel to the rays) in terms of a given frame, the paradox consists of the fact that there is one particular state of motion (at rest in the given frame) that would measure the lowest frequency, and clocks in any other state of motion (transverse to the rays) would measure a greater frequency due to time dilation.

Note that this is not reciprocal time dilation. The clocks can be identically constructed and they can all transmit their measured frequency digitally to some central location to compare the measured values. The paradoxer says that since one particular clock will report the lowest frequency, we can say that clock is at absolute rest. The well-known resolution of this old "paradox" is that it neglects aberration (not to be confused with parallax, which is negligibly small because the source is so distant). In detail:

If one clock is at rest in S, and the other clocks are moving transversely to the rays in terms of S, then indeed the clock at rest in S will report the lowest frequency. But this applies to all of the clocks... which might at first seem impossible, but it is not. The explanation is that if A is at rest in S, and B is moving transversely to the rays in terms of S, and if B is at rest in S', it does not follow that A is moving transversely to the rays in terms of S'. It actually is moving at an oblique angle to the rays in terms of S', due to aberration, and hence there is longitudinal Doppler that accounts for the relations between the measured frequencies. If you force A to actually move transversely to the rays in terms of S', then you get the symmetrical situation, i.e., B will report the lowest frequency.

So, the resolution of this very old and very well known "paradox" is aberration and the resulting longitudinal Doppler, which restores the symmetry.

Paparios

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 6:00:52 PMAug 12
to
El jueves, 12 de agosto de 2021 a las 17:29:08 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> Imagine that there is a pulsar 4,000 light years away that rotates once per second. It can be viewed this way:
>
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
>
> The pulsar is the circle on the right. The HORIZONTAL dotted
> line is the beam of photons that stream out of the pulsar like a
> light beam from a lighthouse. The beam rotates and hits that
> VERTICAL line on the left once every TEN seconds.
>
> The vertical line has the earth at the bottom and a planet (Planet X)
> orbiting around Alpha Centauri at the top.
>
> BOTH Earth AND Planet X count one pulse every TEN seconds.
>
> Now assume that I get in a rocket ship and travel to Planet X at
> 99.4988339567% of the speed of light. At that speed, due to
> Time Dilation, one second for me will be 10 seconds back on
> earth (and on Planet X).
>

You got all that wrong. For you, in that rocket ship, one second continue to be one second. It is for the guys in Earth (and planet X) that the rocket ship clock ticks slow.

> I will count 1 pulse from the pulsar every second because my
> seconds are ten times longer than seconds on the two planets.
>

Again, as seen from the Earth, or planet X.

> If the round trip to Planet X takes 1 year for me, it will be 10 years
> as measured on Earth and on Planet X.
>

Now you are changing to elapsed time (the twin paradox). Alpha Centaury is at 4.3 light years distance, so the rocketround trip would take quite longer than 1 year.

> During that time, I will count the SAME number of pulses as they
> counted on Earth and on Planet X, BUT I counted those pulses in ONE
> YEAR of spaceship time, while on Earth and on Planet X it took them
> 10 years to count the pulses between my departure and my return.
>

You have to revise your calculations

> What this thought experiment does is eliminate all arguments that
> people on earth will see my clock running slow while I will see the
> clocks on earth as running slow. We both used the SAME clock,
> and that clock ticked 10 times faster for me than for people on the
> "stationary" planets.
>
> Discussion?

It is nonsense

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 6:07:01 PMAug 12
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Yes, "the speed of light is the same for the same light signal for two
> different observers." It is c, or 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND for
> BOTH observers. However, THE LENGTH OF A SECOND is DIFFERENT
> for the two observers. Therefore, the speed of light is ACTUALLY
> DIFFERENT for the two observers.

The above is what you originally said, then when I pointed out that your explanation is self-contradictory you recanted the above, but then when I pointed out that Einstein specially says the above, so you switched back to agreeing with it, but then your explanation is still self-contradictory.

Remember, your claim that that the speed of light relative to the receding observer is "actually" c-v, and the speed relative to an observer appoaching the sun is "actually" c+v, but you agree with Einstein that it is c meters per second for both observers because "the length of a second is different for the two observers", and that difference represents time dilation. The problem with your explanation is two-fold: First, relativistic time dilation is much too small to account for the difference between c -v and c, and second, for an object approaching the light your explanation is actually in the wrong direction, since the time dilation would make c+v be measured as an even larger value.

> The [radar] gun's software compares the ENERGY in the photons that it emits
> to the ENERGY in the photons it gets back.

In a manner of speaking that is true, although the device actually measures the difference in frequency, which (according to the fundamental relation from quantum mechanics, E=hv) is proportional to energy. As Einstein showed, frequency and energy transform in exactly the same way, i.e., Einstein showed that the Doppler formula for frequency also applies to energy. (The remarkable fact is not at all self-evident, and it is what makes quantum field theory possible.) So, indirectly, one can say that a radar gun evaluates the difference in energy of the emitted and reflected signal, but, again, in terms of what the device is actually doing, it is measuring the difference in frequency, which happens to be proportional to the difference in energy, in accord with quantum theory and relativity.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 6:58:32 PMAug 12
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-3, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

<>

> Imagine that there is a pulsar 4,000 light years away that rotates once per second. It can be viewed this way:
>
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
>
> The pulsar is the circle on the right. The HORIZONTAL dotted
> line is the beam of photons that stream out of the pulsar like a
> light beam from a lighthouse. The beam rotates and hits that
> VERTICAL line on the left once every TEN seconds.
>
> The vertical line has the earth at the bottom and a planet (Planet X)
> orbiting around Alpha Centauri at the top.
>
> BOTH Earth AND Planet X count one pulse every TEN seconds.
>
> Now assume that I get in a rocket ship and travel to Planet X at
> 99.4988339567% of the speed of light. At that speed, due to
> Time Dilation, one second for me will be 10 seconds back on
> earth (and on Planet X).

Interesting. Now, adding an additional observer who's is conveniently located at a fixed position
directly above both planets (which distance is represented by the base of an isosceles triangle 4.5:1000),
who's located 10ly above the plane. he observes a constant flow of photons that reaches both planets
and also shower the spacecraft while it travels.

He count the amount of photons that reached each planet and the spacecraft, as he sees them, and
concludes than the same amount per unit time reach everyone of the three objects. He also measure
the rotation period at its fixed location (as fixed as those of the planets) and register the same 10 sec.
period.

How does it work with this additional observer included?

Sylvia Else

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 8:20:24 PMAug 12
to
On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:

> What this thought experiment does is ...

show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.

You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
account.

You've also ignored the fact that there's a delay before the people on
Earth receive the first pulse.

