michel123456

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How many minutes will it take? What formula do you use to calculate that?

As I wrote above: if he stopped, it is 60 minutes aka1 hour (because he is 1 HL away). If he makes the U-turn immediately it gets complicated because you have to count for the velocity after the U-turn. It is this instant that Janus describes when the traveler is going back but observer on the Earth haven't seen the U-turn yet.

But we have not reached an agreement on what is happening. Basically I am the bad guy disagreeing with everybody.

1 hour ago, Janus said:

No he doesn't. Because, since the traveler has to undergo a change of velocity at the end of his outbound leg in order to return to the Earth, he will see a change in the  frequency of light he receives from the Earth when he makes that velocity change.  There is no delay.   He sees the Earth clock tick at 1/3 speed for 45 min by his clock and thus accumulating 15 min, and then sees it ticking 3 times as fast for 45 min, accumulating  2 hrs, 15 min. Thus he sees the Earth clock accumulate 2 1/2 hrs while his own clock ticked off 1 1/2 hrs.

The Earth observer has to wait to see the result of the velocity change because it takes place 1 light hr from him. The traveler doesn't have to wait, because he is the one making the velocity change, so it is happening where he is.

I never addressed what the traveler would have seen before this.  You jumped to an erroneous conclusion regarding what the traveler would see. 

When the traveler makes the U-turn, he sees the Earth still getting away from him. He will see the Earth stop going away and begin the rush at him some minutes after he made the U-turn, because there is a delay. The image of the Earth takes some time to go to the traveler.

See it otherwise: if the traveler stopped for a drink at destination, he would see the image of the Earth stop getting away from him after 1 hour. (approx 4 beers in Belgian units)

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Why is the outbound trip one hour but the return is 30 minutes, according to the traveler’s clock? How is that possible?

Because what the traveler sees is the same (the mirror) of what the observer on earth sees.

When the traveler goes out, as much the distance to the Earth increases, as much the delay increases too. And on the return trip, as much the distance reduces, so reduces the delay. The turning point will not be reached at the middle point (in time) of the travel. Although it will be the middle point in distance.

If the clock makes the U-turn at the middle point in time, at the end of the travel the clock will miss the Earth by a distance corresponding to the delay (if I am correct, this is more a guess than an accurate calculation).

Check with Janus example.

49 minutes ago, md65536 said:

The trip that I described is realistic. If you travel outbound at one speed, and return at the same speed, it will take you the same time to make each leg of the trip. Galilean relativity even agrees with that.

Galilean relativity yes., but not Relativity (because of SOL).

But even with Galilean relativity, if the Earth is also moving in the direction of traveler B, but at a lower velocity (which is the equivalent of the delay caused by SOL), the outbound will not be the same with the inbound.

Because of the delay, the outbound will look longer than the inbound, it appears in all examples posted by Janus.on page 1 of this thread.

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

.

 

(previous answer erased, obvious mistake)

 

 

The half and double rate are observed from the Earth. From this FOR, the outbound & inbound travel will not be observed the same.

I suspect that the same goes for the traveling twin, he will not measure the same time for the outbound & for the inbound, because of the Doppler shift taking place only in 1 direction (toward the Earth).

So it is not "Half the rate for one hour, and double the rate for one hour" it is "Half the rate for one hour, and double the rate for less than an hour.

Specifically

Half the rate for one hour, so the outbound traveler sees Earths clock clicking only 30 minutes.

Double the rate for returning: Earths click 60 minutes for a return travel of 30 minutes.

The traveler sees at his clock that he traveled 1h30 minutes, the same as the observer on Earth.

That is what I call "symmetry".

The trip lasted the same time for the traveler & for the guy at rest on Earth.

You have been fooled.

.

(previous answer erased, obvious mistake)

56 minutes ago, md65536 said:

I think you found something nobody considers; there is symmetry in the twin paradox! How can the maths possibly work out? You might convince me?

Okay, let's say that a traveling twin travels outward for one hour while seeing Earth's clock appear to tick at half the rate. Then it returns with a symmetric trip and for one hour, it sees Earth's clock appear to tick at double the rate.

Half the rate for one hour, and double the rate for one hour. What is the total time that it sees ticking on Earth's clock, during its own 2-hour round trip? Could it be that you were right? If you answer this, it will prove that I'm a fool.

 

The half and double rate are observed from the Earth. From this FOR, the outbound & inbound travel will not be observed the same.

