MPMin

It probably wasn’t wide spread, apparently the lead poisoning was associated with the ruling class as the syrup, I think was called ‘sapa’ was reserved for the aristocracy. 

I read it in a chemistry text book a long time ago. If I remember it correctly, the Romans would reduce old wine in lead vats which created a sweet syrup, this syrup was apparently a highly desirable condiment. It was proposed in the text, that this syrup contained significant amounts of lead acetate which apparently tastes sweet. 

I read that lead poisoning may have been a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire. 

3 hours ago, Engineeer said:

If there were infinite galaxies in the universe what is the likelihood that the ratio of those spinning clockwise to those spinning counterclockwise would be 50:50? Actually extremely small. If 1/3 of the universe was antimatter, that means it annihilated another 1/3 of the mass in the universe, which means the current universe only contains 1/3 of the overall mass it used to contain prior to 13.8 billions years ago, twice as much mass inside the same volume might make the formation of SMBHs so early on more plausible.

To determine which way the galaxies were spinning with reference to our galaxy, they’d all have to be on the same plane as our galaxy, im pretty sure that’s not the case.

If the galaxy was infinite and the mass was distributed more or less homogeneously, then I think my hypothesis wouldn’t work as net effect of the universe’s gravity would be zero at any given point, but that’s only on the assumption that the gravity of the collective universe is acting directly on the photons. 

And if the universe was a spherical then for all distant objects to be roughly redshifted equally in all directions from earth then that would suggest we’re at the Center of the universe, but if that were the case then I would have thought that all distant objects would be blue shifted as the photons would pulled to towards the Center of the universe.

Perhaps it’s the collective gravity of the distant universe that’s stretching empty space between the masses, as you described I think, that’s causing the redshift? 

3 hours ago, Engineeer said:

Cosmological redshift in receding galaxies can be explained away by the inverse square law of a gravitational field as it propagates outward and expands like like a ripple in a pond. The idea is that the water is filling in a gap as this happens, stretching the fabric of space.

The residual background radiation can be explained by the annihilation of all the antimatter generated with the matter at set point in time in which both accumulated in cardinal infinitudes. 

Perhaps I’m not understanding your analogy properly, but if you had a finite tank of water, and produced ripples in that tank, I dont think there is any extra water that fills in any gaps, because the water in the tank remains the same. I presume that the ripples would create a greater surface area, not by stretching the surface, but rather just exposing water molecules that were previously beneath the surface before the ripples began.  

Im of the understanding that the CMBR was produced when the electrons discharged their surplus energy as radiation when they stabilised around atoms as the universe was expanding. 

9 hours ago, Externet said:

From the separate warm place for rising, moving to the hot oven; will get shaken too. 

Shaking down risen bread (deflation) is usually only a problem when the bread has been over proofed or over hydrated. 
 

To anyone who wants to get serious about making bread at home I highly recommend investing in a decent heat sink, which will also double as an excellent pizza stone (steel). 

5 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

No.

 

It is not an exception.

It seems like you are not really knowledgeable about the BBT or red shift.  Before trying to replace a theory one should understand the theory. 

If stars or galaxies are blue shifted because they are moving towards us in an expanding universe are not exceptions, then what are they? 

My hypothesis doesn't prevent the universe from being fluid, if the universe is not expanding then its more likely you'll see blue shifting of closer objects in a fluid galaxy. Gravitational red shifting would still apply to more distant objects. 

17 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

EM radiation from all other galaxies is not just red shifted, some galaxies are blue shifted.  That would seem to falsify your idea.

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases. 

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform, in contrast to red-shifted light from distant galaxies, given that as you said "my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR." 

Perhaps we are talking at crossed purposes, or I’m simply not understanding the connection, or the difference between the information that we receive as electromagnetic radiation from distant stars, and the electromagnetic radiation that we receive from the CMBR? We receive information about both stars and CMBR in the same form. 

Perhaps the CMBR is not evenly dispersed through out the universe because matter is not evenly dispersed through out the universe, or perhaps its the uneven distribution of matter that causes the uneven distribution of the CMBR.

The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Then why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform?