You're also guilty of the standard crank arrogance - assuming that
there's a simple flaw in relativity that you've noticed, but which has
somehow gone unrecognised by physicists for more than a century.

Sylvia.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:05:36 AMAug 13
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:00:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 12 de agosto de 2021 a las 17:29:08 UTC-4, escribió:
> > Imagine that there is a pulsar 4,000 light years away that rotates once per second. It can be viewed this way:
> >
> > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
> >
> > The pulsar is the circle on the right. The HORIZONTAL dotted
> > line is the beam of photons that stream out of the pulsar like a
> > light beam from a lighthouse. The beam rotates and hits that
> > VERTICAL line on the left once every TEN seconds.
> >
> > The vertical line has the earth at the bottom and a planet (Planet X)
> > orbiting around Alpha Centauri at the top.
> >
> > BOTH Earth AND Planet X count one pulse every TEN seconds.
> >
> > Now assume that I get in a rocket ship and travel to Planet X at
> > 99.4988339567% of the speed of light. At that speed, due to
> > Time Dilation, one second for me will be 10 seconds back on
> > earth (and on Planet X).
> >
> You got all that wrong. For you, in that rocket ship, one second continue to be one second. It is for the guys in Earth (and planet X) that the rocket ship clock ticks slow.

You are just spouting standard arguments. There is NO WAY that
people on earth can see a clock on the spaceship. Besides that
you also have the fact that if I am moving away from earth it will
take long and longer for light from a clock on the spaceship to
reach someone on earth.

This experiment is designed to GET RID OF THE NONSENSE OF
requiring people to see moving clocks that are billions of miles away.

> > I will count 1 pulse from the pulsar every second because my
> > seconds are ten times longer than seconds on the two planets.
> >
> Again, as seen from the Earth, or planet X.

No one on earth can see what is happening INSIDE a space ship
that is billions of miles away. You are talking NONSENSE.

> > If the round trip to Planet X takes 1 year for me, it will be 10 years
> > as measured on Earth and on Planet X.
> >
> Now you are changing to elapsed time (the twin paradox). Alpha Centaury is at 4.3 light years distance, so the rocketround trip would take quite longer than 1 year.

Then I just traveled TOWARD Alpha Centauri before turning around.

> > During that time, I will count the SAME number of pulses as they
> > counted on Earth and on Planet X, BUT I counted those pulses in ONE
> > YEAR of spaceship time, while on Earth and on Planet X it took them
> > 10 years to count the pulses between my departure and my return.
> >
> You have to revise your calculations

Why? Because they conflict with your BELIEFS?

> > What this thought experiment does is eliminate all arguments that
> > people on earth will see my clock running slow while I will see the
> > clocks on earth as running slow. We both used the SAME clock,
> > and that clock ticked 10 times faster for me than for people on the
> > "stationary" planets.
> >
> > Discussion?
> It is nonsense

Because it conflicts with your BELIEFS.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:11:12 AMAug 13
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:58:32 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Counting photons makes no sense. The number of photons from a pulsar
is immeasurable. And a change in the number of photons only means that
the beam from the pulsar will appear brighter or dimmer.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:18:31 AMAug 13
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > What this thought experiment does is ...
>
> show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.
>
> You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
> from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
> account.

I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.

>
> You've also ignored the fact that there's a delay before the people on
> Earth receive the first pulse.

Pulsars pulse whether anyone is watching or not. The pulsar started
pulsing when cave men lived on earth. There can be no delay.

>
> You're also guilty of the standard crank arrogance - assuming that
> there's a simple flaw in relativity that you've noticed, but which has
> somehow gone unrecognised by physicists for more than a century.

This experiment has nothing to do with any "flaw" in relativity. It is in
PERFECT AGREEMENT with Einstein's theories. It is just in dispute with
Quantum Mechanics mathematicians who cannot cope with Time Dilation.
And you do not seem to understand any part of it.

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:40:00 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:18:31 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
> and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
> THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.

You are neglecting aberration. In the situation you described, the space ship (moving at 0.9949c away from earth) is moving at a right angle to the incoming light rays from the pulsar in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, but it is *not* moving at a right angle to those rays in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the space ship is at rest. In fact, it is moving almost directly toward the pulsar, only about 5.7 degrees away from "dead ahead". As a result, in the ship's frame there is a huge longitudinal Doppler effect, which accounts for the frequency of the pulses received on the ship being greater than the frequency received on earth, even though the earth's clock is running slowing than the ships clock in terms of these coordinates. This is how the scenario you described is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.

It's interesting that you respond to every message except the ones that actually provide you with the explanation of your scenario. It would be much more efficient if you took the opposite approach.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:41:35 AMAug 13
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:20:07 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:40:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 8/12/2021 1:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/12/2021 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 8/12/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>> The point of the Big Bang would be where you would find "the
> > >>> slowest moving atoms." Everything moved outward from there.
> > >> So we could find "where" the Big Bang happened by measuring the speed of
> > >> light in different directions. Sorry this was attempted and the speed
> > >> of light is c in all directions.
> > >
> > > The speed of light is c in all directions, but TIME will speed up if you
> > > move AGAINST the motion controlling time. Hafele and Keating demonstrated
> > > that when they traveled WESTWARD AGAINST the rotation of the earth.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > Oh my goodness. The rotation of the earth from west to east controls time?
> > What would have happened, do you think, if Hafele and Keating would have
> > traveled from west to east instead??
> Why don't you read their papers? They DID travel from west to east. They
> MADE TWO TRIPS, one east to west and the other west to east.
>
> When they traveled with the spin of the earth, time slowed down a lot more
> than when they traveled against the spin of the earth.
>
> Their papers, their routes are all on my web page about them at this link:
> http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

I copied this post from the previous thread about my newest paper.
In this thread Odd Bodkin shows that he knows NOTHING about the
Hafele-Keating experiment.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 10:47:50 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:40:00 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
I didn't respond to your messages because they are GIBBERISH.
They are an attempt to reduce the Time Dilation experiment to
some mathematical formula in order to argue some BELIEF you have.

When you introduce "inertial coordinates" where the "space ship is
at rest," you are creating A FANTASY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE EXPERIMENT. The space ship is moving. It is NOT at
rest. If you want to PRETEND that it is at rest in order to argue
a belief about mathematics, do it with someone else.

Ed

Dono.

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:15:37 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

Ed, you need to come to grips with the fact that you are an imbecile. You were born this way, your only consolation is that you will die this way.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:16:41 AMAug 13
to
It looks like this is what you meant:

"Interesting. Now, adding an additional observer who's is conveniently located at a fixed position
directly above both planets (which distance is represented by the base of an isosceles triangle 4.5:1000),
who's located 10ly above the plane. he observes THE PERIODIC PULSES that reach both planets
and also REACH the spacecraft while it travels.