I suspect that the same goes for the traveling twin, he will not measure the same time for the outbound & for the inbound, because of the Doppler shift taking place only in 1 direction (toward the Earth).

So it is not "Half the rate for one hour, and double the rate for one hour" it is "Half the rate for one hour, and double the rate for less than an hour.

55 minutes ago, Janus said:

(...)

In order to get  a result where B's clock ticks off as much as A's, you would need to use the Newtonian equation for Doppler shift, or

f₀ = f_s (c/(1±v/c)       Where v is positive if the source is receding.

In this case, A would see B's clock tick  5/9 as fast on the outbound trip, accumulating 1 1/4 hrs in 2 1/4 hrs by A's clock, and then tick 5 times faster for 15 min, accumulating another 1 1/4 hrs, for a total of 2 1/2 hrs, the same that accumulates for A. 

However, this is not what we measure in real life.  We measure a Doppler shift that matches the Relativistic version, which ends up giving an answer of less accumulated time for B.

 

Fine. Why the relativistic scenario does not end to be symmetric? While presenting a totally symmetric equation for frequencies? see my post above.

59 minutes ago, Janus said:

Because If A sees B's clock tick slow while he travels out to a distance of 1 light hour, he will see it ticking slow for 2 and 1/4 hrs and accumulate 45 min of time.

He will then see  B's clock tick 3 times as fast for 15 min.  End result, he sees B's clock accumulate 1 1/2 hrs in the time it takes for his own clock to tick off 2 1/2 hrs.

(...)

 

A sees B traveling 2 and 1/4 hrs while going away.

And you say that A sees B traveling back in 15 minutes? Or 2 and 1/4hrs  divided by 3 = 45 min? Why do you divide 45 minutes (as observed by the traveling clock)? instead of the time observed by A?

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

You were talking about the twin’s dimensions. Not the same thing.

Bufofrog explained how the length contraction “accumulates” - the distances you traverse are shortened as long as you travel. That distance will be shorter as measured by someone in a different frame, and the difference in those values increases as the duration of the trip increases.

 

I have no problem with Bufofrog's example. I have no problem with A observing time dilation. I have no problem with A observing length contraction.

I have a problem when the situation is not symmetric. In my view: what A observes must be the same as what B observes. If A observes B time dilated, then B must observe A as time dilated too, and of the exact same amount. Same for length contraction: length contraction as observed by A must be the same as length contraction observed by B. In the outbound travel and in the inbound. And when they meet together, A & B should have measured exactly the same thing concerning the other one. There is absolutely no reason why A should have a different age from B. No reason at all. The Frequency equation shows it.

The jump in another FOR and arguments about accelerometer is not valid. Both are inertials. If you want add a 3rd observer (called C) that moves parallel to the returning B traveler, and of the same age, traveling at the same velocity. This 3rd IS inertial (he didn't encounter any acceleration, he didn't made any U-turn). By definition, the age of traveler C will be the same of B at arrival time.

IOW there must be a flaw in Janus explanation, more specifically in the return travel, I think.

A logic flaw that I cannot spot, maybe an addition instead of a subtraction, something like that.

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes, I should have said contracts.  That is the only comment, nothing about the fact that both time and length 'accumulate'?

You are not trying to understand, you are trying not to understand.  So I suppose you will spend the next 20 years not understanding.  Whatever floats your boat.

When I read Swansont's post, I conclude that time accumulates while length contraction not. What do you read?

And I am trying to put people into thinking, not only parroting what they have been told.

On 4/26/2017 at 6:43 PM, Janus said:

It is important here not to confuse what someone visually sees happening to a clock approaching or receding with how fast that clock is actually ticking according to that person.

In the first case you have to account for the Doppler effect which is caused by the decreasing or increasing distance between you and the clock. This would happen even if the clock itself did not tick any faster or slower than your own.

Time dilation of the clock is a measure of how fast the clock is actually ticking compared to your own, and this is independent of its direction of movement.

When you are watching a clock approaching or receding, what you visually see is a combination of these two effects.

The math for what you will see is

 

fo=fs1−vc1+vc−−−−√

Where f₀ is the observed tick rate.

f_s is the source tick rate

v is the velocity of the clock relative to you(positive if receding and negative if approaching)

c is the speed of light.

 

So let's work out a couple of examples:

Assume you are situated 1 light hr from a stationary(to you) clock that is synchronized to your own clock (when your clock reads 12:00, it reads 12:00)

You looking at this clock when your clock reads 12:00 will visual see the clock as reading 11:00. (since it took the light carrying that image 1 hr to travel from the other clock, to get to you when your clock reads 12:00, it had to leave the other clock when it read 11:00)

 

A third clock travels from your position to the second clock at 0.8c

Using the formula above we find that you will see it tick 1/3 as fast as your own. It will arrive at the second clock in 1.25 hrs when the second clock reads 01:15. But because of the light travel time lag between you and the second clock, you will not see this until until your clock reads 02:15. This means the you will watch the third clock recede for 2.25 hrs by your clock while seeing it ticking 1/3 as fast and thus if it read 12:00 when it left you, you will see it arriving at the second clock reading 12:45. So in the 1:15 it took to make the trip it only ticked off 45 min. (remember, even though you didn't see the third clock arrive until your clock read 02:15, it had actually arrived an hour earlier.)

 

Now let's do a reverse trip. you see the second clock read 01:15 and the third clock reads 12:45 when your clock reads 02:15, however this image of those two clocks left 1 hr ago, so the third clock left the second clock when your clock read 01:15 (in other words, if the third clock turns around and heads back the moment it reaches the second clock, by the time you see this, the third clock is already well along its trip back to you.). The return trip takes the same 1.25 hrs, which means it arrive back at you when your clock reads 02:30. This means that you will see its entire return trip occur during the 15 min between 02:15 and 02:30. At a accelerated tick rate of 3 you will see the third clock tick off 45 min during that period, and read 01:30 upon arrival, when your clock reads 02:30. So again, it ticked off 45 min during the 1.25 hr trip, the same as for the outbound trip and accumulated at total of 1.5 hrs for your 2.5 hrs.

 

The direction had no effect on the time dilation or total accumulated time difference even though it did have an effect on what you visually saw happening to the clock.

In the example, the ticking rate for the outbound travel is 1/3.

The ticking rate for the return travel is 3.

So mathematically, everything is fine. I understand perfectly, I have no objections.

It means that as observed from point A (the departure point) the traveling clock ticks late when going away and ticks faster when coming back at the exactly reverse rate. Which means, if you replace the clock with a traveler, he will be observed from A as aging slowly when going away, and aging fast when going back, at the exact reverse rate so that everything ends perfectly fine. Symmetry is  maintained. That makes sense, I agree & applause. The maths are correct, Michel has no problem.

Why then do you believe that the returning traveler will have a different age than his twin brother at rest at point A? That's my problem.

17 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It makes perfect sense that both time and distance dilate since they are both dimensions.

Edited for clarity.

Time dilates & length contracts.

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You seriously have been trying to understand special relativity for 20 years, and you still say things like this?

Time. My quest is about time, not relativity.

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Maybe you should give up.  Seriously, at some point you need to realize you're wasting your time.

Maybe.

Maybe you can help & explain me what about time?

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. You have preconceived notions which are wrong, and refuse to abandon them. Instead, you try and fit things into your view, and that invariably fails, because nature doesn’t behave as you think it does, or want it to.

Symmetry prevails.

.

8 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

But it is for yourself to make that conceptual shift, no one else can do this for you - we can only try and help by answering honest questions.

14 hours ago, md65536 said:

I don't think that's true. I don't see a single reply here from michel123456 that relates to trying to understand any of the answers and explanations given. No asking for further details. No working through a solution. Every reply is a justification of not making an effort to learn, an argument of why the explanations can be ignored.

Literally 10 years ago he was asking about the same "problems" he had with relativity. 10 years from now, he'll have a similar list of "problems", after thousands of attempts by people to explain it to him, after 0 attempts to work through it.

What he's good at, is asking questions that makes one think he's interested in learning about relativity. But look at the replies. The only interest is in what doesn't make sense to him. Anything making sense of it is ignored. That's the only answer he's interested in: that it doesn't make sense. All his questions are phrased as if the answer he expects is that it can't make sense, never a question about how the resolution to the problems work out correctly. So I think he's soapboxing, getting much better responses by stating "relativity is nonsense" as a question.

 

 

Edit: To be fair, page 1 of this thread is full of counter examples to what I said, including asking about specific examples and numbers and their explanations. I don't know how we got from that on page 1 to page 2 with:

My search is almost exactly 20 years old. My questions are genuine I can assure you. During this quest I have read numerous books (ranging from popular science like Hawking's "Brief history of Time" to physics course books - of the 80's the only ones at my disposal - and none of Sci-fi). I have realized that the higher the level of the author (Nobel Prize like I. Prigogine) the more awaken about the unanswered questions, and lower the level ( not to mention anyone) less acceptance for questioning. At those ancient times I had no access to Internet. I cannot recall when I joined some physics forum where I naively thought that scientists were discussing the open questions. But I encountered chaos. The Forum suddenly disappeared ( I lost years of posts) and I joined this one that appeared somehow more serious. Since then, not any one question has been answered. Worse, my single question (what is time?) has expanded logarithmically as for each answer more questions arise. Generally I still remain surprised with the facility answers are given when it is obvious (to me) that something goes wrong. Like answers I get at this right moment (concerning lets' say ONE reality, the fact that relativistics effects are "real" and the huge difference between time - accumulating- and length - not accumulating- while at the same time it is argued that "you essentially rotate some portion of the space part into the time part", which says to me that Time & Space are essentially the same. But if you see no contradictions, no problem, no question, that must be me.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

And yes, the effect is real, in that it is not an illusion. Clocks would read different times.

So you are saying that as the returning twin stops, all of a sudden he comes back to his original dimensions (length contraction stops because motion stops) but the accumulated time gap is still there. Is that it?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

So look at a situation where you don’t have a round object. Do railroad tracks get closer together in the distance? No, it’s perspective. We don’t worry that the train will derail.

Let’s say you have a siren, at some frequency. It’s moving. If it’s moving toward you, the frequency is higher. If it’s moving away, it’s lower. You can hear this. The frequency is actually higher or lower, depending on your situation. It’s not an illusion. So the concept of some measurement being relative is not new.

 

In relativity, length contraction comes from the invariance of c. The invariance is the new part. The derivation is pretty straightforward.

In most situations, a moving object that ejects/emits something, you expect the speeds to add linearly. If you can throw an object 20 m/s and are on a platform moving 10 m/s, and throw the object in the direction of travel, it will go 30 m/s

Light doesn’t behave that way, though. One consequence of c being invariant is that time and distance are not. If we “throw” this light from a moving platform and we both agree it moves at c (as we must) the only way for us to agree on measurements is if time and distance depend on our frame of reference

 

There is no force. The measurement depends on the frame of reference. In the object’s own frame, nothing is different. There is no physics one can point to that says one frame is correct and the other is wrong.

 

Surprisingly I am OK with all of that.

Where I am not ok is when someone argues that the measurement is really happening. For example when the twin comes back and is younger than his brother. Is he length contracted too? (If you answer yes you will drive me crazy).

You wrote: "There is no force". What a relief. Of course not, because in reality (what I consider Reality i.e. the FOR of the object itself), in reality nothing happened, no length contraction, no time dilation. Those things cannot happen just because someone is observing you! Yes someone may measure length contraction & time dilation. It may even happen that billion observers in billion different FOR will measure different lengths and times, but there is only one reality. In the FOR of the object, things are rigid & time ticks as usual. And when the twin comes back, he is not length contracted according to his position (upright or sitting) in the spacecraft. It is insane to believe such a thing.

There is an awfull mess between what one measures & what reality is made of. This is not philosophy, this is about the interpretation of Relativity.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is the core issue that you haven’t grasped in all this - relativistic effects are relationships between frames/observers in spacetime, not things that happen “to” or “in” a single frame. So there is no force contracting anything, and nothing slowing down any clocks

I agree, but that is NOT what I read about Relativity. Usually it is explained that the effects of relativity are real. Taking Swansont example, in Relativity  it is like the parallel train tracks do join together at the horizon. The twin that comes back younger is like a train derailing at the horizon: it is the same flawed concept.

28 minutes ago, Eise said:

 

That is just logically wrong. Should I suppose that everything I do not understand is wrong, and therefore I should not accept it?

Not everything. But something you are struggling with a sufficient time, yes. The same questions arise all the time, the same answers, no satisfaction.

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Again, what you see and what you measure are not the same thing. Perspective is something you would account for if you were measuring the size of an object. If you look through a telescope and measure the angular size, you would need to know how far away it is. Nobody looks at the moon and insists that it is, in actuality, a few cm in diameter, or that the moon and the sun are physically the same size.

And all understand that the moon is round, because isotropy is conserved. The moon does not change shape because it is observed through angular size. In Relativity, length contraction is supposed provoking a change of shape. I don't know where it comes from.

What is the physical force involved that provokes  this change of shape? since it is firmly believed that length contraction do happen.

49 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, it is your stubbornness.

