SRian conflict over velocity addition formula
Mike
You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
velocity
addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
inertial FoR.
PD wrote:
That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.
Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.
Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
Mike
rambu...@yahoo.com
Imbecile,
The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
transforms.
Mike
Your statement above shows that you are the imbecile moron.
Mike
PD
I'm glad you enjoy your time here. I stand by what I said.
PD
Mike
You cannot even convict a serial killer with just "compelling
evidence". His lawyers will tell the judges to take th e"compelling
evidence" and stick it where it belongs.
Learn that physics requires evidence "beyond doubt", that is
varification.
Mike
>
> Mike
Mike
You cannot even convict a serial killer with just "compelling
evidence". His lawyers will tell the judges to take th e"compelling
evidence" and stick it where it belongs.
Learn that physics requires evidence "beyond doubt", that is
varification.
Mike
>
> PD
PD
As in, "I must be convinced for it to be good physics," eh Mike?
Sorry, but no. Science makes no guarantee that it is so compelling that
even doubters have to cave in. There will *always* be those who exert
their natural *choice* in what they will believe, and what criteria the
evidence must satisfy.
For example, there are those that say that experimental evidence is
*not* sufficient support for a theory, and that a necessary requirement
for a theory is that it make intuitive sense. Scientists, however, have
come to a common agreement that it is experimental evidence that is the
arbiter and not intuitive sense, and in fact in some areas intuitive
sense is so severely taxed that the cause is essentially abandoned --
quantum entanglement, for instance.
You may not like that common agreement, but that's the scientific
method, and it is what it is.
PD
Sorcerer
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1158419220.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158419399.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hahahaha!
What Phuckwit Duck said:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
The Ghost In The Machine
<rambu...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
<1158417693.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
O A-> B->
We want to compute v_OB = u.
As usual Lorentz stipulates:
x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x_B = (x_A - w*t_A) / sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
t_B = (t_A - w*x_A/c^2) / sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
Obviously, we can substitute:
x_B = ( (x_O - v*t_O)/sqrt(1-v^2) - w*(t_O - v*x_O/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) )/sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
= ( (x_O - v*t_O) - w*(t_O - v*x_O/c^2) ) / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2))
= ( (1 + vw/c^2)*(x_O) - (v + w)*t_O)/ (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2))
= (x_O - ( (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)) *t_O) / (( sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2) )/(1+vw/c^2))
That denominator looks a bit messy.
D = ( sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2) ) / (1+vw/c^2)
Let's take a wild guess. Recall that (a-b)*(a+b) = a^2-b^2, so:
D' = sqrt(1 - ((v+w)/(1+vw/c^2))^2/c^2)
= sqrt(1 - ((v/c+w/c)/(1+vw/c^2)))*sqrt(1 + ((v/c+w/c)/(1+vw/c^2)))
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1+vw/c^2) - (v/c+w/c) ) * sqrt( (1+vw/c^2) + (v/c+w/c) )
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1-v/c) * (1-w/c) ) * sqrt( (1+v/c) * (1 + w/c) )
Since 0<v/c<1 and 0<w/c<1, it's perfectly safe to shuffle, and
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1-v/c) * (1+v/c) ) * sqrt( (1-w/c) * (1 + w/c) )
= D
The substitution for t_B is similar and left as an exercise.
Ergo, u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) is the SR relativistic addition formula.
Of course, this isn't proof of SR in general. There *is* no proof of
SR in general, although there's fairly convincing evidence from a
number of experiments.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:ZoWOg.4633$wg....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Imbecile.
Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:KaXOg.79848$AP7.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Hahahaha! Fucking local village dog tord, I know more about the cuckoo
misformations than you ever will!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:22:01 GMT
<ZoWOg.4633$wg....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Correct.
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:KaXOg.79848$AP7.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
Half of 16+4 is 16, the other half is 4.
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
<KaXOg.79848$AP7.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
"Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
Of course, it's not the Lorentz. :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:f5vtt3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Hush now ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
Dork said "please" don't tell me! hahaha!
Trains have zero length in SR then?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
If that psychopathic animal isn't dumber than a sloth I wouldn't
know what was.