Perhaps for the same reason that the dispersion of matter throughout the universe is not completely smooth and uniform either. 

On 10/24/2023 at 10:16 AM, Externet said:

What differs if baking starts in cold or pre-heated oven ?  Besides time taken to be done ?   Ending 5 minutes earlier or later-  But what about results ?

If you are talking about starting bread in a cold oven then consider two things, one is that the proofing and rising temperatures will be similar to the cold oven, the other is how long the oven takes to reach baking temperature, the longer it take to heat up the greater the adverse effects will be.

if you take bread that’s ready to be baked but place it in a cold oven, as the oven begins to heat up, the yeast will continue making gas until the yeast reaches about 30C, as the heat transfer will take longer to reach the centre due to the low initial temperature, you’ll have yeast still making gas on the inside while the outside is beginning to set, this will most likely result in the loaf splitting open.

The extended time in the oven will most likely result in a much thicker and dryer crust and a dryer bread over all.

Baking bread normally but ending the baking 5 mins earlier will most likely result in a doughy under cooked centre.

As for cakes, unlike breads, cakes lack the gluten structure of breads and can not hold bubbles of gas as well as bread does, also, gas production in cakes starts the moment an acid is introduced to the bicarbonate, that means gas production begins to decrease from the commencement of production, hence starting a cake in a cold oven will most likely result in a mud cake like texture as most of the gas would most likely escape before the cake has had a chance to rise and set. 

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

You are making a proposal to explain the observation of electromagnetic radiation. The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation. 

I can propose a hypothesis that gravity does not exist by showing that leaves sometimes move away from the earth, but if I don't include an explanation in my hypothesis regarding the fact that leaves also land on the ground, then my hypothesis has no value. I must account for all observations, not just some of them. I can't say gravity doesn't exist if I limit my dataset to only the leaves that are moving up.

My proposed hypothesis describes the effect on electromagnetic radiation, therefore, my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR. 

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your explanation must include the CMBR. Once you add a shoe-horned CMBR piece into your hypothesis it becomes much more complex than the BBT.

I don’t understand why my hypothesis must include an explanation for the CMBR, considering that it has already been established in this thread, that the cmbr may have alternative explanations, that do not rely on the bbt. 

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

No. I'm applying Ockham's Razor. Your model would require an ad hoc extra explanation for the CBMR, which you have not supplied. Do you have one? 

Whereas the big bang hypothesis nicely accounts for both the observed red shift and the observed CMBR.  

As the CMBR can have other explanations other than the BBT, why then, does my hypothesis need an ad hoc extra explanation of the CMBR?

Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor. 

40 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Of course not. It just means yours, which is the one we are discussing, doesn’t work.

Are you saying that my hypothesis doesn’t work because my hypothesis didn’t account for the CMBR, even though the CMBR could have alternative explanations? 

8 hours ago, Janus said:

Gravitational red-shift is due to light going from one gravitational potential to a higher one.  Imagine it like a hill. Climbing the hill takes energy.   Light gives up the energy it needs to "climb the hill" by through a decrease in it frequency.  For our galaxy to see a red-shift from all directions would mean we would be at the "peak of the hill". and everything else lower down the slope.  But that means everything else would see our galaxy as higher up the slope, and see light coming from our galaxy as being blue-shifted.  For your idea to be correct, our galaxy would have to have a unique and special position in the universe.

The second part, as pointed out by others is an old hypothesis, and has been discounted.

Apologies for the crude drawing. 
 

Assuming the black squiggly lines represent the mass of the universe, the mass of the universe is evenly dispersed, the blue dot is the earth, the red arrow is light from a distant star, we’re looking top down with respect to the direction of the light. 
 

I’d argue that when the light arrives at earth, it’s slightly closer to the mass of the universe, from the direction it came from, than it is from the rest of the mass of universe that would be attracting it. 

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

The big bang hypothesis accounts for the CMBR, whereas yours does not, evidently. So that is already one reason to reject yours in favour of the big bang. The CMBR is observed and as such is a test of these hypotheses. The big bang passes that test. Your hypothesis does not.

