Absolute Velocity - Meaningful but Useless

Rosnet

07-23-05, 05:14 AM

Aer

07-23-05, 07:37 AM

Rosnet

07-23-05, 08:57 AM

mathman

07-23-05, 04:49 PM

geistkiesel

07-23-05, 10:05 PM

Take another look. I didn't say that it was a non-inertial frame. I've specifically mentioned that this frame is purely circumstantial, and that it doesn't possess any special properties. This is not ruled out by special relativity. I've said that it is not possible to detect it, unless you bring every particle in the universe to a state of relative rest. That is what special relativity says too (its first postulate).

Rosnet, :cool:

If the first postulate extends to the entirety of the universe as you suggest, you are going to have one hell of a time arriving at any physical justification for supporting the claims .
I will provide you with three four, five systems cpaable detecting absolte speed, zero velocity poingts what ever. Take a look at what I define as "linear Sagnac systems", and you will begin to get a clue to the gross errors of SRT and the shortsightedness of the limiting imposition on physical law.

Your description of an absolute zero reference frame is grossly misplaced. One only needs to provide a series of points in space that do not move. This simply means that the point defined by some physical activity,these points in space that are physically invariant would be extremely helpful. All velocities, including the speed of light could then be measured from an absolute zero velocity point, or set of points, or in SRT terms as frames of reference that were not only uniform in "motion" but perfectly uniform, to wit, at perfect rest.

Take two expanding photon spheres in space. A straight line connecting the emission points of the spheres would also have a natural and invariant midpoint btween the shortest distance between the closests points on the spheres. The points on the spheres would be closing on each other, yet from the postulates of light that assures us that the speed of light is constant, that light moves in a straight line and is independent of the motion of the source of the light we are provided with a plethora, an infinite number of invariant points.

Astronomical measurememts would be greatly enhanced beyond our wildest imaginations. Adiosw dogma, though, would provide some very sad muic to many who refuse to even consider the possibilities.

Lest there be some ambiguity stirring in some minds the invariance of which I speak means simply: The midpoints do not move in space despite the infinite number of stellar masses moving in virtually all directions in space. These motions then are measurable in speed and distance from an infinite number of invarinat points. Lest we not confine ourselves to the natural invarinat midpoints, artificial, manmade zero velocity points can be produced with trivial ease.

Simply emit two photons (or more, or less) and reflect the emitted light back to the emission point. The outward motion say moving a distance ct is reflected 180 degrees and when moving an additional ct the light returns to the emission point, with zero drift. The point is easily maintained by the continuous motion of the emitted light.

Of course some physical interruption of the moving light is always possible, but when considered in the short term, short distances with rapid repetition of emitted photons, the invariant points are generated at will wityh trivial functrional losses. All motion then is measurable wrt velocity = zero.

Even when the moving light is interrupted, the invariant poiunt is still existent, it is just harder to maintain information of the location of that point. Theoretically, the invariant attributes of the points are impossible to disturb.

If one cannot see a navigation benefit here, as a a minimum of functionality, then one should seriously considered extending the theoretically imposed limitation on modeling physical dynamics in the motion of light and matter.

The statements in this thread and others attempting to link the "universe" to some abvsolute frame of reference is of no value as a matter of expanding awarness of physical law or for the advances in sophisticated technology.
Geistkiesel :cool:

Aer

07-23-05, 10:25 PM

This is not ruled out by special relativity Explain please.

Aer

07-23-05, 10:26 PM

The reference frame that Rosnet discusses actually exists and is detectable - specifically the microwave background. The earth's motion against this background is detectable by doppler shift as a function of direction. I've heard this in passing but have never actually read the report/findings. Can you link to any?

mathman

07-24-05, 04:21 PM

I got these from google. With a little exploration, you'll get more.

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html
(comment in the middle of the article)

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Pete

07-24-05, 06:33 PM

The first postulate of special relativity says that we cannot detect whether we're moving or not without looking outside our frame of reference.
I don't think so.
THe first postulate says:
The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames in which the laws of mechanics hold good.
Every physical theory should look the same mathematically to every inertial observer.
The laws of physics are independent of location space or time.

I don't think it's the same thing.

Pete

07-24-05, 06:40 PM

I've heard this in passing but have never actually read the report/findings. Can you link to any?
CMBR dipole, Astronomy Picture of the day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050508.html)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0302/dip_cobe_big.jpg

This image shows how the background radiation (averaged over a year) is blueshifted in the direction of the constellation Centaurus, indicating that the Solar System is heading in that direction at 600km/s, relative to the "CMBR neutral frame" (a term I just made up).

Aer

07-24-05, 08:39 PM

CMBR dipole, Astronomy Picture of the day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050508.html)

This image shows how the background radiation (averaged over a year) is blueshifted in the direction of the constellation Centaurus, indicating that the Solar System is heading in that direction at 600km/s, relative to the "CMBR neutral frame" (a term I just made up). Thanks - I'll have a look.

superluminal

07-24-05, 10:33 PM

The latest issue of Scientific American has an excellent article on the power modes (dipole, quadrupole, ...) of the CBR (and some interesting anomalies), if you're interested. Very informative.

Rosnet

07-25-05, 01:55 AM

Rosnet

07-25-05, 02:14 AM

Pete, please take a look at the 'Relativity for Sciguy' post. I've explained what is meant by the first postulate there. You'll se that we're in perfect agreement.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47363

MacM

07-25-05, 02:29 AM

Here is a definition of absolute velocity that would be meaningful. But also useless. Suppose that, before the Big Bang, or whatever theory you believe in, everything in th universe was at rest, in a particular frame of reference. This frame may be called the absolute frame of reference. MacM, is this what you've been trying to tell us?

No it isn't. But then neither is the concept of absolutes useless. One day soon you may realize that GPS only functions because it relies upon absolute (relative) velocities and not relative velocity as applied in SRT.

Since James R likes to knit-pick and has said that is a contridiction in terms, let me make clear what an absolute relative velocity is vs relative velocity.

In SRT relative velocity is assumed because you have no other frames of referance and an observer cannot detect or sense his own inertial motion.

Therefore the assumption is that A sees himself at rest and B having all motion, hence all relavistic affects apply to B. Likewise SRT advocates "Reciprocity" where B can equally claim to be at rest and claim that it is A that has all motion and hence all relavistic affects apply to A.

That creates the "A" clock running slower than B and at the same time the B clock running slower than A paradox (actually physically impossibility).

The meaning of absolute relative velocity is that a third observer can see that both A and B have component velocities which comprise their total relative velocity.

They are absolute in the sense that you cannot reverse their status claiming which one has the greatest motion and hence only one will display an affect of relavistic velocity. This is in complete accord with observation and ALL data to date whereas SRT is not.

Absolute in this context is not a universal absolute. It is a comparative absolute to some third frame.

From this perspective it can be seen that to avoid the impossible and unsupported view of reciprocity that we must rely on a common rest frame between moving components.

That is at some unkown point in history two objects may have been at relative rest and have become accelerated so as to have some collective relative velocity.

Not knowing that history one cannot use relative velocity to predict which clock will be dilated, because it is fact that only one can and will be dilated not both.

The assertion by SRT that both are equally dilated would mean we could never record time dilation. The fact that we have proves the failure of that concept.

If two objects initially at rest become accelerated in opposite directions to a collective relative velocity of 0.866c, the affect between such clocks very much depends upon the magnitude that each accelerated from that common point of rest.

i.e. - Equal and opposite: Each would have (using Velocity Addition Formula) a relative velocity of 0.577c with respect to their common rest origin and the fact is neither would display any accumulated time differential or time dilation between them inspite of their relative velocity.

If one did not accelerate, the one that did, would have all absolute relative motion and would tick at only 50% the rate of the one that remained at rest and that fact is not and would not be reversable upon comparison of clocks as predicted by SRT.

Hope this clarifies the issue of absolute. It does not yield some universal absolute value but prohibits reciprocity and varies the amount of time dilation expected due to accumulative relative velocity.

All tests to date (except GPS) have been of the one clock accelerates and hence gamma is verified but reciprocity is falsified by such data.

GPS uses absolute velocity of orbit relative to the common rest frame, the center of the earth (ECI). All GPS calculations are to some third common rest frame.

Rosnet

07-25-05, 02:51 AM

One day soon you may realize that GPS only functions because it relies upon absolute (relative) velocities and not relative velocity as applied in SRT.

GPS uses absolute velocity of orbit relative to the common rest frame, the center of the earth (ECI). All GPS calculations are to some third common rest frame.

Ha ha! That's funny. Since when did 'Absolute velocity' become velocity with respect to something else? In GPS, the earth is not an absolute frame. It is a prefered frame.

MacM

07-25-05, 02:57 AM

Ha ha! That's funny. Since when did 'Absolute velocity' become velocity with respect to something else? In GPS, the earth is not an absolute frame. It is a prefered frame.

Ha Ha indeed and do you contest that the orbit velocity is absolute in respect to the ECI? I think not. Now laugh out the other side.

Further more you have not commented on the fact that GPS relies on a third common frame of rest.

PS: I have many times referred to the ECI as a preferred frame myself. Don't be impertnent. That does not alter the fact that the orbit velocity is absolute in referance to it.

It is that absoluteness that prohibits the SRT view that the earth surface clock has all motion and that the orbiting clock is at rest such that the earth surface clock should run slow (due to velocity) rather than the other way around.

GPS shows that absolute relative motion is the correct view and not the over-simplified SRT view of just relative velocity.

Reciprocity does not exist. Otherwise GPS could not synchronize clocks. SRT is false. Simple really.

Rosnet

07-25-05, 03:04 AM

Look, how can anything be absolute w.r.t anything else. 'Absolute' means absolute, not w.r.t any damn frame or point. Either you've got the word wrong, or you've got the idea wrong.

MacM

07-25-05, 03:08 AM

Look, how can anything be absolute w.r.t anything else. 'Absolute' means absolute, not w.r.t any damn frame or point. Either you've got the word wrong, or you've got the idea wrong.

Sorry your ability of reasoning seems so limited. Is the velocity of orbit of a GPS satellite absolute relative to the earth's center or not?

Is it not more appropriate to differentiate that fact than to simply say relative velocity as is done in SRT where such velocity inherently then includes the false and impossible fact of reciprocity claimed and advocated by SRT?

Yes "Absolute Relative Velocity" is a MacM term but it is long overdue that you and others start to understand the fact that relative velocity in of itself tells you nothing about relatvistic affects unless taken to a third common point of rest. A preferred frame. That preferred frame has no absolute characteristics universally but that is of no consequence or concern.

Rosnet

07-25-05, 03:13 AM

James R

07-25-05, 03:15 AM

The ECI is not an absolute frame.

MacM

07-25-05, 03:18 AM

The ECI is not an absolute frame.

Funny. Never said it was. I said it is a preferred common frame of rest and that the orbit velocity is absolute relative to it.

MacM

07-25-05, 03:21 AM

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'absolute'. If you mean that it does not change when observed from earth, I thnk that's called 'uniform'. No, I don't think I can understand your usage. Please clarify.

You over complicate matters. Orbit velocity is absolute relative to the center of the earth. Standing on the surface or orbiting at another altitude does not alter the velocity relative to this point.

This is to distinguish orbit velocity from simple relative velocity between clocks where SRT mandates reciprocity (which does not exist and is the down fall of SRT).

Rosnet

07-25-05, 04:28 AM

Okay, what was the original problem?

Rosnet

07-25-05, 05:08 AM

That is at some unkown point in history two objects may have been at relative rest and have become accelerated so as to have some collective relative velocity.

Not knowing that history one cannot use relative velocity to predict which clock will be dilated, because it is fact that only one can and will be dilated not both.

Yes, I can follow from your other posts that this is what you've been saying all along. About time dilation not being reciprocal. Let's take an experiment similar to yours. Initially, A and B are standing on earth. Then, B accelerates, obtains a uniform velocity, then deccelerates and stops. Then they compare their times and see that B's clock is behind A's clock. You agree to this. And you use this to argue that since only B's clock actually dilated, only B was actually moving. Consider the same scenario, except that instead of B deccelerating and stopping, A accelerates to B's velocity, so that he is now at rest with respect to B. Now, compare clocks. You'll see that A's clock is behind that of B. This is relativity.

Look at it from B's point of view. He will see that A was travelling at a uniform velocity, initially, and hence, A's clock running slowly. Then, he'll see A deccelerating and, finally, stopping.

From the point of view of someone else standing on earth, A's clock and B's clock will now have same rates. I hope you agree to this. According to you, B should've seen A's clock as running faster than his own clock, refuting reciprocity. Then, what, you think, happens when, according to B, A starts deccelerating. Does his clock become slower as his speed decreases (in B's frame)? According to what theory? Or does B observe A's clock as running at the same rate, or even faster? which means that B would see A's clock as running faster than his own clock, even though they're at rest with respect to each other?

I wrote this in haste, and have not revised it. So you may not have understood what I said. Reread it.

Aer

07-25-05, 11:11 AM

geistkiesel

07-25-05, 05:24 PM

Geistkiesel, don't you see that the points which you say are 'physically invariant', are still relative. They're the midpoint of two other points in every refernce frame. Allright. But that only means that they're invariant with respect to these two points. With respect to any other point, they'd have changed (due to length contraction). According to your argument, every point in the universe is the midpoint of pairs of other points. Then this means that every point is invariant, which they're not, according to observation.

Rosnet, You either misread the posty you are discussing or are inadvertently misquoting the post.

The point I am discussing is the point of emission of the photons distinguished from the midpoint of the uniformly moving photons.

The uniformity of the photon motions means their midpoint can be detected. Your post above appears to refer to the physical midpoint of the left and right clock and reflectors on the moving rame.

Rosnet, the instant the photons are emitted in the moving frame the physical midpoint moves away from the invarinat and constant mid point of the photons. Do you understand the distinguishing features of the invariant point of emission and the variant physical midpoint?
Geistkiesel. :cool:

MacM

07-25-05, 06:20 PM

Yes, I can follow from your other posts that this is what you've been saying all along. About time dilation not being reciprocal. Let's take an experiment similar to yours. Initially, A and B are standing on earth. Then, B accelerates, obtains a uniform velocity, then deccelerates and stops. Then they compare their times and see that B's clock is behind A's clock. You agree to this. And you use this to argue that since only B's clock actually dilated, only B was actually moving.

Not entirely correct or complete. If B were the only one to accelerate from their common point of rest then yes only B will be dilated relative to A but both can accelerate and the magnitude of actual accumulated time differential (time dilation) will be that the one which achieved the greatest relative velocity from the common rest origin will be the slower clock. The magnitude of such dilation will not be based on the relative velocity between the clocks if both accelerate but only if one remains at rest.

The magnitude of such accumulated time differential will be a ratio of each clocks absolute velocity relative to the common origin of rest. This is verified by current technology (GPS) and is not mere speculation. SRT's claim otherwise is based on rhetoric of a faulty thought process 100 years ago and has never been supported physically.

The magnitude of the time dilation is not a matter of relative velocity generated between the clocks but the differential in comparative absolute velocity from the acceleration away from the common origin point of rest.