(16+4)/2 = 16, the other half is 4.
The cuckoo misformations are LINEAR, I tell you!
ROFLMAO!
Androcles
Sorcerer
You already did. I'm doing nothing wrong here :-)
PUH-LEEZE do not explain it to Dork!
ROFL!
Androcles.
Mike
Mike wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm...
PD wrote:
That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm...
Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158444292.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
This is getting a bit ridiculous, don't you think? Nervous again?
You know what kind of errors you make when you are all
excited, don't you?
Want a list?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz, it is not the Einstein.
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Lorentz, it is the Einstein.
x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
Because the Einstein is
x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
Hush!!
The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does not.
ROFL!
Androcles
Sorcerer
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fumble.htm
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
<jNZOg.4716$wg....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
FTL trains in SR have imaginary length. Of course FTL trains,
or even trains going faster than a few thousand miles an hour,
are imaginary anyway.
> If that psychopathic animal isn't dumber than a sloth I wouldn't
> know what was.
>
> (16+4)/2 = 16, the other half is 4.
> The cuckoo misformations are LINEAR, I tell you!
> ROFLMAO!
> Androcles
>
>
>
>
Sorcerer
My train is 0.6c, far from FTL.
The minimum speed for FTL is 0.886c, where gamma = 2
and the time needed to travel 100 LY is 100 years.
Speeds above 0.866 are FTL. If you travel AT speed c,
then your clock stops and your speed is infinite (if you are a fuckwit).
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:03:58 GMT
<yp%Og.5271$wg....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Erm, the Lorentz requires *both* formulae. It is a transformation
from one coordinate system to another.
>
> x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
> t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
Actually,
x' = (xi+vtau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (tau+vxi/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
if I read Einstein's paper correctly.
>
> Because the Einstein is
> x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
> Hush!!
> The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does not.
Well of course I know. I can read. :-P
> ROFL!
> Androcles
Mike
Did you read that in a philosophy book Dirt van der Plato?
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
<S_0Pg.2779$2Q4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Actually, pseudo-lightspeed is 0.7071c. That's the speed, in SR,
at which the subjective time to destination equals the objective
time for light to reach that destination.
(In other words, the traveling twin for some reason will think he's
traveling at light speed.)
Sorcerer
Erm, Lorentz didn't write tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), Einstein did.
| It is a transformation
| from one coordinate system to another.
Erm, time is not a coordinate. It doesn't stay fixed.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
The cuckoo misformations are H G Wells' fiction, not Einstein's.
Wells wasn't being serious, though.
|
| >
| > x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
| > t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
|
| Actually,
|
| x' = (xi+vtau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t' = (tau+vxi/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| if I read Einstein's paper correctly.
|
So as I said,
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
And as Tusselad has caught on,
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
so if
t' = tau * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then
t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^2
= t (1-v^2/c2)
= t - tv^2/c^2
but since the velocity of light in OUR theory plays the part of an
infinitely great velocity, t plays the part of t'.
| >
| > Because the Einstein is
| > x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
| > Hush!!
| > The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does
not.
|
| Well of course I know. I can read. :-P
Yes, but Dork cannot and math is not exactly Dork's forte.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fumble.htm
Division: dstupid/dm = V
Multiplication: dstupid = Vdm + infinity
Did you know he had a disagreement with a manager and got himself fired? Of
course Dork wants us to believe it was the manager's fault and he quit, but
if he was working for me I'd fire the animal in the lifespan of a muon.
Androcles, inventor of the integration constant.
Sorcerer
Only if c = 1.
It is really 0/0, which is kinda like 1, but then it plays the part
of William Wallace in "Braveheart", while Mel Gibson plays
the part of an infinitely great velocity in H.G. Wells's
"The Time Machine". Erm.... "Actually".. that was the word
I was looking for. Or do you think if I said "In fact"
it would be more convincing? How about "It is clear"?
That's a good one.
penguinista
...
> The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
> transforms.
>
different reference frames may be added to produce a result meaningful
for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common reference frame.
Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial frame.