The Big Bang might account for the CMBR, but does that exclude any other possible explanation for the CMBR? 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

How would your idea account for the CMBR?

I didn’t account for CMBR. Can the CMBR only be explained by the Big Bang event? 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

If this were ever found to be the case it would upset most of Physics and Chemistry and all the other sciences that rest on them.

I suspect there’s no way of testing such a hypothesis? 

Hello Everyone, 

I would like to propose that the universe might not actually be expanding but only appear to be expanding. 

Let’s set aside the redshift information for moment and let’s assume that the universe is relatively static and roughly uniform in composition throughout. And let’s also assume that the universe much much bigger than we currently believe it to be. 
 

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts on the light giving the illusion that the outer inverse is expanding faster the further away it is.

If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel.
 

Just thought I’d ask. I’m curious to hear why the above scenarios couldn’t be a possibility. 

Thanks everyone. 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Janus beat me to it!

Maybe just as well, since I’m actually somewhat confused now - my understanding of the original scenario was that the distance A-B was to be 1 light-minute as seen from frame C, and that clocks were synchronised (taking into account light travel times) to all be seen as showing zero at the instant when C passes A, again as seen from C. My previous answers were based on that. But reading the last few posts, I may not have understood correctly what the OP meant, as the scenario seems to be different now...?

To be fair to everyone, I’m very confused by many aspects of this thought experiment.

The original thought experiment by Einstein, or should i say the most common version of his thought experiment that I’ve seen only discusses Einstein on a train moving away from a clock towers and what Einstein sees the clock do as he recedes away from the clock. That left too many unknowns for me and i wanted to know to what if there was another clock tower in the opposite direction, left me wondering what Einstein would see the approaching clock do as well as, and, what if Einstein also had a clock with him the whole time what would Einstein’s clock be seen to be doing.

To help my self understand the unknowns Ive elaborated on the thought experiment in attempt to understand all the other possible aspects of the thought experiment. As I’m getting confused with all the relativistic points of view I thought it might help to use times as shown on a clock with reference to some kind of synchronisation to help me understand it more practical terms.

One aspect of the thought experiment is the synchronisation of all the clocks. The thought experiment is intended to be what each observer should see from their own frame of reference when clock C moves from clock A to clock B, where clock B is positioned one light minute away from clock A. With regards to synchronising all the clocks, the only way I can think to synchronise the clocks was to have them all together and synchronising them all from the same frame of reference before moving clock B 1 light minute away before the experiment starts. Perhaps another way to synchronise all the clocks is to firstly position clock B 1 light minute away then observer B sets their own clock being clock B in their own frame of reference to 10:01:00 when observer B sees that clock A strikes 10:00:00 from observers B frame of reference. I suspect that the synchronisation of the clocks would need to be resolved before considering the times shown on the clocks.

To keep things less confusing I would prefer to consider the clocks and their respective observers to be the one and the same entity, so that clock A is also observer A and so on for all clocks, so as to remove any confusion about where the observers are in relation to their own clocks and therefore would consider that what each clock/observer always sees what they see from their own frame of reference. 

I’m going to assume that clock B has been positioned 1 light minute away from clock A. Clock C is positioned at clock A. Clock B synchronises its own clock with clock A by setting his own to 10:01:00 when B sees clock A to display 10:00:00, clock C is synchronised with clock A as clock A and C are right next to each other. From the A’s frame of reference, clock C leaves clock A at 10:00:00 according to clock A, and clock C instantaneously starts travelling towards clock B at 50% speed of light.

If my description makes sense thus far, from B’s perspective, B sees clock B to display 10:01:00 and sees clock A and C both to display 10:00:00 and sees clock C just leave clock A.