That is to say it matters not if the absolute velocity of each from such common point of rest is co-moving or in opposite vectors such that it covers the entire spectrum of "Relative Velocities" from "0" to 2 * their absoute velocity from such initial common inertial rest point.

Consider the same scenario, except that instead of B deccelerating and stopping, A accelerates to B's velocity, so that he is now at rest with respect to B. Now, compare clocks. You'll see that A's clock is behind that of B. This is relativity.

I don't challenge your result but I challenge your conclusion. If B accelerates to some velocity and then A subsequently accelerates to catch B and decelerate, it has had to apply greater acceleration and hence is dilated due to GR not SR.

If A merely accelerates to B's velocity and coasts as B did then they are seperated by some distance due to the delayed acceleration of A but their tick rates will be the same, even though you have a simultaneity issue with respect to information about accumulated time of each clock. Their accumulated time may differ due to the delay and tick rate differential before A accelerated. That dilation is static or a fixed offset and is not a matter of a different tick rate once they have the same inertial velocity.

Also it doesn't matter if A catches B or acclelerates in the opposite direction, the results are the same. Except the simultaneity shift will increase with time if it accelerated in the opposite direction. I very well know this is not what relativists and supporters of SRT claim but I also know that this is what emperical data supports.

Look at it from B's point of view. He will see that A was travelling at a uniform velocity, initially, and hence, A's clock running slowly. Then, he'll see A deccelerating and, finally, stopping.

Here is where you go wrong. You are following the rhetoric of SRT but you are not following the emperical data. What B see's is irrelevant. The clocks are not ticking as a function of a remote observers view. They have one and ony one proper tick rate which is based on what I have labled "Absolute Relative Velocity" and that means actual accumulated time dilation will only appear in one clock and it will be the clock with the greatest absolute velocity from the two clocks initial rest frame.

From the point of view of someone else standing on earth, A's clock and B's clock will now have same rates. I hope you agree to this. According to you, B should've seen A's clock as running faster than his own clock, refuting reciprocity. Then, what, you think, happens when, according to B, A starts deccelerating. Does his clock become slower as his speed decreases (in B's frame)?

The clock tick rates are ONLY a function of acceleration (universal energy level change) and the ultimate absolute velocity change from some point of inertial (rest).

According to what theory?

According to all current emperical data when properly considered in absence of unsupported SRT rhetoric.

Or does B observe A's clock as running at the same rate, or even faster? which means that B would see A's clock as running faster than his own clock, even though they're at rest with respect to each other?

When in the same inertial frame they will always tick at the same rate regardless of past history. When one has an actual greater velocity relative to the original common rest frame then it will tick slower and must therefore view the other as ticking faster, not slower as assumed by SRT.

I've highlited because the reciprocity issue is merely an ill thought out assumption made in SRT unsupported by any data or observation.

I wrote this in haste, and have not revised it. So you may not have understood what I said. Reread it.

I believe I have interpreted your post correctly. If my answers appear otherwise then please advise.

geistkiesel

07-25-05, 06:36 PM

Yes, I can follow from your other posts that this is what you've been saying all along. About time dilation not being reciprocal. Let's take an experiment similar to yours. Initially, A and B are standing on earth. Then, B accelerates, obtains a uniform velocity, then deccelerates and stops. Then they compare their times and see that B's clock is behind A's clock. You agree to this. And you use this to argue that since only B's clock actually dilated, only B was actually moving.
No you are deliberately confusing the issues. MacM has always and consistenly asserted that when A and B are approaching each other, where A and B each have identical motion histories, where A and B observers each assume their own clocks are moving faster than the other, that this "faster than the other" condition can never be experimentally proved. Do you understand what I just wrote? Both clocks can never instantaneously have clocks moving slower than the other, or faster than the other.

Consider the same scenario, except that instead of B deccelerating and stopping, A accelerates to B's velocity, so that he is now at rest with respect to B. Now, compare clocks. You'll see that A's clock is behind that of B. This is relativity.
Wait a minute here. You say B accelerates to an elevated speed, begins to coast, then A accelerates to that same speed and A begins to coast.

You are sayng that B, having accelerated, now moving uniformly has a clock moving slower than the A clock. Now A accelerates until achieving the B uniform speed and you say when A reaches the B speed that the A clcok is moving slower than the B clock. You are either very, very confused, or you are deliberately revising the conditions of the hypothetical situation to confuse those reading and following along in this thread. The total time of elevated motion of the B frame [wrt the A frame], means that the B frame clock is running slower than the A frame clock.

Look at it from B's point of view. He will see that A was travelling at a uniform velocity, initially, and hence, A's clock running slowly.
B does not see that A was travelling at a uniform velocity initially. If B has been monitoring the A B motion throughout then B sees tyhat initially A and B were moving at the same velocity wrt each other, that is zero relative speed. The clocks here are synchronized as to actual time and clock rate. Now B accelerates until reaching some elevated velocity wrt the A frame and B determines his clock is moving slower than the A clock with a dilated "current time" indicated. Now when A accelerates and reaches the B speed he simply cuts acceleration power. Certainly the A clock is now running slower than before it accelerated, but the A frame has less accumulated time moving at the same elevated speed as the B frame. So the A frame clock is running faster than the B clock.

Then, he'll [B will] see A deccelerating and, finally, stopping.
No A does not decelerate accordng to your scenario. A merely reaches the B velocity and cuts power, now the two frames are at rest wrt each other. However, B has more accumulated time on his clock running a the now elevated speeds of both frames. I mean elevated speed wrt the relative motion of A and B before B initially accelerated away from A.

From the point of view of someone else standing on earth, A's clock and B's clock will now have same rates. I hope you agree to this.
No agreement. The B clock according to your changing the conditions will be moving slower than the A clock as measured from the B frame and the earth frame and the A frame. This is so for the simple reason that the B clock has been running at the new elevated velocity longer than the A clock. Did you deliberately obfuscate the conditions for some reason?

According to you, B should've seen A's clock as running faster than his own clock, refuting reciprocity. No. MacM will say the A clock is running fasterm but he will nt claim that this fact refutes recioprocity. This is not what MacM has been saying either. It is apparent that the technique you and James R are using here is a manifestly conscious distortion of the hypothetical conditions that you use in the most blatant manner of misstating the facts and theory.

Then, what, you think, happens when, according to B, A starts deccelerating. Does his clock become slower as his speed decreases (in B's frame)?
No. Look at your revised conditions and please stop negating the past histories of both frames and assuming that each moment one or the other makes a measuremnt that the two frames do not have an absolute motion history of acceleration and decceleration and total accumulated times on each clock at each level of their absolute motion.
According to what theory? Or does B observe A's clock as running at the same rate, or even faster? which means that B would see A's clock as running faster than his own clock, even though they're at rest with respect to each other?
At the current relative motion of A wrt B being zero, the A clock is running faster than the B clock for the simple reason that the A clcok has not accumulated the same absolute time running at the elevated speeds that both frames are now moving with. This elevated speed condition can be verified from an isolated earth frame, or from acceleration histories of both the A and B frames.

Again, is this an ingtrinsic attribute of SRT? meaning that the A and B frames can conjur up any acceleration and relative motion history arbitrarily for the mere reason that confusing reality and history is necessary to maintain some postured profile where the SRT theorist is justified in introducing false, erroneous and non-existent data for whatever purpose suits that theorist?

I wrote this in haste, and have not revised it. So you may not have understood what I said. Reread it.

Rosnet, I see the problem that you have in this thread. Your manifest purpose here is to manufacture conditions and theory for per some prescribed immoral agenda.
Geistkiesel

MacM

07-25-05, 06:42 PM

You'll see that by applying Special Relativity. MacM's explaination is lacking any thoroughness which is why his ideas seem stupid. However, according to MacM's 3 reference frame setup, only 1 of the reference frames is considered at rest. In special relativity, the frame at rest changes, but in MacM's physics, the reference frame stays the same and can only be valid if "local ethers" exist. There is a difference... trust me. However, I'll note that it may be possible to disprove "local ethers" but I've not come across that disproof.

Just a couple of notes.

1 - My view is not specifically based on a local ether or any ether, although I suspect there must be something tangiable to space, even though undetected to date and perhaps undetectable. It simply doesn't set well to claim "Nothing" can be contracted and/or curved. Even Einstein stated that for their to be propagation of light there must be an ether.

************************************************** **
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden

******************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech ********************************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

[color=blue][b]********************************************
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
************************************************** ****

2 - While I may be a bit to casual for the more formal members here, my general assertion for a third point of referance is actually more stringent. That is while it is an improvement in the prediction by using a third observer (FOR), I believe there is only one valid third FOR.

That is the common initial inertial (rest) FOR of both clocks.

Aer

07-25-05, 06:49 PM

Just a couple of notes.

1 - My view is not specifically based on a local ether or any ether, although I suspect there must be something tangiable to space, even though undetected to date and perhaps undetectable. It simply doesn't set well to claim "Nothing" can be contracted and/or curved. Even Einstein stated that for their to be propagation there must be an ether.

2 - While I may be a bit to casual for the more formal members here, my general assertion for a third point of referance is actually more stringent. That is while it is an improvement in the prediction by using a third observer (FOR), I believe there is only one valid third FOR.

That is the common initial inertial (rest) FOR of both clocks. Your third frame by your own definition is an ether. Several times you've attached this frame to the Earth Centered frame. Could you possibly believe that the Earth is not moving in absolute space?

MacM

07-25-05, 07:01 PM

Your third frame by your own definition is an ether. Several times you've attached this frame to the Earth Centered frame. Could you possibly believe that the Earth is not moving in absolute space?

You really do not seem to understand. I'll try to clarify once more.

While you claim it is an ether view, it is not based on any ether theory. It is based on emperical data and sound logic vs fraudlent physics distortion forming the unsupported claims of SRT. Now if that means an ether to you you should become an etherist, not an SRTist.

I have not made any such stupid assertion that the earth is at absolute rest. Are you confused or deliberately trying to demean my post?

I have stated GPS uses a third common rest frame, a preferred frame if you will and does not use SRT relative velocity. The center of the earth (the ECI frame) is the common preferred rest frame between orbit velocity and the rotating surface velocity. They do not merely take the surface velocity at some location and subtract it from orbit velocity and yield the relative velocity as would be done using SRT.

Aer

07-25-05, 07:07 PM

It is based on emperical data and sound logic vs fraudlent physics distortion forming the unsupported claims of SRT. This is not a sound premise. You cannot just pick and choice equations from a theory and apply them however you personally seem fit. This would be a theory based on nothing. You cannot say it is the same as special relativity, because you get different results. This means you must have different and or additional postulates to those of special relativity.

MacM

07-25-05, 07:09 PM

Okay, what was the original problem?

It would be difficult to say what the original problem was since this has been gong on for two years but SL's experiment came into being when he claimed he could prove that "Reciprocity" existed in the GPS system.

Reciprocity meaning SRT's claim that not only the orbiting clock will run slower due to veloicty than a earth surface clock but that from the view of orbit the earth clock also runs slower than the earth surface clock.

Of course if that were true the clocks could never be synchroniozed and they are by simply doing a pre-launch calibration and stability correction on the orbiting clock. Once synchronized to their absolute (not relative) veloicties to the preferred frame they remain synchronized and the earth surface clock did not and does not run slow than the orbiting clock.

It clearly ran faster (due to velocity, not GR) than the orbiting clock in the first instance otherwise the correction would not have synchronized the clocks.

Understand the issue now?

qb3

07-25-05, 07:44 PM

MacM

07-25-05, 08:15 PM

macm,
i think your point is a valuable one, but
rather than asserting the 'refutation
of srt,' why not concentrate on its
interpretation/improvement.
your distinction regarding the
use of preferred reference frame
depends upon the dilation effects first predicted by srt!
..

Thanks for your post. It is appreciated, however, for those just joining us may not know I have many times advocated the modernizing or modifying of SRT in that SRT does seem to have properly identified the issue of a relavistic gamma function. But it is being grossly misapplied to areas not tested or observed and frankly clearly refuted by actual emperical evidence.

Willingness to accept those aspects of SRT that do seem valid has not been enough. To be accepted here one must accept the entire enchilada or be dubbed ignorant or a crackpot, etc and suffer the wasted unscientific responses of the "Educated Physicist" that knows it all and their coat tail members looking to appear to know what they can only mimic but do not have the foggiest idea about rational physics or analysis.

The problem runs very deep. Relativists cannot seem to seperate themselves from the rhetoric and to look rationally at emperical data.

i.e. - emperical data clearly shows that you cannot claim both time dilation and spatial length contraction are real physical consequences of motion.

Logically since time dilation has been recorded it can be accepted, at least as a matter of clock dilation if not time itself and that means length contraction is bogus.

Why?

If tr = tick rate, d = distance and v = velocity then the time for a trip across space at relavistic velocities becomes:

t = d / (v * tr) and every trip time at any velocity becomes completely explained only if d remains constant! But they choose to ignore the computed time dilation of the clock in motion and claim that its proper time "Seems" unchanged, therefore distance MUST have changed.

What ignorance. To claim an affect, prove the affect emperically and then completely disregard it when computing the trip. :D

Aer

07-25-05, 08:18 PM

Thanks for your post. It is appreciated, however, for those just joining us may not know I have many times advocated the modernizing or modifying of SRT in that SRT does seem to have properly identified the issue of a relavistic gamma function. But it is being grossly misapplied to areas not tested or observed and frankly clearly refuted by actual emperical evidence.

Willingness to accept those aspects of SRT that do seem valid has not been enough. To be accepted here one must accept the entire enchilada or be dubbed ignorant or a crackpot, etc and suffer the wasted unscientific responses of the "Educated Physicist" that knows it all and their coat tail members looking to appear to know what they can only mimic but do not have the foggiest idea about rational physics or analysis. Where do you think the equations for special relativity come from? YOU NEED POSTULATES. Name your postulates and we'll go from there.

MacM

07-25-05, 08:34 PM

Where do you think the equations for special relativity come from? YOU NEED POSTULATES. Name your postulates and we'll go from there.

I'll only note that we are not arguing the basic assumptions and/or postulates perse.

We are looking at rational consequences of applying the results of such assumptions to physical reality.

Now I am willing to verify I understand the postulates. I am willing to verify I understand what SRT advocates. But the issue is and your burden is to show that my application and results are inconsistant in real physical terms and not simply violate the rhetoric attached to SRT.

Frankly, it is another issue once you get past the recognition of the falicy of SRT, that the cause is the mis-interpretation of the signifigance of v = c invariance as a postulate.

Aer

07-25-05, 08:43 PM

Now I am willing to verify I understand the postulates. I am willing to verify I understand what SRT advocates. But the issue is and your burden is to show that my application and results are inconsistant in real physical terms and not simply violate the rhetoric attached to SRT. Why is this my burden? I've went on the record as saying I cannot point to any experimental evidence that this interpretation cannot be used. That isn't sufficient to prove that your interpretation is correct though. What we are left with are two contradictory interpreations, one is not an approximation to the other as is the case with Newtonian equations and Relativisistic equations.

Frankly, it is another issue once you get past the recognition of the falicy of SRT, that the cause is the mis-interpretation of the signifigance of v = c invariance as a postulate. I've been at this "other issue" you speak of long before I ever saw any post by you.

MacM

07-25-05, 09:12 PM

Why is this my burden? I've went on the record as saying I cannot point to any experimental evidence that this interpretation cannot be used. That isn't sufficient to prove that your interpretation is correct though. What we are left with are two contradictory interpreations, one is not an approximation to the other as is the case with Newtonian equations and Relativisistic equations.

Because you are saying my view is in error because it violates conclusions by others that interpredted the postulates. Either my physics and mathematics are valid or they are not. If they are valid and it conflicts with advocates of SRT then either the advocates or SRT is invalid. If SRT is a valid interpretation of the postulates then that simply means the postulsates are invalid.

You cannot go around claiming I am wrong because I show mathematically SRT is wrong. You must show where I am wrong and not SRT.

I've been at this "other issue" you speak of long before I ever saw any post by you.

Then we should be in agreement and not in a debate. It seems you are in agreement but want me to show you the proof. :D

Aer

07-25-05, 09:17 PM

If SRT is a valid interpretation of the postulates then that simply means the postulsates are invalid. I must say I succeeded! That is precisely what I have been telling you.

You cannot go around claiming I am wrong because I show mathematically SRT is wrong. You must show where I am wrong and not SRT. I've never said your interpretation is right or wrong. You seem to equate me telling you that your intepretation cannot be proven as claiming it is wrong.

Then we should be in agreement and not in a debate. It seems you are in agreement but want me to show you the proof. :D I don't agree with your position on special relativity, that is all.

MacM

07-25-05, 09:46 PM

I must say I succeeded! That is precisely what I have been telling you.

Well as you said earlier, I believe, I held that view long before we began to discuss the issues.

I've never said your interpretation is right or wrong. You seem to equate me telling you that your intepretation cannot be proven as claiming it is wrong.

I'll not debate that issue.

I don't agree with your position on special relativity, that is all.

If we all agreed there would be no place for a discussion forum. I for one would be interested in your take on relativity and how it differs from mine in that in the end we seem to believe in much the same things.

Aer

07-25-05, 10:04 PM

If we all agreed there would be no place for a discussion forum. I for one would be interested in your take on relativity and how it differs from mine in that in the end we seem to believe in much the same things. Ahh! you seem to think I believe in a certain theory. That is not so. There are two theories, each mutually exclusive. That is to say, in order to prove one, you must disprove the other - they both cannot be true. I generally accept the special relativity theory and most likely only because it is the most popular. I am not going to take a postion against a commonly accepted theory unless I have good reason to do so. That doesn't mean I accept the theory "as is".

qb3

07-26-05, 12:08 AM

good gracious!
what is this about?
lets not lose our
locatedness, here:
we're here to discuss
the issue-substances,
not to 'argue' with one another, right?
so yeah, the theory of relativity
is just that; a brilliantly inclusive theory.
the really important part, and the reason
i suspect we are all discussing it so avidly,
is its interpretation. How may we apply it?
How can we make sense of it,
and use it inclsively with the rest of our
scientific inventory?
what does it mean?
these are hard questions,
and yeah, it helps to have training,
in some ways..
but training can also be limiting
of creativity - yes?
Keeping these fundaments in mind,
there's no need to posture,
or to get annoyed;
that stuff just gets in the way,
and we end up
wasting our precious time
here.

MacM

07-26-05, 12:16 AM

.......and yeah, it helps to have training,
in some ways..
but training can also be limiting
of creativity - yes?

Astute post. :D FYI I am not frustrated with Aer, perhaps with James R. :mad:

qb3

07-26-05, 12:32 AM

dude;
it doesn't matter.
keep on developing your ideas
and sharing them.
noone can be more rigorous
with your work
than you.
Just concentrate on
the substance; the science
(from latin scire - 'to know')
it's ridiculous to try to refute
dangerous postulates
by resorting to personal attacks.
-really it's the downfall of this,
or any other commons-
the discerning (silent, at any given t)
majority will continue to respond to
clearly articulated logic, and honesty
in approach to difficult topic-problems.
we just get confused by the personal arguments,
cuz it obscures the significances being discussed.
implied universality of scientific knowledge
assumes/postulates
honesty on the part of the scientist.
that's the only way to progress.

should i post this in a 'philosophical' forum?
perhaps, but then again,
seems to me like the
'real' scientifically-minded
might do well to consider
these impinging considerations
in our pursuits
of truth?

James R

07-26-05, 01:14 AM

MacM:

You've now spammed the same argument into about 5 different threads in the last day. As a moderator, I ask you once again not to do that, or I may have to restrict you to posting in one thread at a time only.

Now, on topic...

Funny. Never said [the ECI] was [an absolute frame]. I said it is a preferred common frame of rest and that the orbit velocity is absolute relative to it.

Either a velocity is absolute or it is relative. The term "absolute relative" is a basic contradiction in terms.

Either you think the ECI frame is absolute, or you think it is just another frame which we can measure velocities relative to. So, which is it?

MacM

07-26-05, 02:41 AM

MacM:

You've now spammed the same argument into about 5 different threads in the last day. As a moderator, I ask you once again not to do that, or I may have to restrict you to posting in one thread at a time only.