Koobee Wublee
> To elaborate, before velocities (or any other quantities) measured from
> different reference frames may be added to produce a result meaningful
> for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common reference frame.
This is nonsense. There is no inertial frame of reference. It is a
term invented to hide the inadequacy of Lorentz Transform. After
pooh-pooh-ing the absolute reference frame, the SRists realized things
are actually best to explain in terms of these absolute terms. Thus,
they have cleverly invented new terms each to function exactly like the
physics pre-Lorentz Transform.
** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
clearly related back to the absolute reference frame
** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
fabric, liquid, etc.
** Proper time = Absolute reference time
And there are more.
> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial frame.
Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically salvage
the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
rambu...@yahoo.com
Koobee Wublee wrote:
<snipped>
Wacko, wacko
harry
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158565087.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> penguinista wrote:
>
>> To elaborate, before velocities (or any other quantities) measured from
>> different reference frames may be added to produce a result meaningful
>> for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common reference
>> frame.
>
> This is nonsense. There is no inertial frame of reference. It is a
> term invented to hide the inadequacy of Lorentz Transform. After
> pooh-pooh-ing the absolute reference frame, the SRists realized things
> are actually best to explain in terms of these absolute terms. Thus,
> they have cleverly invented new terms each to function exactly like the
> physics pre-Lorentz Transform.
To put it in more diplomatic words: although technically correct, we are
facing a propaganda issue.
> ** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
> clearly related back to the absolute reference frame
>
> ** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
> manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
> fabric, liquid, etc.
>
> ** Proper time = Absolute reference time
Ehm... IMHO you are confused about Proper time. IMO, Proper time = *Local
time*.
And spacetime (more precisely, space-time) is a mathematical construct
combining three spacial dimensions with one time dimension, and thus it's
rightly said not to be not identical to anything fabric or liquid.
> And there are more.
>
>> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
>> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial
>> frame.
>
> Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically salvage
> the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
> ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
>
> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
Einstein alike. Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
popular modern interpretations of it.
Harald
Sorcerer
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:115865...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
IDIOT LIAR.
| Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| popular modern interpretations of it.
SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
Morons like you drool at the mouth with your religious belief
in it, mathematicians spit on it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
harry
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
[oops there was one "not" too many - removed]
> | > And there are more.
> | >
> | >> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin,
> note
> | >> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial
> | >> frame.
> | >
> | > Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically
> salvage
> | > the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
> | > ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
> | >
> | >
> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
> |
> | Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
> | Einstein alike.
>
>
> IDIOT LIAR.
- It was taught by Einstein: I have his book that teaches it and also states
that it teaches it.
- It was taught by Lorentz: have his book that teaches it and also states
that it teaches it.
Thus it's true.
Now who is a idiot?
> | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
> | popular modern interpretations of it.
>
>
> SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
Popular interpretations. Read again...
Harald
Sorcerer
I'm referring to * "SR" is not an interpretation *.
IDIOT LIAR!
|
| > | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| > | popular modern interpretations of it.
| >
| >
| > SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
|
| Popular interpretations. Read again...
See what I mean..
*"SR" is not an interpretation* + *Popular interpretations.* = Fuckhead.
harry
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
> | > |
> | > | Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
> | > | Einstein alike.
> | >
> | >
> | > IDIOT LIAR.
> |
> | - It was taught by Einstein: I have his book that teaches it and also
> | states that it teaches it.
> | - It was taught by Lorentz: have his book that teaches it and also
> states
> | that it teaches it.
> |
> | Thus it's true.
> | Now who is a idiot?
>
> I'm referring to * "SR" is not an interpretation *.
> IDIOT LIAR!
So do I - or are you so idiot to think that they had the same
interpretation?
> |
> | > | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
> | > | popular modern interpretations of it.
> | >
> | >
> | > SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
> |
> | Popular interpretations. Read again...
>
> See what I mean..
> *"SR" is not an interpretation* + *Popular interpretations.* = Fuckhead.
So you didn't read it again... *Popular interpretations of SRT* + *SRT is an
interpretation* = Messed up brain
Sorcerer
Fuckheads think trains move by peristalsis.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm