This is a test.

Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.

The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.

Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.

The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.

The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
different ranges of "v":

1. First run at v=0.01c
2. Second run at v=0.1c
3. Third run at v=0.5c
4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c

Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?

If not, why?

Hint: At the spacecraft in the K' frame, it's verified that the 1 Mbps transmission bitrate is conserved
in all of the six tests. What happens with the binary rate of the received bitstream in the receiver at K?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
>

> If not, why?

Redshift, cretinoid.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:05:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> > able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> > which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> >
> > If not, why?
>
>
> Redshift, cretinoid.

Idiot! I'm asking about how the bitrate changes, if it happens at all.

I used redshift to assert that light speed is "c". Now tell me what you think: Does
the bitrate change at different speeds or not!

And, if it does, can you make a gross estimate of the value of the bitrate at the reception side?

On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is a test.
>
> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
>
> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
>
> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
>
> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
>
> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> different ranges of "v":
>
> 1. First run at v=0.01c
> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
>
> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
>
> If not, why?
>

It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
to the microwave beam itself.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > This is a test.
> >
> > Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
> >
> > The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> > able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> > which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> >
> > Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
> > points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
> > binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
> > The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
> >
> > The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
> > of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
> >
> > The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> > different ranges of "v":
> >
> > 1. First run at v=0.01c
> > 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> > 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> > 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> > 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> > 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> >
> > Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> >
> > If not, why?
> >
> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
> to the microwave beam itself.
>
> Sylvia.

At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.

It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.

To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
almost 7 million wavelengths.

So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?

On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> This is a test.
>>>
>>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
>>>
>>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
>>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
>>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
>>>
>>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
>>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
>>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
>>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
>>>
>>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
>>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
>>>
>>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
>>> different ranges of "v":
>>>
>>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
>>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
>>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
>>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
>>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
>>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
>>>
>>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
>>>
>>> If not, why?
>>>
>> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
>> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
>> to the microwave beam itself.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
> 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
>
> It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
> severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
>
> To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
> almost 7 million wavelengths.
>
> So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
>

No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
or compressed, then so does the information.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> This is a test.
> >>>
> >>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
> >>>
> >>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> >>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> >>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> >>>
> >>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
> >>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
> >>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
> >>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
> >>>
> >>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
> >>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
> >>>
> >>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> >>> different ranges of "v":
> >>>
> >>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
> >>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> >>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> >>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> >>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> >>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> >>>
> >>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> >>>
> >>> If not, why?
> >>>
> >> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
> >> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
> >> to the microwave beam itself.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
> > 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
> >
> > It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
> > severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
> >
> > To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
> > almost 7 million wavelengths.
> >
> > So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
> >
> No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
> information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
> or compressed, then so does the information.
>
> Sylvia.

So, I would receive a lower (red-shift) or higher (blue-shift) binary rate than the existing at K' frame, depending on the velocity and
orientation of the motion relative to K frame? But never (above certain threshold) the original bitrate
sent from K' frame? Is that what you mean?

On 07-Aug-21 4:29 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> This is a test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
>>>>>
>>>>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
>>>>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
>>>>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
>>>>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
>>>>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
>>>>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
>>>>>
>>>>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
>>>>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
>>>>> different ranges of "v":
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
>>>>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
>>>>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
>>>>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
>>>>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
>>>>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, why?
>>>>>
>>>> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
>>>> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
>>>> to the microwave beam itself.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
>>> 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
>>>
>>> It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
>>> severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
>>>
>>> To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
>>> almost 7 million wavelengths.
>>>
>>> So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
>>>
>> No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
>> information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
>> or compressed, then so does the information.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> So, I would receive a lower (red-shift) or higher (blue-shift) binary rate than the existing at K' frame, depending on the velocity and
> orientation of the motion relative to K frame? But never (above certain threshold) the original bitrate
> sent from K' frame? Is that what you mean?
>