From A’s perspective, A sees clock A and C to display 10:00:00 while seeing clock B to display 10:01:00. At that moment clock C leaves at 50% speed of light towards B

At the half way point from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock A to display 10:00:30 while seeing clock C to display 10:00:15 and sees clock B to display 10:01:30

At the half way point from C’s frame of reference, C sees clock A to display 10:00:15 and clock C to display 10:00:07.5 and sees clock B to display 10:00:45

At the half way point from B’s frame of reference, B sees clock A and C to display 10:00:00 and C just leave A and sees his own clock B to display 10:01:00

When C arrives at B from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock A to display 10:01:00, A sees clock C to display 10:00:30 and clock B to display 10:02:00

When C arrives at B from C’s frame of reference, C sees clock A to display 10:00:30, C sees his own clock to display 10:00:15 and clock B to display 10:01:00

When C arrives at B from B’s frame of reference, B sees clock A to display 10:01:00, B sees clock C to display 10:00:15 and his own clock C to display 10:00:30

This all seems wrong but some help would be greatly appreciated please. 

from here I just can’t resolve what all the other observers should see. I know Janus provided a detailed description but I’m personally unable to equate his description into the practical times each clock would display at each stage being beginning, middle and end from each observers frame of reference. 

Thanks Janus for your detailed reply.

It’s just occurred to me that defining the synchronisation of the clocks it’s self is a conundrum to me. 
 

I can imagine that if all clocks were in the same proximity that they could all be synchronised together. Let’s assume we synchronise all clocks while they are together and then before the experiment starts, we move clock B and observer B 1 light minute away while leaving Clock A and Clock C begins with their respective observers. Would clock B still be synchronised with clocks A and C after it reaches its position 1 light minute away and does it matter how long it took for clock B to reach its position as to how much the synchronisation changed if at all.

Let’s assume that clock and observer C are due to depart clock A at 10:00:00am in A’s frame of reference. I’m going to take another stab in the dark and assume that if the clocks were all synchronised (without taking into account the effect of moving clock B into position had on the original synchronisation) as observer B is 1 light minute away from clock A, when observer B sees clock A strike 10:00:00, clock B will be seen as displaying 10:01:00 by observer B in his own frame of reference. 
 

If clock A and C show the same time when Clock C departs at 10:00:00am in A and C’s frame of reference, 

When C is half a light minute away, does that mean that from A’s frame of reference that C is half way through its trip to B? Does it mean that from C’s frame of reference, it has already arrived at B? If getting any of this, that should mean that when C arrives at B that, observers C and B will see clock C as being 10:00:30 while Clock B will be 10:01:30 and observers C and B will see that clock A is 10:00:30 from C and B’s frame of reference. Observer A from A’s frame of reference will see that clock C as showing 10:00:15 while seeing clock B to be showing 10:00:30? 

Suspect I’ve got it all wrong though. 
 

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It’s not that simple. In frame C, the instantaneous tick rate of B is dilated, whereas the distance A-B appears longer for frame B than frame C. We have thus far only concerned ourselves with the final result of the experiment (C accumulating less time than B in total) - if you want to analyse what C visually sees on clock B at every moment of the journey, then things become complicated, because C and B do not share a common notion of simultaneity while there is a spatial separation between them. So you would have to account for relativity of simultaneity as well, and the analysis will lead you to the relativistic Doppler effect.

In actual fact, what you visually see is that the hands on the distant clock advance faster as compared to your own clock - that’s because these intervals “tick out” a total spatial distance that’s different from yours.

The key issue here is that there’s a difference between instantaneous tick rate, and total accumulated time - the instantaneous tick rate of B is dilated with respect to C, but you’re not sharing the same notion of simultaneity, so if you integrate those small infinitesimals, you end up with longer intervals, and thus more overall time passed as seen by you.

It’s like the distant clock projects pictures of itself at you at a steady rate of 1 frame per time unit - but because you are moving towards the clock at high speed, you are encountering each picture at less than one time unit in your own frame, and there will be more of those pictures in total. This is why it visually looks like it’s running fast. But if you were to compare each picture individually to your own clock, using some appropriate concept of relativity of simultaneity, you’d find the instantaneous readings to be dilated with respect to you. The overall times are different, because the overall distance A-B is also different between these frames.

I’m sorry I don’t know how to explain it better - this is neither intuitive nor particularly simple, despite the quite basic scenario. The devil is in the details. Nonetheless, once the maths are done correctly (also not as simple as it might at first seem!), they are found to correspond to what we actually find in the real world.

Thanks again for your reply.