Sure, I am stubborn. What I don't understand I say "I don't understand". The fact that I don't accept it is a simple consequence: i will never say "drop it Michel, others understand it in your place so you must accept it". No I prefer being stubborn. And being ridicule if necessary, I really don't care.

Thank you all anyway for the polite replies & sorry if you feel wasting your time.

49 minutes ago, Eise said:

So everything should shrink, independent of the direction?

That is what happens when you look around you. Things are observed getting smaller & smaller according to distance and of course things are NOT getting smaller, it is an effect of perspective. This effect is taking place in all directions. You don't observe the objects reducing only radially, or only tangentially. Isotropy is conserved.

Not to say that the laws of optics should be derived from Relativity, since it is a theory that deals with what is being observed.

1 hour ago, md65536 said:

Always I see the same pattern. Brush aside explanations and equations as if you didn't even read them, but always latch on to any idea that justifies a failure to understand relativity as if that's just another equally valid viewpoint. I think Asimov's "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" quote applies. You say your view is "simpler" but it's just a misunderstanding. It makes me think that people who put effort into trying to explain things to you over and over are just wasting their time. You ask questions as if you want to understand, and then reply to answers as if your questions were only meant to demonstrate what you see as "problems with Relativity" and you had no interest in understanding how they're resolved. If you were interested in understanding it, you'd spend more time talking about what relativity says that doesn't make sense to you, and less about how much sense an alternative makes.

Sorry but I am talking about what Relativity doesn't make sense to me:

Second problem is, as i wrote above, the concept of the incoming object chasing its own image. At 0,99c the object has its own image collated to his nose. That sounds bogus; how can he have his own image so close and measure that the same image goes away from him at c? i don't know how you can reconcile the 2 scenarios.

Third problem is length contraction happening only in the direction of movement. I wonder how that can happen, while time dilation has no direction. How are the 2 effects compatible? (it would make more sense if length contraction happened in all directions. More sense if length contraction was a kind of illusion, a kind of perspective effect and not a real thing.

Fourth problem is with multiple realities; how is it possible for all observers to measure different realities (different times & lengths) and that these realities are all existing at the same time: aka you have a rod 1 meter long in your hand but some other observer in a moving car tells you that you are wrong, the rod is 90 centimeters. If someone told you that you would probably answer that you know better, the rod is 1meter long, point. What the other observer is measuring is a distorted image, it is not a 2nd reality.

Fifth problem: I cannot remember right now, my wife just cut the flow.

.......

Ah yes, fifth problem: the twin paradox. The paradox is not about one twin aging more or less than the other. The paradox is that there is a broken symmetry: the traveling twin is aging less than the twin who stays at rest. But since the traveling twin is also in a resting FOR (a different one), who is the traveling twin? twin A or twin B? Which of the 2 twins will age less than the other? It is not logically acceptable that both twins will age less than the other. That is the paradox. And there is something wrong in it.(and not endless conversations about accelerations in order to determine who is the traveler & who is at rest, that is not the problem)

And maybe more. 

OTOH I would accept an explanation that would keep Galilean relativity, the absence of aether and generally some symmetry (as the one that states that the laws of physics are the same for all). But with only one reality, and one preferred observer: the observer that is in the same FOR as the observed object.

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

But theory does keep the spacetime interval invariant, just like lightspeed.

This is because space and time are not independent (as you would have it)

Spacetime embodies the connection between them.

If you have X space and Y space they can be independent, in which case they define a plane.

But if, say,   X² + Y²  =  R² , then they are no longer independent and you no longer have a plan  -- you have a circle.
In this case since X and Y are essentially the same both spatial so they have the same characteristics or properties or effects on matter,  you can draw it in space.

But space and time have some characteristics and effects the same and some different so the condition of dependence is different, leading to different effects on  matter.

But you have NO CLUE about what is space & what is time. It's not you, no one has.

Relativists keep talking about 'the fabric of spacetime" and 'expanding space" and "space being created' while expanding, and at te same time negating any notion of aether. To me, sure there is no aether, and the concept of "expansion" & "space being created" is ultimate bogus. I wonder how people with some intelligence can swallow that. Maybe i lack of intelligence that's the reason why I cannot swallow that. That was the sixth problem, more cosmological, but still related to Relativity.

15 minutes ago, md65536 said:

It's only important if you want to be consistent with what we actually measure of reality.

It's a combination of the definition of speed being relative, and that measured speeds are consistent with that. If you have A moving at 0.8c relative to B, does it make sense that B is moving at a different speed relative to A? If you wanted that, you could define speed differently (eg. define speed to be absolute, and please call it something else), but you would end up with a system of measurements that is either inconsistent with measurement, or more cumbersome than what we have.

I think it's a 3rd option: I think you're determined not to accept relativity and so you're determined not to understand it. I think we could find out with a quiz! Do you think that a) you will accept relativity and understand it together, or b) you will eventually understand it, and then accept it after, or c) if you accept that it's correct first, that will make it easier to understand, or d) you will never accept it and it's more likely that you'll find a flaw in it before anyone convinces you that it's true. Or e) other: ______ ?

i do have some problems with Relativity;

-relativity is based on a principle that says that SOL is measured the same by all observers, no matter their state of motion. To me it does not go well with speed being relative. To me (but that must be me) it would be simplier to state that the phenomena that an observer observes moving at c is called "light". IOW that the observers will call "light' some different thing. As if light was an array of radiation traveling at all possible velocities.

So if I understand correctly, in order for every observer to agree, you have changed everything in such a way that velocity (0.8 c) remains the same. You have changed the distance (if it was a rod it is measured a different length). You have changed the time (the ticking rate, the phase, the delay). You have kept velocity the same. why haven't you changed velocity and kept time & space as they are? Why is it so important to keep velocity the same for all observers?

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can’t state these values without acknowledging the frame in which they are measured. You have to keep that straight. Mixing frames won’t give a correct or consistent answer.

”Clock 2 lies 1 LH away” is true in the rest frame, not the moving frame. IOW, the moving clock doesn’t see a trip of 1 LH, since there is length contraction.

But all clocks (including clock 3) are in a rest frame. If i understand correctly.

3 hours ago, Halc said:

I said no such thing. Either your reading comprehension skills are completely absent or your are deliberately twisting everybody's replies. I suspect the latter.

I said that since the 'traveler' considers himself stationary in his own frame (by definition no less), clock 2 rushes towards him from 36 light minutes away, and this takes 45 minute, which is less than SoL. That makes no statement about what he sees while this is going on.

I assure you I am not deliberately twisting everybody's replies, so I am afraid the other option may be valid.

I don't understand the bold part: clock 2 rushes towards him from 36 light minutes away

Because at departure time, when clock 3 & 1 are together, clock 2 lies 1LH away. So I suppose that clock 3 sees clock 2 rushing at him at tremendous velocity.

9 hours ago, Janus said:

1. No, the 3rd clock traveled 1 light hr in 1hr 15 min as measured by you, it just also ran slow by a factor of 0.6 and thus only accumulated 45 min , as measured by you.   Visually, you saw it take 2 hr and 15 min to reach that 1 light hr distance.

But the traveler "lived" the travel for 45 minutes.

Or, as Halc explains, since he considers himself stationary, he sees clock 2 rushing to him from 1 LH away in 36 minutes (I don't understand why it is less than SOL), and sees clock 1 go away from him & reach 1 LH in ...minutes.

If you transfer it grossly instead of minutes to years, it means that at 0.8 c you don't need 10 years to reach  a star 10LY away. The astronaut will live the experience in ... years (6 years?).

12 hours ago, Halc said:

2: As seen some observer A, the incoming clock is seen to go from a light hour away to 'here' in 15 minutes, yes. That's the difference between its actual speed in that frame and the speed of the light the observer is observing.

The concept of the incoming clock "chasing its own image" is quite disturbing.

22 minutes ago, Janus said:

The Doppler effect does, but the time dilation does not.

The relativistic Doppler shift is due to two compounding effects:

Changing light propagation delay due to changing distance, the effect of which is determined whether the propagation delay is increasing or decreasing.

Time dilation, which only depends on relative speed and is independent of direction.

So with the above example, Doppler shift gives a value of 1/3 on the for the receding leg and 3 for the return leg, but time dilation has a factor of 0.6 for both legs.

So, from your example I can conclude that:

1. the 3rd clock traveled 1 LightHour in 45 minutes, but that was not faster than SOL

2. as seen from A, the same clock popped in 15 minutes from 1 LH away, but that is not considered faster than SOL.

7 minutes ago, Janus said:

Again. Relativistic Doppler effect. (which is what you get by combining both light propagation and time dilation)   If the clock is receding at 0.8 c, you see it ticking 1/3 as fast as your own.  If it is approaching at 0.8 c, you see it running 3 times faster.

So it depends on direction after all.