Whenever there is relative motion, the information bit rate will differ
from what is being transmitted.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:39:40 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 07-Aug-21 4:29 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> This is a test.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> >>>>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> >>>>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
> >>>>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
> >>>>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
> >>>>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
> >>>>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> >>>>> different ranges of "v":
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
> >>>>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> >>>>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> >>>>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> >>>>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> >>>>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If not, why?
> >>>>>
> >>>> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
> >>>> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
> >>>> to the microwave beam itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
> >>> 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
> >>>
> >>> It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
> >>> severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
> >>>
> >>> To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
> >>> almost 7 million wavelengths.
> >>>
> >>> So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
> >>>
> >> No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
> >> information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
> >> or compressed, then so does the information.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > So, I would receive a lower (red-shift) or higher (blue-shift) binary rate than the existing at K' frame, depending on the velocity and
> > orientation of the motion relative to K frame? But never (above certain threshold) the original bitrate
> > sent from K' frame? Is that what you mean?
> >
> Whenever there is relative motion, the information bit rate will differ
> from what is being transmitted.
>
> Sylvia.

But consider this as paradoxical: I could receive info (downloading it) faster than being standing still
if I get a blue-shifted connection with any spacecraft coming toward me! Funny.

On 07-Aug-21 4:44 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:39:40 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 07-Aug-21 4:29 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
>>>>>>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
>>>>>>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
>>>>>>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
>>>>>>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
>>>>>>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
>>>>>>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
>>>>>>> different ranges of "v":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
>>>>>>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
>>>>>>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
>>>>>>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
>>>>>>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
>>>>>>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
>>>>>> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
>>>>>> to the microwave beam itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
>>>>> 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
>>>>>
>>>>> It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
>>>>> severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
>>>>>
>>>>> To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
>>>>> almost 7 million wavelengths.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
>>>>>
>>>> No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
>>>> information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
>>>> or compressed, then so does the information.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> So, I would receive a lower (red-shift) or higher (blue-shift) binary rate than the existing at K' frame, depending on the velocity and
>>> orientation of the motion relative to K frame? But never (above certain threshold) the original bitrate
>>> sent from K' frame? Is that what you mean?
>>>
>> Whenever there is relative motion, the information bit rate will differ
>> from what is being transmitted.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> But consider this as paradoxical: I could receive info (downloading it) faster than being standing still
> if I get a blue-shifted connection with any spacecraft coming toward me! Funny.
>
>

I don't see why you would consider this paradoxical. If someone fires a
machine gun at you at some rate x, and you run towards them, you'll eat
lead at a rate higher than x. It's just that simple.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:51:32 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 07-Aug-21 4:44 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:39:40 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 07-Aug-21 4:29 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 07-Aug-21 4:00 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:47:57 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07-Aug-21 1:38 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is a test.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Assume that two spacecrafts sync their atomic cesium clocks at t=t'=0.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> >>>>>>> able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> >>>>>>> which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also assume that the spacecraft at K' modulates the microwave beam, that
> >>>>>>> points to the relatively still one at K, at a rate of 1 Megabit/second, using
> >>>>>>> binary FSK. It uses a pseudo-random binary sequence that allows its decoding.
> >>>>>>> The random sequence generator and receiver are also synchronized at t=t'=0.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The test is performed at several values of "v", and the constancy of the speed
> >>>>>>> of light is verified at K by means of Doppler effect.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> >>>>>>> different ranges of "v":
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. First run at v=0.01c
> >>>>>>> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> >>>>>>> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> >>>>>>> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> >>>>>>> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> >>>>>>> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If not, why?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It should be very obvious that the relativistic Doppler effect applies
> >>>>>> in exactly the same way to the modulation of a microwave beam as it does
> >>>>>> to the microwave beam itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 7 Ghz, a typical microwave frequency for radio links, the period of a wave is about
> >>>>> 143 picoseconds. Every symbol (containing 1 bit) at 1 Mbps last 1 microsecond.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It means that every symbol contains, roughly, 6993 wavelengths, enough to accommodate
> >>>>> severe red-shifting without problem, in the receiver's discriminator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To make things harder, take 1 Kilobit/sec. In this case, each binary symbol would accommodate
> >>>>> almost 7 million wavelengths.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, can be that information transfer be rather immune to relativistic time dilation?
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, and I'm at a loss to see why you would not understand that. The
> >>>> information is superimposed on the waves. If the waves get stretched out
> >>>> or compressed, then so does the information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> So, I would receive a lower (red-shift) or higher (blue-shift) binary rate than the existing at K' frame, depending on the velocity and
> >>> orientation of the motion relative to K frame? But never (above certain threshold) the original bitrate
> >>> sent from K' frame? Is that what you mean?
> >>>
> >> Whenever there is relative motion, the information bit rate will differ
> >> from what is being transmitted.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > But consider this as paradoxical: I could receive info (downloading it) faster than being standing still
> > if I get a blue-shifted connection with any spacecraft coming toward me! Funny.
> >
> >
> I don't see why you would consider this paradoxical. If someone fires a
> machine gun at you at some rate x, and you run towards them, you'll eat
> lead at a rate higher than x. It's just that simple.
>
> Sylvia.

It is paradoxical because I can receive information faster or slower by regulating the value of "v".
I'm not involving any life form here, only information. That's why.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 10:26:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:05:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > The spacecraft at the K ref. frame (at relative rest) has a microwave receiver
> > > able to decode incoming signals from the spacecraft at the K' reference frame,
> > > which is moving inertially at "v" speed, away from the spacecraft at K.
> > >
> > > If not, why?
> >
> >
> > Redshift, cretinoid.
> I'm asking about how the bitrate changes, if it happens at all.
>

Cretinoid, redshift, i.e. LOWER rate. Eat shit.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:00:06 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

> It is paradoxical because I can receive information faster or slower by regulating the value of "v".

How is that paradoxical??

Driving along a road, you cross the trees faster when you go fast, and cross them slower when you drive slow.
You get to your destination faster if you drive fast, and get there slower if you drive slow.
You receive information (reception/crossing the trees/destination) faster or slower by regulating your speed "v".
You are saying that you never noticed/experienced that? <sigh>

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> different ranges of "v":
>
> 1. First run at v=0.01c
> 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
>
> Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
>
> If not, why?

Imbecile,

The period of the emitted signals is T.
The initial distance source-receiver is L
The speed of the source moving towards receiver is v
The speed of the waves is c.

At t=0 a wavefront is sent , it arrives at the receiver at L/c where L is the distance source-receiver
At t=T a second wavefront is sent, it arrives at the receiver at T+(L-vT)/c
Therefore, the distance between the two wavefronts at the receiver is [T+(L-vT)/c]-L/c=T(1-v/c)

T(1-v/c)<T

The above is the standard Galilean relativity. Do you hate Galilean relativity as much as special relativity? If no, why?

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:24:03 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> > different ranges of "v":
> >
> > 1. First run at v=0.01c
> > 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> > 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> > 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> > 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> > 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> >
> > Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> >
> > If not, why?

THE WRITING OF A FULLY FLEDGED IGNORANT:

> Imbecile,
>
> The period of the emitted signals is T.
> The initial distance source-receiver is L
> The speed of the source moving towards receiver is v
> The speed of the waves is c.
>
> At t=0 a wavefront is sent , it arrives at the receiver at L/c where L is the distance source-receiver
> At t=T a second wavefront is sent, it arrives at the receiver at T+(L-vT)/c
> Therefore, the distance between the two wavefronts at the receiver is [T+(L-vT)/c]-L/c=T(1-v/c)
>
> T(1-v/c)<T
>
> The above is the standard Galilean relativity. Do you hate Galilean relativity as much as special relativity? If no, why?

*************************************************************

Your utter ignorance when talking about wavefronts and delays make me want to puke.

You know shit about microwave modems (2-DPSK or 4-DPSK mostly, for outer space). It's the carrier itself which
is modulated from a baseband binary stream. The modem can pack and unpack those bits from SYMBOLS, which is
what is called the basic unit of modulation that carries different packets of bits at a sustained rate. A SYMBOL takes
many wavelengths for its transmission/reception. When received, a symbol is decoded at a baseband level, giving a
waveform which is sampled JUST in the middle, to obtain its original coded value.

As there are many degradations in the transmission path, doing so minimize what is called ISI (Inter Symbol Interference).
Telecommunications has invested huge amounts of R&D to obtain solid transmission/reception of encoded symbols, and
also developed complex FEC (Forward Error Correction) techniques to obtain the original data, even if signals are
contaminated with different impairements (like noise). A modern digital modulation is named "noise free" if the BER or
Bit Error Ratio is lower than 10^-9.

So, your stupid post about how data is carried is just that: STUPID. It's a work of an ignoramus like Moroney, pretending
to be a know-it-all arrogant MF.

Bye DONUT.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:11:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:24:03 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > The question is if the rate of information (1 Mbps) is conserved at
> > > different ranges of "v":
> > >
> > > 1. First run at v=0.01c
> > > 2. Second run at v=0.1c
> > > 3. Third run at v=0.5c
> > > 4. Fourth run at v=0.9c
> > > 5. Fifth run at v=0.99c
> > > 6. Sixth run at v=0.99999c
> > >
> > > Is the received stream binary rate of 1 Mbps in all of the six scenarios?
> > >
> > > If not, why?
> THE WRITING OF A FULLY FLEDGED IGNORANT:
> > Imbecile,
> >
> > The period of the emitted signals is T.
> > The initial distance source-receiver is L
> > The speed of the source moving towards receiver is v
> > The speed of the waves is c.
> >
> > At t=0 a wavefront is sent , it arrives at the receiver at L/c where L is the distance source-receiver
> > At t=T a second wavefront is sent, it arrives at the receiver at T+(L-vT)/c
> > Therefore, the distance between the two wavefronts at the receiver is [T+(L-vT)/c]-L/c=T(1-v/c)
> >
> > T(1-v/c)<T
> >
> > The above is the standard Galilean relativity. Do you hate Galilean relativity as much as special relativity? If no, why?
> *************************************************************
>
> Your utter ignorance when talking about wavefronts and delays make me want to puke.

Hopefully you choke on your puke and die, like the piece of shit you are.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:11:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> A SYMBOL takes
> many wavelengths for its transmission/reception. When received, a symbol is decoded at a baseband level, giving a
> waveform which is sampled JUST in the middle, to obtain its original coded value.
>

Utter cretin

ALL wavelengths are Doppler shifted by the SAME amount, 1-v/c
Take another mouthful of shit. A big one.

The answers here are very significant because they shed some light on doubts about GPS.

GPS AND CLAIMS FROM RELATIVISTS

A fully fledged corporation of Einstein worshipers is happy about the "alleged" 7.2 microsec/day loss in
"alleged" terrestrial receivers tests, rendering GPS useless unless a fine tuning of the on-board atomic
clock is performed to cancel this and gravitational acceleration due to relativity (the infamous 38 microsec/day).

What is wrong here (and I'm only addressing SR) is that the 7.2 microseconds are computed for satellites while orbiting
(I REPEAT:I'M ONLY ADDRESSING SPECIAL RELATIVITY), but relativists claim that this partial fix in onboard atomic clocks
is relevant to any GPS receiver on Earth.

It has to be known that GPS satellites send down ENCODED DATA (type of CDMA coding). Each and everyone of them use
the same frequency, so the receiver capture with a single fractal antenna the signals of MANY satellites at the same time.
The GPS receiver has tables for look up, which stores not only the route and timing of each satellite from the constellation,
but also (AND THIS IS CRUCIAL), the encoded signature in CDMA, which is a distinctive ID (identifier) of each one.

By using DSP (Digital Signal Processing), the receiver recovers the three or four most strong signatures from the common
pool of signals submerged into noise and colliding with others, just at the front end.

The exact arrival time of each signal is adopted as the time when the signature is finally identified. This time is also validated
by the internal UNIVERSAL TIME, which is in sync with the UTC maintained by the entire constellation as a whole. Then, an
algorithm to compute the set of identified signals is performed, rendering as them as earth-centered, earth-fixed (ECEF)
Cartesian coordinates in 3-space. Later, this coordinates are presented as latitude and longitude and a unique point
on a map at the display.

What happens here is that the relativists claim about the 7 microsec/day fix is irrelevant, as it's an average of the effect of
their orbiting speeds, and only valid at that reference.

The decoded RF signal is obtained by microwaves detected in the longitudinal and direct distance
between each satellite and the GPS receiver. These signals are constantly varying their Doppler shift from
red-shifting to blue-shifting as each satellite approach the receiver position or recedes from it.

And this happens continuously, as each satellite from a given orbital path is about 15 minutes
at reach of the receiver.

So, GPS receivers are immune to this variant effect, and so are ignorant of relativity, as well as
the satellites in the constellation.

Do anyone see how it is FALSE that SR has a cut in GPS or similar positioning systems?

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:34:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>snip imbecilities<
> Do anyone see how it is FALSE that SR has a cut in GPS or similar positioning systems?

SR has nothing to do with GPS
GPS has nothing to do with SR
GPS design is based on GR
You are showing your imbecility. Again.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:22:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:34:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >snip imbecilities<
> > Do anyone see how it is FALSE that SR has a cut in GPS or similar positioning systems?
> SR has nothing to do with GPS
> GPS has nothing to do with SR
> GPS design is based on GR
> You are showing your imbecility. Again.

What a liar MF you are! 45-7=38 (microseconds/day) is the flagship equation of both relativities
working on the GPS myth about the need to untune orbiting atomic clocks.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 45-7=38 (microseconds/day) is the flagship equation of both relativities
> working on the GPS myth about the need to untune orbiting atomic clocks.

Ignoramus

BOTH the 35 us and the 8 us come from the Schwarzschild solution. Swallow another ladle of shit. Every time you open your mouth I will get you to eat shit.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 45-7=38 (microseconds/day) is the flagship equation of both relativities
> > working on the GPS myth about the need to untune orbiting atomic clocks.
> Ignoramus
>
> BOTH the 45 us and the 8 us come from the Schwarzschild solution. Swallow another ladle of shit. Every time you open your mouth I will get you to eat shit.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 7:34:06 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:22:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> > SR has nothing to do with GPS
> > GPS has nothing to do with SR
> > GPS design is based on GR...

> What a liar MF you are! 45-7=38 (microseconds/day) is the flagship equation of both relativities
> working on the GPS myth about the need to untune orbiting atomic clocks.

This is a misconception, due to "popular descriptions" or sloppy wordings.
SR does not apply in grav.fields (it can, if we make extra assumptions/aproximations). SR makes no predictions;does not apply.
GR applies & makes a prediction: 38 microsec/day. And that is all.

The "45-7=38" come from noting that 45 - 7 = 38. WoW!
One could have said 40 - 2 or 1 + 36.
No matter how one chooses to write the value, GR predicts 38.

(Well, there is a reason why it is often said "45-7=38". Can you explain this reason?)

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:22:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:34:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> snip imbecilities<
>>> Do anyone see how it is FALSE that SR has a cut in GPS or similar positioning systems?
>> SR has nothing to do with GPS
>> GPS has nothing to do with SR
>> GPS design is based on GR
>> You are showing your imbecility. Again.
>
> What a liar MF you are! 45-7=38 (microseconds/day) is the flagship
> equation of both relativities
> working on the GPS myth about the need to untune orbiting atomic clocks.
>

No sir, you simply have that flat wrong, and it no doubt comes from some
superficial article or web page that is not at all scientifically careful.

The relativistic effect observed on GPS (and other) satellite clocks is
treated wholly in GR. You can ask, if you wish, what the effect would be if
there were no gravity, but then again if you did they would not be
satellites.

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