I’m just going to reiterate what you are saying in my layman’s terms to confirm my understanding. If I’m getting it wrong please correct me.

Using the previous scenario where all clocks are synchronised before C departs from A, lets assume C departs from A at 50% speed of light and lets assume acceleration happens instantaneously (just to skip the effects of the acceleration phase and to only consider the constant speed phase). Let’s assume that from A’s frame of reference, C takes 1 min to travel from A to B travelling at 50% speed of light. Let’s also assume all clocks are always within their respective observers frame of reference and to be clear the scenario only describes what each observer sees as per the light that enters the eye.

As soon as C departs A at 50% speed of light, from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock C ticking 50% slower than his own clock at A and observer C from his own frame of reference sees clock A ticking 50% slower than his own clock at C.

Observer C from his own frame of reference never notices any change to the rate of ticking of his own clock. 

From the moment that  C departs A, observer C from his own frame of reference sees clock B ticking 50% faster because C is encountering more light pulses from B as C moves towards B

I’m going to use my intuition to make these next assumptions but i would imagine that, as soon as C left A at 50% speed of light, B would see that C was still stationary at A until C had reached the half way point in terms of distance between A and B. As C passes the half way point, observer A would see that 30 seconds had elapsed on his own clock at A but only 15 seconds had elapsed on clock C. 

I’m still assuming that, At the half way point observer C sees that only 15 seconds has elapsed on his own clock and only 7.5 seconds has elapsed on clock A from C’s frame of reference.

As C passes the half way point, observer B sees C just leaving A, even though C left A 30 seconds ago from A’s frame of reference and 15 seconds ago from C’s frame of reference. Observer C has also seen clock B ticking faster for the past 15 seconds from his own frame of reference. 

When C arrives at B 60 seconds would have elapsed for observer A from their own frame of reference, 30 seconds would have elapsed for observer C from their own from of reference and 30 seconds would have elapsed for observer B at their own frame of reference. 

When i start thinking about what each observer would have seen the times to have been at each stage I can’t resolve the time differences.

Thank you all for your contributions.

I think I’m still not understanding the relationship between C and B where C is approaching B with reference to A.  It’s been noted that observer C sees clock B to be running slower than clock C while travelling towards B with reference to A. However, when both observer C and clock C arrive at clock B, All observers agree that clock C is behind clock B even though observer C saw clock B behind clock C until they arrived at B. It would seem that observer C sees clock B running behind clock C, but as soon as they arrive at B, Clock B must suddenly show the time being ahead of C. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m having difficulty gauging your understanding, based on what is written here.

Are you thinking that (kinematic) time dilation is merely an optical effect, and produces no measurable physical consequences other than what an observer can visually see?

He perceives it as dilated (‘slowed’), because they are in relative motion with respect to one another.

He also perceives it as dilated, because they are likewise in relative motion. In the formula for kinematic time dilation, the relative speed appears squared, so its relative sign (moving towards or away) is irrelevant.

He perceives both A and B to be dilated (slower), because he finds himself in relative motion with respect to both those frames. He perceives his own watch at C to be ticking normally (no dilation), because there is no relative motion between himself and his watch. They are in the same frame.

No, because he’s in the same frame as that clock, so there is no relative motion. Kinematic time dilation arises due to relative motion between frames.

Observer C himself notices nothing special - his own clock ticks at 1 second per second from his own point of view (no relative motion). However, he sees both A and B going slower - and conversely both A and B see C ticking slower from their own vantage points. That’s because in the frame of the train, both A and B are in motion whereas the train appears stationary; whereas in frames A and B, the train in frame C is in motion, whereas A/B are stationary. In both cases, the respective observer sees the other clock to be in motion, and thus dilated. The observers just trade places.

Because kinematic time dilation isn’t something absolute that ‘happens’ locally to a clock - it is a relationship between frames/clocks. 

Think about it - from the vantage point A, the train is in relative motion with some constant speed v, whereas A itself appears stationary. From vantage point of the train on the other hand, frame A is in relative motion with that same speed, whereas the train appears stationary. In both cases the relationship between the frames is the same one - relative motion at speed v - so they both see the same thing, namely the other frame’s clock being dilated. This is also exactly what the mathematics tell you. The relationship between frames is the same one irrespective of which frame you find yourself in - there’s the same relative motion (v is always the same), thus in each case the clock that’s seen to be moving is dilated with respect to the observer, and never appears to be speeding up; you’re plugging the same v into the same formula to obtain time dilation, no matter which frame you are in.

All observers are of course right, even if they don’t agree - but only in their own local frames. This is why measurements of time are not absolute, but depend on which frame they are performed in. This is quite a paradigm shift as compared to our own non-relativistic experience of the world, so it is quite understandable that it seems confusing or even paradoxical at first.

You might wonder whether there are quantities that are not frame-dependent, meaning all observers agree on them, irrespective of relative motion; the answer is yes, but to find them you need to account for both time and space simultaneously. Time dilation always goes hand-in-hand with length contraction, and vice versa. Note that what we are discussing here are kinematic effects - if you add gravity, things become more complicated still.

So the main points are: 

1. Kinematic time dilation is a relationship between clocks (frames), and not something that ‘happens’ locally to a clock. It’s meaningless to say that a single clock is dilated. Nonetheless, this relationship is real (it’s a geometric rotation in spacetime, as it turns out), and thus produces real physical consequences; it’s not just on optical ‘illusion’ based on what you might visually see (though of course optics are affected by this too, so there are corresponding visual effects).

2. Motion is also a relationship between frames, and not an absolute property of an object. 

3. Measurements of time or space on their own are observer-dependent. 

Hopefully this helps.

Thank you for your in-depth reply.

I think I am understanding the relativistic relationships between A and C in that they are both effectively moving away from each other and it doesn’t matter that C is moving from A to B, as far as C is concerned, A is effectively moving away from C just as C is moving away from A therefore the effect is the same to both A and C observers. The same relativistic relationship thus exists between B and C except they are moving towards each other. 

If all three clocks were synchronised before C departed from A, would they all still be synchronised when C arrives at B? I think I can safely assume that A and B would have remained synchronised.

In the situation that B is observing C coming towards B, both C and B observe each other’s respective clocks ticking slower than their own respective clocks. However, if there is a discrepancy in the synchronisation between C and B when C arrives at B, how does this discrepancy occur when the moving clocks appear to tick slower to each observer than each of the observer’s respective clocks?

To exaggerate the question, imagine that all clocks are synched before C departs from A, and imagine that from B’s perspective, it takes C 1 minute move from A to B, and C happens to move at 50% of the speed of light for the whole trip. Would that mean that when C arrives at B that clock B would be 30 seconds ahead of clock C? And if so, how is it that clock B ticked 30 seconds more than clock C when observer C had been observing clock B to be ticking slower than his own clock at C?

Id like to clarify some of the detail in thought experiment I stated.

The intended meaning of ‘perceived’ is ‘as it is seen by the observer’ 

I have also deliberately omitted the acceleration phase of the train and skipped straight to the constant velocity phase to ignore the effects caused by acceleration at this stage of my understanding. 

I am also here to learn, please help me understand the following concepts. With reference to the thought experiment:

While the train maintains it’s constant velocity towards B and away from A, does observer C experience a slower passage of time compared to both observers at A and B?

If time is passing slower for observer C, in that clock C is ticking slower than both Clocks A and B, why doesn’t observer C see clocks A and B ticking faster than clock C?

33 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

The classical Doppler effect is the major contributor to the observations. It takes longer for light to reach the train as distances increase so the time between ticks also appears longer.

The light appears dimmer with distance because the light is emitted radially and the train captures less of the emitted light as the emission spreads. This is not a part of the Doppler effect.

The redshifting of light is a Doppler effect at relativistic speeds. It takes longer for an entire wavelength of light to be detected when the receiver is moving away causing the wavelengths appear longer and shifted more towards the red (longer wave) end of the color spectrum. The same happens with sound waves but at vastly slower speeds.

Red shifted light is not necessarily dimmer but it is less energetic than light with shorter wavelengths.

Does observer C on the train encounter more photons from clock tower B than it does from clock tower A as its heading towards B and away from A?