"He counts the amount of PULSES that reached each planet and the spacecraft, as he sees them, and
concludes than the same amount per unit time reach everyone of the three objects. He also measures
the rotation period at its fixed location (as fixed as those of the planets) and register the same 10 sec.
period.

"How does it work with this additional observer included?"

It works fine, but it ignores the POINT of the experiment. The experiment
is about TIME DILATION. Time slows down on the moving spacecraft.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:21:42 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:15:37 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > snip imbecilities<
>
> Ed, you need to come to grips with the fact that you are an imbecile. You were born this way, your only consolation is that you will die this way.

You just made my day. You cannot comprehend how PROUD I am
to be someone you attack and disagree with. Thank you!

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:28:53 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > > I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
> > > and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
> > > THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
> >
> > You are neglecting aberration. In the situation you described, the space ship (moving at 0.9949c away from earth) is moving at a right angle to the incoming light rays from the pulsar in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, but it is *not* moving at a right angle to those rays in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the space ship is at rest. In fact, it is moving almost directly toward the pulsar, only about 5.7 degrees away from "dead ahead". As a result, in the ship's frame there is a huge longitudinal Doppler effect, which accounts for the frequency of the pulses received on the ship being greater than the frequency received on earth, even though the earth's clock is running slowing than the ships clock in terms of these coordinates. This is how the scenario you described is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.
>
> I didn't respond to your messages because they are GIBBERISH.

The point is that if you are on earth and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at Planet X, you will have to turn your telescope 90 degrees, right? That's what you mean by "right angle". What I'm telling you is that, according to Einstein's special relativity, if you are on the space ship going from earth to Planet X, and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at planet X, you will only have to turn your telescope about 5.7 degrees. In other words, the pulsar is almost directly ahead of you as you are speeding toward Planet X. That's why there is a large longitudinal Doppler effect. When you take this into account, your thought experiment is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.

> When you introduce "inertial coordinates" where the "space ship is
> at rest," you are creating A FANTASY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
> WITH THE EXPERIMENT. The space ship is moving.

Well, the Earth and Planet X are also moving in terms of most systems of reference. We don't say that any of these things are "at rest", without qualification, because that would be ambiguous. At rest relative to what? We say that, for any material object, we can construct a system of coordinates such that the position coordinates of the object are constant.

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:29:14 AMAug 13
to
Whatever one may think of Andrew Georges aka Dono, the point is that
he is (here) perfectly RIGHT.


Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:31:58 AMAug 13
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> What this thought experiment does is ...
>>
>> show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.
>>
>> You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
>> from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
>> account.
>
> I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
> and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
> THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.

Yes, there is. It’s called the transverse Doppler effect. It’s the Doppler
effect observed when the direction of the motion is perpendicular to the
direction to the light source. The distance between the source and the
observer doesn’t change in this case. There is still a Doppler effect.

>
>>
>> You've also ignored the fact that there's a delay before the people on
>> Earth receive the first pulse.
>
> Pulsars pulse whether anyone is watching or not. The pulsar started
> pulsing when cave men lived on earth. There can be no delay.
>
>>
>> You're also guilty of the standard crank arrogance - assuming that
>> there's a simple flaw in relativity that you've noticed, but which has
>> somehow gone unrecognised by physicists for more than a century.
>
> This experiment has nothing to do with any "flaw" in relativity. It is in
> PERFECT AGREEMENT with Einstein's theories. It is just in dispute with
> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians who cannot cope with Time Dilation.

You keep saying this. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that is hostile
to time dilation. The only reference you’ve EVER given for how you got that
impression is a Wikipedia page that is marked as questionable.

> And you do not seem to understand any part of it.
>
> Ed
>



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:39:48 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:28:53 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
> > > > and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
> > > > THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
> > >
> > > You are neglecting aberration. In the situation you described, the space ship (moving at 0.9949c away from earth) is moving at a right angle to the incoming light rays from the pulsar in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the earth is at rest, but it is *not* moving at a right angle to those rays in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the space ship is at rest. In fact, it is moving almost directly toward the pulsar, only about 5.7 degrees away from "dead ahead". As a result, in the ship's frame there is a huge longitudinal Doppler effect, which accounts for the frequency of the pulses received on the ship being greater than the frequency received on earth, even though the earth's clock is running slowing than the ships clock in terms of these coordinates. This is how the scenario you described is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.
> >
> > I didn't respond to your messages because they are GIBBERISH.
> The point is that if you are on earth and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at Planet X, you will have to turn your telescope 90 degrees, right? That's what you mean by "right angle". What I'm telling you is that, according to Einstein's special relativity, if you are on the space ship going from earth to Planet X, and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at planet X, you will only have to turn your telescope about 5.7 degrees. In other words, the pulsar is almost directly ahead of you as you are speeding toward Planet X. That's why there is a large longitudinal Doppler effect. When you take this into account, your thought experiment is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. You must be misunderstanding
something about Relativity or Time Dilation. While the space ship is
moving, it will be counting pulses from the pulsar. When doing so, it
will point the telescope AT the pulsar. The pulsar's location does not
change.

You might be arguing some nonsense about hitting photons from the
side, but that is just NUTS. The telescope will ALWAYS be pointed
at a 90 degree angle away from the spaceship's direction of movement.

> > When you introduce "inertial coordinates" where the "space ship is
> > at rest," you are creating A FANTASY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
> > WITH THE EXPERIMENT. The space ship is moving.
> Well, the Earth and Planet X are also moving in terms of most systems of reference. We don't say that any of these things are "at rest", without qualification, because that would be ambiguous. At rest relative to what? We say that, for any material object, we can construct a system of coordinates such that the position coordinates of the object are constant.

Yes, but you are just confusing the situation by playing around with
mathematical models. The ship is moving at a RIGHT ANGLE to the
pulsar. PERIOD. Screwball mathematical models won't change that.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:42:12 AMAug 13
to
So you think Galileo was wrong about there being no absolute motion and
absolute rest. You believe that there must be absolute motion and absolute
rest (why, by the way, do you believe this to be true) and are interpreting
time dilation to be a handle to prove it?

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:42:12 AMAug 13
to
Oh, Ed, don’t be silly. I know that the H-K experiment involved flights in
both directions. What I found funny was your comment that the earth’s
rotation controls time. I thought IMMEDIATELY of the Superman movie.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:42:13 AMAug 13
to
Ed, there are people who are educated on a subject and stubborn in their
stance because of the confidence born of their education. Then there are
people who are mostly uneducated on a subject and stubborn in their stance,
mostly out of an overactivated bristling pride. The former can still be
wrong, but the latter are always fools.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:51:17 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:31:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>> What this thought experiment does is ...
> >>
> >> show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.
> >>
> >> You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
> >> from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
> >> account.
> >
> > I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
> > and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
> > THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
> Yes, there is. It’s called the transverse Doppler effect. It’s the Doppler
> effect observed when the direction of the motion is perpendicular to the
> direction to the light source. The distance between the source and the
> observer doesn’t change in this case. There is still a Doppler effect.

But it is IRRELEVANT! It has NOTHING to do with the experiment! In the
experiment the traveler will be pointing his telescope at the pulsar.
If there is some "transverse Doppler Effect" it is IRRELEVANT.

> >
> >>
> >> You've also ignored the fact that there's a delay before the people on
> >> Earth receive the first pulse.
> >
> > Pulsars pulse whether anyone is watching or not. The pulsar started
> > pulsing when cave men lived on earth. There can be no delay.
> >
> >>
> >> You're also guilty of the standard crank arrogance - assuming that
> >> there's a simple flaw in relativity that you've noticed, but which has
> >> somehow gone unrecognised by physicists for more than a century.
> >
> > This experiment has nothing to do with any "flaw" in relativity. It is in
> > PERFECT AGREEMENT with Einstein's theories. It is just in dispute with
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematicians who cannot cope with Time Dilation.
> You keep saying this. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that is hostile
> to time dilation. The only reference you’ve EVER given for how you got that
> impression is a Wikipedia page that is marked as questionable.

Look at the links on the Wikipedia page, not just some comment at the top.
Or do a Google search for: problem of time physics
There are BOOKS on the subject. "The Problem of Time: Quantum Mechanics Versus General Relativity"
Book by Edward Anderson

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:53:10 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 8:39:48 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > The point is that if you are on earth and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at Planet X, you will have to turn your telescope 90 degrees, right? That's what you mean by "right angle". What I'm telling you is that, according to Einstein's special relativity, if you are on the space ship going from earth to Planet X, and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at planet X, you will only have to turn your telescope about 5.7 degrees. In other words, the pulsar is almost directly ahead of you as you are speeding toward Planet X. That's why there is a large longitudinal Doppler effect. When you take this into account, your thought experiment is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.
>
> While the space ship is moving, it will be counting pulses from
> the pulsar. When doing so, it will point the telescope AT the pulsar.
> The pulsar's location does not change.

The pulsar's location doesn't change, but what I'm telling you is that, if you are riding on the space ship, the angle between the pulsar and Planet X (straight ahead) is only about 5.7 degrees. This is due to aberration.

> The telescope will ALWAYS be pointed at a 90 degree angle
> away from the spaceship's direction of movement.

No, that is not correct. You can find the aberration effect described in detail in Einstein's 1905 paper. Also, stellar aberration is not just some abstract theoretical effect, it is quite real, and is observed by astronomers all the time. In fact, it was first observed by Bradley in 1727, due to the different states of motion of the earth. Einstein just made a correction that is only significant at high speeds. The earth's speed results in aberration of about 20 arcseconds for stars that are perpendicular to the earth's motion.

For your spaceship, moving at 0.9949883c, the aberration is so extreme that the pulsar is only about 5.7 degrees away from "dead ahead". Accordingly there is a very large longitudinal Doppler effect, which is what reconciles your thought experiment with reciprocal time dilation.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 11:56:13 AMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:42:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not my idea. It's Einstein's discovery. What would be the purpose of
Einstein's special relativity paper if it isn't about time dilation?

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:03:01 PMAug 13
to
Instead of watching movies, why don't you explain why Hafele and Keating's
clocks ticked at different rates when they went west to east versus east to
west?

If you do not believe the clocks ticked at different rates, please explain
why they showed significantly different elapsed times at the end of the
experiment.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:04:57 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
For the LAST TIME: any aberration effect is IRRELEVANT to the experiment.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:13:58 PMAug 13
to
Sorry, Ed, but this does involve an effect you haven’t read about and are
ignorant of. It’s called aberration. And you are completely ignoring the
need of it and using your intuition to tell you where to point the
telescope. You should in fact not point the telescope toward where the
pulsar is. You should point it along the direction the light from the
pulsar is coming in.

I can give you an everyday example to illustrate what you are not taking
into account. Suppose you are driving on the highway in the rain and the
rain is coming STRAIGHT DOWN. There is a hole in the roof of the car with a
pipe and you want the rain drop to pass through the pipe into the car.
Should the pipe be pointed STRAIGHT UP, because the rain is coming STRAIGHT
DOWN? No. If you are driving at 70 mph, even though the drop is coming
straight down, it will hit the inside of the pipe. You have to actually
incline the pipe to allow the raindrops to pass through the pipe, even
though the drops are coming straight down. This may seem counter-intuitive,
but it is a very simple experiment to do to prove that it is so. This need
to incline the pipe is what’s called aberration.

>
> You might be arguing some nonsense about hitting photons from the
> side, but that is just NUTS. The telescope will ALWAYS be pointed
> at a 90 degree angle away from the spaceship's direction of movement.
>
>>> When you introduce "inertial coordinates" where the "space ship is
>>> at rest," you are creating A FANTASY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
>>> WITH THE EXPERIMENT. The space ship is moving.
>> Well, the Earth and Planet X are also moving in terms of most systems of
>> reference. We don't say that any of these things are "at rest", without
>> qualification, because that would be ambiguous. At rest relative to
>> what? We say that, for any material object, we can construct a system of
>> coordinates such that the position coordinates of the object are constant.
>
> Yes, but you are just confusing the situation by playing around with
> mathematical models. The ship is moving at a RIGHT ANGLE to the
> pulsar. PERIOD. Screwball mathematical models won't change that.
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:13:58 PMAug 13
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:31:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What this thought experiment does is ...
>>>>
>>>> show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.
>>>>
>>>> You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
>>>> from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
>>>> account.
>>>
>>> I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
>>> and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
>>> THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
>> Yes, there is. It’s called the transverse Doppler effect. It’s the Doppler
>> effect observed when the direction of the motion is perpendicular to the
>> direction to the light source. The distance between the source and the
>> observer doesn’t change in this case. There is still a Doppler effect.
>
> But it is IRRELEVANT! It has NOTHING to do with the experiment! In the
> experiment the traveler will be pointing his telescope at the pulsar.
> If there is some "transverse Doppler Effect" it is IRRELEVANT.

The transverse Doppler effect is the frequency shift you see when looking
at a source perpendicular to the direction you’re going. That seems very
relevant to what you’re talking about.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've also ignored the fact that there's a delay before the people on
>>>> Earth receive the first pulse.
>>>
>>> Pulsars pulse whether anyone is watching or not. The pulsar started
>>> pulsing when cave men lived on earth. There can be no delay.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're also guilty of the standard crank arrogance - assuming that
>>>> there's a simple flaw in relativity that you've noticed, but which has
>>>> somehow gone unrecognised by physicists for more than a century.
>>>
>>> This experiment has nothing to do with any "flaw" in relativity. It is in
>>> PERFECT AGREEMENT with Einstein's theories. It is just in dispute with
>>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians who cannot cope with Time Dilation.
>> You keep saying this. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that is hostile
>> to time dilation. The only reference you’ve EVER given for how you got that
>> impression is a Wikipedia page that is marked as questionable.
>
> Look at the links on the Wikipedia page, not just some comment at the top.
> Or do a Google search for: problem of time physics
> There are BOOKS on the subject. "The Problem of Time: Quantum Mechanics
> Versus General Relativity"
> Book by Edward Anderson
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:13:59 PMAug 13
to
Several comments.

1. Einstein’s relativity paper was about a lot more things than time
dilation. Time dilation is actually a rather minor consequence of the
paper, compared to the other much more important things he brought up.

2. Einstein never said that time dilation was a handle for determining
absolute motion. You did. In fact, Einstein insisted that Galileo was
right, that there IS NO absolute rest reference frame. He said so in his
writings explicitly. You can’t just ignore them because you want time
dilation to be your handle on absolute motion.

3. Einstein did not discover absolute rest and absolute motion, as just
mentioned. You believe there MUST be absolute rest and absolute motion, but
you haven’t explained in any way why you think this must be true. Please
don’t say you’re just going with what Einstein says, because it’s not true.
Einstein said the opposite, and so there must be some accounting for why
you believe there is absolute motion and absolute rest that has nothing to
do with Einstein. What is the source of that belief?

>
> Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:19:43 PMAug 13
to
Why do you say that? Aberration is the key to the explanation. Do you dispute that, for someone on the spaceship moving toward planet X at 0.994988c, the angle between the pulsar and planet X is only about 5.7 degrees? Or are you saying you agree with this, but you think it is not relevant? How could you say it's not relevant? It obviously results in a huge longitudinal Doppler effect, which exactly reconciles the scenario with reciprocal time dilation.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:23:59 PMAug 13
to
Inertial coordinates has been a part of physics for about 400 years now.
As in Galileo. Galileo explicitly stated how all motion is relative.
It is not from SR, GR, Einstein or anything like that. Galileo. 400
years as part of physics.

> If you want to PRETEND that it is at rest in order to argue
> a belief about mathematics, do it with someone else.

Relative motion is part of physics, not mathematics. And you can't
claim how relative motion has nothing to do with the problem, it's pure
physics.

So do you disagree with Galileo, Newton, Einstein and just about every
other physician on relative motion? Yes or no.
>
> Ed
>

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:26:22 PMAug 13
to
You consider making remarks so wrong that you are called an imbecile for
making them an accomplishment? Really? If so, you aren't interested in
physics at all, you essentially admitted to be nothing more than a troll.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:28:12 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm aware of the "aberration effect." When working with radar guns it is
called "the angle of deflection." The gun will measure a car's speed as
70 mph if the car is coming directly toward the gun. If the car is moving
at a 45 degree angle to the gun, the gun will show the car's speed as
35 mph or so. If the car is moving at a right angle to the gun, the gun
will show the car's speed as ZERO.

This has NOTHING to do with the pulsar experiment.

The pulsar experiment is about counting PULSES from a rotating star.
It has NOTHING to do with photon oscillation frequencies of the pulses.

How can you not understand that?????

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:29:16 PMAug 13
to
Congratulations, Ed!! You have now ASKED for information, rather than
trying the rather foolish game plan of trying to GUESS why it came out the
way it did, with a very limited understanding of the subject. This involves
putting yourself in the position of a student (abandoning rugged personal
independence for a moment) and actually asking someone with more expertise
in the subject to explain it to you, so you don’t have to guess (which
almost always fails).

The difference between going east and going west is because the
ground-borne clock is still moving, because of course the earth is
rotating. And so going west, the speed that counts is the DIFFERENCE in the
plane’s speed and the earth’s surface speed; going east, the speed that
counts is the SUM. To get started on this, see a three-minute video here:
https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=flfqLgSV0iA

Note that I said “get started”, because this won’t answer all your
questions about it, but it does give you a handle on the key point, which
you can then elaborate on with other readings. You can google
“Hafele-Keating for dummies” without feeling shame, because it will
generate useful information for beginners.

>
> If you do not believe the clocks ticked at different rates, please explain
> why they showed significantly different elapsed times at the end of the
> experiment.
>
> Ed
>



Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:31:20 PMAug 13
to
On 8/13/2021 11:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:31:58 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 13-Aug-21 7:29 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What this thought experiment does is ...
>>>>
>>>> show how incapable you are of constructing thought experiments.
>>>>
>>>> You've ignored the fact that you're getting further and further away
>>>> from your clock, so the relativistic Doppler effect must be taken into
>>>> account.
>>>
>>> I am traveling at a right angle to the clock, so I am NOT getting further
>>> and further away from it. The clock remains at 4,000 light years distant.
>>> THERE IS NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
>> Yes, there is. It’s called the transverse Doppler effect. It’s the Doppler
>> effect observed when the direction of the motion is perpendicular to the
>> direction to the light source. The distance between the source and the
>> observer doesn’t change in this case. There is still a Doppler effect.
>
> But it is IRRELEVANT! It has NOTHING to do with the experiment! In the
> experiment the traveler will be pointing his telescope at the pulsar.
> If there is some "transverse Doppler Effect" it is IRRELEVANT.

You explicitly stated the ship is moving at right angles to the line of
sight from the ship to the pulsar. The transverse Doppler Effect is
explicitly the Doppler Effect from moving at right angles to the line of
sight, which you explicitly do by pointing the telescope at the pulsar.
How could it possibly be irrelevant?

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:35:30 PMAug 13
to
No, that’s a different effect. That’s a projection effect and has a nothing
to do with aberration.
Just because the two both have to do with angles does not mean they are the
same thing.

Please reread carefully what I said about the pipe catching rain. That is
aberration.

> The gun will measure a car's speed as
> 70 mph if the car is coming directly toward the gun. If the car is moving
> at a 45 degree angle to the gun, the gun will show the car's speed as
> 35 mph or so. If the car is moving at a right angle to the gun, the gun
> will show the car's speed as ZERO.
>
> This has NOTHING to do with the pulsar experiment.
>
> The pulsar experiment is about counting PULSES from a rotating star.
> It has NOTHING to do with photon oscillation frequencies of the pulses.

I didn’t say it did. What I said is that it has to do with the direction of
the incoming light. That is aberration. Just like catching raindrops in a
moving car with a pipe. To let the raindrops pass through the pipe, you
have to INCLINE the pipe even though the raindrops are coming STRAIGHT
DOWN. If you aim the pipe vertically because that’s the direction the rain
is falling, the raindrops won’t make it through the pipe. Once you
understand why you’d have to INCLINE the pipe to catch rain falling
VERTICALLY, you’ll understand why you don’t aim a telescope 90 degrees from
the direction of travel to catch light from the pulsar.

>
> How can you not understand that?????
>
> Ed
>



Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:42:09 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:28:12 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > >> The point is that if you are on earth and you point your telescope first
> > >> at the pulsar and then at Planet X, you will have to turn your telescope
> > >> 90 degrees, right? That's what you mean by "right angle". What I'm
> > >> telling you is that, according to Einstein's special relativity, if you
> > >> are on the space ship going from earth to Planet X, and you point your
> > >> telescope first at the pulsar and then at planet X, you will only have
> > >> to turn your telescope about 5.7 degrees. In other words, the pulsar is
> > >> almost directly ahead of you as you are speeding toward Planet X. That's
> > >> why there is a large longitudinal Doppler effect. When you take this
> > >> into account, your thought experiment is reconciled with reciprocal time dilation.
>
> I'm aware of the "aberration effect." When working with radar guns it is
> called "the angle of deflection."

The cosine angle is *not* aberration. There is no appreciable aberration involved in radar speed guns, because the speeds involved are far too small. Even for a speed of 67000 mph the aberration angle is only about 20 arcseconds, and for the speed of a car it is virtually zero. So, no, you are not aware of the aberration effect at all.

> This has NOTHING to do with the pulsar experiment.

Yes it does. Aberration is the key to reconciling the scenario with special relativity, including the reciprocal time dilation.

> The pulsar experiment is about counting PULSES from a rotating star.

Right, counting pulses in specified intervals of time, which represents the frequency of the pulses.

> It has NOTHING to do with photon oscillation frequencies...

Photons do not oscillate. See Feynman's QED.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 12:52:46 PMAug 13
to
The source of my "belief" is ALBERT EINSTEIN'S WRITINGS.

Einstein may have said that there is no absolute rest frame that we can
LOCATE, but he wrote that the speed of light is determined by the
speed of the EMITTER. The speed of the emitter does NOT add to the
speed of light that is emitted, instead it slows the light that is emitted
because the speed of light is ALWAYS c, which is the speed of light
PER SECOND. And a fast moving emitter emits light at a slower c than
a slower moving emitter. That says that somewhere there is almost
certainly a place where a second is at its shortest length and light
travels at its fastest speed. That would be an "absolute rest frame."
Today we think that is the point of the Big Bang.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:03:39 PMAug 13
to
You make NO SENSE! I agree with EVERYTHING in the video (except
for the error where he says there were 4 clocks on the ground. There was
only one, the clock at the Naval observatory.)

So, the question now is: How could you possibly believe that I would
somehow disagree with what is said in that video?????

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:07:32 PMAug 13
to
That's the cosine effect, not aberration.
>
> This has NOTHING to do with the pulsar experiment.

The cosine effect has nothing to do with it. Aberration certainly does.
>
> The pulsar experiment is about counting PULSES from a rotating star.

Which due to aberration is Doppler blueshifted.

> It has NOTHING to do with photon oscillation frequencies of the pulses.

It has nothing to do with something that doesn't exist.
>
> How can you not understand that?????

I understand that you never heard of aberration until this discussion.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:29:21 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-3, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

<snip>

> Counting photons makes no sense. The number of photons from a pulsar
> is immeasurable. And a change in the number of photons only means that
> the beam from the pulsar will appear brighter or dimmer.

But photons exist, as per Planck and QM. Each one is responsible to carry a discrete amount of
energy, so counting them makes a lot of sense. It's what is done at Hubble's telescope and his
CCD camera: to recollect and count photons from faint or very distant sources, until the CCD pipes
are full and the data is transferred to memory. In 1995, by using the Hubble Deep Field instrument,
a picture of an almost infinitesimal spot (void at plain sight) rendered a pic with thousand of galaxies.

When doing so, Hubble's intruments focused on such tiny spot for more than 100 hours, during almost
a week, to collect enough amount of photons to assemble the famous picture. The level of orbital sync
needed to do so, while moving orbiting Earth, was extraordinary.

And, at any case, in this thought experiment, to count zillions of photons is as unrealistic as the unidimentional
framework where SR was developed, ghost observers included (which, by the way, are licensed to observe such
unidimensionality in 2D or 3D perspective. So, you could assume (being fair) that such a count could be performed.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:45:07 PMAug 13
to
On 8/13/2021 1:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> But photons exist, as per Planck and QM.

Planck theorized quanta of energy, but it was your hero, Einstein, who
showed photons are real, not just hypothetical.

<snip good description on how the Hubble uses individual photons>

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:51:07 PMAug 13
to
Well, that’s clearly not correct.

Since Einstein explicitly stated that there is no absolute motion nor any
absolute rest frame, then you’d have to IGNORE those statements to hold the
beliefs you do.

So what may be true is that the source of your belief is a tiny,
cherry-picked set of statements from Einstein that are consistent with an
outcome you hope for, ignoring the rest of his statements. But to select
the ones that support the outcome you hope for, there has to be an
alternate source for the hoped-for outcome.

>
> Einstein may have said that there is no absolute rest frame that we can
> LOCATE,

No. He said that there is no absolute rest frame that has any physical
meaning.

> but he wrote that the speed of light is determined by the
> speed of the EMITTER. The speed of the emitter does NOT add to the
> speed of light that is emitted, instead it slows the light that is emitted
> because the speed of light is ALWAYS c, which is the speed of light
> PER SECOND. And a fast moving emitter emits light at a slower c than
> a slower moving emitter. That says that somewhere there is almost
> certainly a place where a second is at its shortest length and light
> travels at its fastest speed.

You says he says this “somewhere”. Where, specifically? And please, do not
cherry-pick the words too finely, as you’ll only demonstrate your symptom
in so doing.

> That would be an "absolute rest frame."
> Today we think that is the point of the Big Bang.

You may be surprised to find that there is no center to the Big Bang,
according to the initiators of the theory. If you think Einstein believed
otherwise, feel free to try to find that.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 1:51:08 PMAug 13
to
I didn’t say you disagreed with anything in the video. You asked a question
about WHY the west-bound travel produced a different result than east-bound
travel, and I answered that question. Frankly, it’s one of the first time
you’ve simply asked a question rather than guessing at the answer.

But notice that the video said nothing about the rotation of the earth
controlling time, which was your earlier statement. The video explained
that the reason the east-bound and west-bound results are different is
because the speed that counts is the sum of the earth’s speed and the
plane’s speed in one case, and the difference of the earth’s speed and the
plane’s speed in the other case — NOT because the earth’s rotation controls
time. The experiment result is clear. The EXPLANATION for the result is
what you got completely wrong. This is also what you do consistently: see
the undisputed experimental results and come up with the completely wrong
explanation for them.

And notice that there is STILL nothing about time dilation that is
incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 2:01:07 PMAug 13
to
Specifically, Planck theorized that an atom only EMITTED or ABSORBED light
in discrete chunks, but honestly though that the light in transmission was
still a continuous EM wave. This, for example, allowed a radiator to emit
light energy in amounts X, be transmitted as a continuous wave, and then
absorbed in amounts Y by a different material absorber.

Einstein was the one that said, no, light while it is propagated is also
quantized and is not continuous but discrete. This also says that if a
photon is emitted in a chunk X, it can only be absorbed in the same chunk
X. This was a fairly dramatic step conceptually.

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 2:10:29 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:13:58 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Suppose you are driving on the highway in the rain and the
> rain is coming STRAIGHT DOWN... This need to incline the pipe
> is what’s called aberration.

You have to be careful, because what you described is non-relativistic aberration for a classical ballistic theory, which of course gives acceptably close approximations for small differences in the observer speeds, but is drastically wrong for relativistic speeds, such as the case that Ed is considering. Hence the raindrop analogy, and talking about "where the pulsar really is" would be misleading (if anyone was paying attention). With a speed of 0.994988c the aberration effect is primarily due to relativity of simultaneity and so on, which are not illustrated by the classical Bradley raindrop analogy. (It's the difference between sin(a) and tan(a).)

The whole point is to show that relativistic aberration, accounting for the relativity of simultaneity, reconciles Ed's scenario with reciprocal time dilation, and this can obviously only be shown by a relativistic account of aberration. That's why when I offhand mentioned Bradley previously I noted that Einstein made corrections for high speeds. Admittedly this is all lost on Ed, but if you were talking to a normal student, it would be essential to invoke relativistic aberration, because the raindrop aspect is not the most relevant.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 2:24:28 PMAug 13
to
Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:13:58 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Suppose you are driving on the highway in the rain and the
>> rain is coming STRAIGHT DOWN... This need to incline the pipe
>> is what’s called aberration.
>
> You have to be careful, because what you described is non-relativistic
> aberration for a classical ballistic theory, which of course gives
> acceptably close approximations for small differences in the observer
> speeds, but is drastically wrong for relativistic speeds, such as the
> case that Ed is considering.

Yes, of course. It’s the concept of aberration that I’m trying to drive
across, just to get through the barrier of the instinctive “you just aim
where the object is”, which is actually not right. You aim along the line
of the incoming signal, which (raindrops or light) is something different.
In details, the two (raindrops and light) are different and those
differences are why they are quantitatively different formulas as well. But
given that the quantitative difference is not something that Ed would be
able to even notice (symbols being the same as Urdu for him), and that he’s
not even aware what aberration IS, that’s a second-order elaboration FOR
HIM. I chose my words for *Ed*, not for anyone already familiar with
aberration or with the basics of algebra and geometry or with the basics of
special relativity.

> Hence the raindrop analogy, and talking about "where the pulsar really
> is" would be misleading (if anyone was paying attention). With a speed
> of 0.994988c the aberration effect is primarily due to relativity of
> simultaneity and so on, which are not illustrated by the classical
> Bradley raindrop analogy. (It's the difference between sin(a) and tan(a).)
>
> The whole point is to show that relativistic aberration, accounting for
> the relativity of simultaneity, reconciles Ed's scenario with reciprocal
> time dilation, and this can obviously only be shown by a relativistic
> account of aberration. That's why when I offhand mentioned Bradley
> previously I noted that Einstein made corrections for high speeds.
> Admittedly this is all lost on Ed, but if you were talking to a normal
> student, it would be essential to invoke relativistic aberration, because
> the raindrop aspect is not the most relevant.
>



Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 2:45:42 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:24:28 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You have to be careful, because what you described is non-relativistic
> > aberration for a classical ballistic theory, which of course gives
> > acceptably close approximations for small differences in the observer
> > speeds, but is drastically wrong for relativistic speeds, such as the
> > case that Ed is considering.
>
> Yes, of course. It’s the concept of aberration that I’m trying to drive
> across, just to get through the barrier of the instinctive “you just aim
> where the object is”, which is actually not right. You aim along the line
> of the incoming signal...

But that's precisely what's wrong ... First, in any case we obviously wouldn't be talking about aiming where it *is*, but aiming where it *was* (when the signal was emitted); second, in an infinite flat spacetime with perpetually inertial objects, we would indeed always aim along the line where the object was", so that's not the issue; third, with actual accelerations and cosmological limitations that's all irrelevant, and in any case aberration is purely local, giving the relationship between the descriptions of a given ray (locally) in terms of two different local systems of coordinates. Note that none of these descriptions is the "actual" one. We can't say "the angle is really X, but in the other coordinate system it seems to be Y". Or the direction to the object is "really" transverse". The angles are what they are in terms of the respective systems of coordinates. These are objective facts, primarily due to the relativistic relationship between relatively moving systems of coordinates. Note that even a static rod at (say) 45 degrees to the x axis of S is at a different angle in terms of S'. This too is aberration, and it is the most relevant aspect in this context.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 2:47:27 PMAug 13
to

Inner rotation has less time dilation...
there is faster time by less inner rotation speed


Mitchell Raemsch

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 4:23:31 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:42:09 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
Groan! I went to the gym, and now I've got a whole stack of messages
waiting. I don't know if I have the time to answer many of them before
my on-line day comes to an end.

One thing I realized while at the gym was that in my thought experiment
the pulsar is rotating clockwise, which means that as I travel toward
Alpha Centauri the rotating beams will be moving away from me. So,
I'll be counting slightly LESS than one pulse per minute. And on the
return trip I'll be counting slightly MORE than one pulse per minute as
I move toward the oncoming beams.

I don't know if that has anything to do with what you are babbling about,
but I should have mentioned it in the comment that started this thread.
The average will still be one pulse per second.

In QED, Feynman wrote: "When I say 'light' in these lectures, I don’t mean
simply the light we can see, from red to blue. It turns out that visible light
is just a part of a long scale that’s analogous to a musical scale in which
there are notes higher than you can hear and other notes lower than you
can hear. The scale of light can be described by numbers—called the frequency."

The frequency of light is the oscillation frequency of its electric and
magnetic fields. It's just easier to say "a photon oscillates" than to say
"a photon has electric and magnetic fields that oscillate."

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 4:26:57 PMAug 13
to
I don't think it has ever come up before. I know what the word means,
but your explanations make no sense. You seem to be just reciting
things you read somewhere and memorized without really understanding
what it is all about.

If I can find the time, I'll research it and explain where you misunderstand.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 4:28:51 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:29:21 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Okay, it is possible to count photons. BUT in this situation THERE IS NO POINT TO IT.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 4:40:49 PMAug 13
to
He said, "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good."

What he's saying is that you do not need to have anything in an
"absolute rest" in order to do physics. Something COULD be at an absolute
rest or it could be moving and all the laws and equations will still work.

> > but he wrote that the speed of light is determined by the
> > speed of the EMITTER. The speed of the emitter does NOT add to the
> > speed of light that is emitted, instead it slows the light that is emitted
> > because the speed of light is ALWAYS c, which is the speed of light
> > PER SECOND. And a fast moving emitter emits light at a slower c than
> > a slower moving emitter. That says that somewhere there is almost
> > certainly a place where a second is at its shortest length and light
> > travels at its fastest speed.
> You says he says this “somewhere”. Where, specifically? And please, do not
> cherry-pick the words too finely, as you’ll only demonstrate your symptom
> in so doing.
> > That would be an "absolute rest frame."
> > Today we think that is the point of the Big Bang.
> You may be surprised to find that there is no center to the Big Bang,
> according to the initiators of the theory. If you think Einstein believed
> otherwise, feel free to try to find that.

I have a paper titled "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" which addresses
that issue. Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf

The idea that there is no center to the Big Bang is an idea that is so STUPID
that only a mathematician could believe it.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 4:53:07 PMAug 13
to
What I noticed was that you believed that Hafele and Keating only went
ONE WAY around the earth. When I informed you that they made trips in
BOTH directions, you couldn't admit that you were wrong, so, in order
to cover your ass you are trying to find something I've said about the
Hafele and Keating experiment that you can claim is wrong.

>
> But notice that the video said nothing about the rotation of the earth
> controlling time, which was your earlier statement. The video explained
> that the reason the east-bound and west-bound results are different is
> because the speed that counts is the sum of the earth’s speed and the
> plane’s speed in one case, and the difference of the earth’s speed and the
> plane’s speed in the other case — NOT because the earth’s rotation controls
> time. The experiment result is clear. The EXPLANATION for the result is
> what you got completely wrong. This is also what you do consistently: see
> the undisputed experimental results and come up with the completely wrong
> explanation for them.
>
> And notice that there is STILL nothing about time dilation that is
> incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics cannot deal with variable time. It is totally
incompatible with Time Dilation. I've provided you with links that
explain that further. You just ignore them.

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 5:17:55 PMAug 13
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:23:31 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> My thought experiment the pulsar is rotating clockwise, which means that
> as I travel toward Alpha Centauri the rotating beams will be moving away
> from me.

That effect is completely imperceptible, because the beam sweeps through the range from Earth to Planet X (Alpha Centauri?) in an imperceptibly small span of time. If you imagine a spot on the line from Earth to X where the center of the beam is impinging, that spot moves far faster than the speed of light, striking Earth and X almost simultaneously, and the beam itself would be wider than the whole span anyway. (To understand why, think about how many angular degrees are subtended between Earth and X from the rotating pulsar, and how long it takes the center of the beam to sweep out that angle, and what the beam spread would be at that distance.)

> I don't know if that has anything to do with what you are babbling about,

I'm not babbling, and no, it has nothing to do with it. What I'm explaining to you is the effect of relativistic aberration, as described in Einstein's 1905 paper. Look at Section 7 of his paper. Would you say he is babbling?

Again, if you are on earth and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at Planet X, you will have to turn your telescope 90 degrees, but if you are on the space ship going at speed 0.994988c from earth toward Planet X, and you point your telescope first at the pulsar and then at planet X, you will only have to turn your telescope about 5.7 degrees. In other words, the pulsar is almost directly ahead of you as you are speeding toward Planet X. That's why there is a large longitudinal Doppler effect, and this reconciles your thought experiment with reciprocal time dilation during the outbound (or during the inbound) journey.

Of course, none of this denies the existence of time dilation, which is quite easy to measure. In terms of, say, the slightly misnamed Earth Centered Inertial Coordinate (ECI) system used by GPS, it is easy to verify that the rate of an ideal clock varies depending on the speed and elevation of the clock. This is entirely consistent with the reciprocity of time dilation between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. And, of course, the net round trip time dilation for the total non-inertial trip is not reciprocal. None of this is controversial.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 5:23:34 PMAug 13
to
Your comments are correct for someone familiar with the subject matter and
understands the subtleties.

For someone who is essentially a foreigner to the subject, stating things
like this in precisely correct fashion is guaranteed to lose that person.

There is pedagogical value in analogs, even if the analogy is only
approximate. There is value in gaining acceptance to a general idea, even
if it is not precisely the one to be eventually honed, if it breaks a basic
misconception. That is, it is beneficial to trade off a large misconception
in return for a smaller one, if going after precisely correct answers only
serves to confuse.

Here’s the thing. When I respond to Ed, I’m talking *to Ed*. I’m not aiming
my response sideways at some other audience that’s NOT Ed, who might
benefit from a more elaborate or technically correct answer. And in some
cases, I may not be even trying to *explain* things to Ed; instead, I might
be casting a light on his motivations or hidden reasons that are
obstructing his ability to understand things.

This is why I asked you recently WHY you respond to Ed; specifically, with
WHAT GAIN to be obtained BY WHOM? If you have a side audience in mind and
are giving up saying anything that would be of possible gain to Ed, then
just say so and explain for whom you hope your response produces some
positive impact. You’ve implied that those who teach physics might benefit
from it, but you’ve not said that when you respond to Ed, you’re really
replying to physics instructors about how to teach physics. I’m not sure,
you’d have to tell me.

On this group, the MOTIVATIONS of the posters are AT LEAST as important as
their knowledge of the content. Seto, for example, is not at all interested
in science. He’s interested in being PERCEIVED as an important scientist,
even if only to nonscientists. That’s a scam, of course, but that’s his
motivations. Any response to him that is about science content is useless,
except insofar as it demonstrates that he is only pretending. That’s why I
only talk to him about things he can look up in the one textbook he has, or
simple observations and experiments he didn’t know he could do.

Ed is motivated by faith in his instincts, and his COMPLETE WILLINGNESS to
be the only one following his nose in a particular direction. So I have a
completely different aim with Ed when I talk *io Ed*. I’m not talking to
anyone else when I respond to Ed.
Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 5:36:49 PMAug 13
to
I just took it as Odd "dumbing things down" enough so that Ed
understands it. The raindrop analogy is a good starting point even if
it's technically wrong.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 13, 2021, 5:38:15 PMAug 13