Let me suggest that you stop making the same spam arguements supporting SRT then. Anytime SRT is supported by an arguement it must remain appropriate to counter that claim by an equally valid counter arguement.

Stop posters from making false fiat statements as to the validity of aspects of SRT and then such like counter arguements go away. Restricting the ability of those of us on this side from responding to such false claims can be viewed as nothing more than censorship. I do not think we want to go there.

Now, on topic...

Either a velocity is absolute or it is relative. The term "absolute relative" is a basic contradiction in terms.

Now you have just done what you chastized me for. You have made this same FALSE statement many times on this issue. I have responded and explained in very clear terms why you are flat wrong.

Don't dare tell me I cannot repeat my responses to this when you keep posting the same crap statments.

FACT: "Relative Velocity" as used and intended by SRT assumes (incorrectly) that any inertial velocity is an equivelent frame of rest. That is all parties having relative motion are also locally at rest and it is the others that have all velocity. In such a false physical view both are at rest and both have all motion. It is all or nothing.

In Pete's recent thread it would be infact improper to declare either (where A = 0.6c and B = 0.8c), were at rest but in fact the time dilation which would result from such a condition would be:

"Relative Velocity" = 0.2c, gamma = 1.0226 or a tick rate of 980/1,000 ratio and includes reciprocity

"Absolute Relative Velocity" gamma is Gamma Effective = gamma .8c / gamma 0.6c = 1.6666 / 1.25 = 1.3333 or a tick rate of 750 ticks/1,000 ticks and prohibits reciprocity. These relative velocities are absolute (i.e. not arbitraily reversable)

A substantial differance from SRT predictions and is supported by evidence.

Either you think the ECI frame is absolute, or you think it is just another frame which we can measure velocities relative to. So, which is it?

Either you make false statements or you think 0.6c is the same as 0.8c and both are at an equivelent rest.

Which is it. PS: Justifiy which.

Perhaps your use of the english language differs from mine but in my english may statement is a properly constructed group of adjectives to define a precise condition. Yours fails and leads to unsupportable and impossible reciprocity.

No thanks I'll stick with english.

Aer

07-26-05, 02:44 AM

Let me suggest that you stop making the same spam arguements supporting SRT then. At the very least, you have to appreiciate his style.

James R

07-26-05, 08:10 PM

MacM:

Anytime SRT is supported by an arguement it must remain appropriate to counter that claim by an equally valid counter arguement.

Do you have any "equally valid" counter-arguments, then? If so, post them.

Restricting the ability of those of us on this side from responding to such false claims can be viewed as nothing more than censorship.

Who is this mythical "us"? It's just you on that side, MacM, all alone, with the physicists of the world rallied against you. How noble you must think you are.

FACT: "Relative Velocity" as used and intended by SRT assumes (incorrectly) that any inertial velocity is an equivelent frame of rest.

If this is wrong, then please cite ONE experiment we could do to establish the absolute motion of just one object in the universe. You can't, and therefore you are wrong.

Either you make false statements or you think 0.6c is the same as 0.8c and both are at an equivelent rest.

A child can see that 0.6c is different from 0.8c. What are you going on about?

geistkiesel

07-26-05, 10:03 PM

CMBR dipole, Astronomy Picture of the day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050508.html)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0302/dip_cobe_big.jpg

This image shows how the background radiation (averaged over a year) is blueshifted in the direction of the constellation Centaurus, indicating that the Solar System is heading in that direction at 600km/s, relative to the "CMBR neutral frame" (a term I just made up).

From the "Handbook of Astronautical Engineering" Chapter 11, First Edition, Herman Koelle, Editor,
the first postulate of SRT is,

It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system through free space.

Thesecond postulate,

The velocity of light in free space is the same for all observers, independent of the relative velocity of the source of light and the observer.
H.G.L. Krause

Geistkiesel :cool:

Pete

07-26-05, 10:26 PM

That's right, geistkiesel.

1) Moving relative to the CMBR neutral frame means exactly that... relative. What would the CMBR look like if the Solar system were stationary, and the CMBR radiating surface moving at 600km/s? Exactly the same?

2) Blue-shifted microwaves don't go any faster than red-shifted microwaves. The speed of the CMBR (the radiation itself) past Earth is the same in all directions.

MacM

07-27-05, 01:18 AM

Do you have any "equally valid" counter-arguments, then? If so, post them.

I have numerous times and will continue to do so with even greater clarity. Your continued disregard of such doesn't alter that fact.

Who is this mythical "us"? It's just you on that side, MacM, all alone, with the physicists of the world rallied against you. How noble you must think you are.

Your statement fails on its surface for being so grossly inaccurate. I have no sense of being noble but only far more correct than those many ardent nonthinking physicists that like a pack of mammals are running over the cliff in pack suicide.

If this is wrong, then please cite ONE experiment we could do to establish the absolute motion of just one object in the universe. You can't, and therefore you are wrong.

What is it about pointing out that anything claimed to have motion cannot be considered at rest do you not understand and how do you get from that misconception to another one that somehow establishing an absolute motion or rest is in any way required or claimed. You seem to understand nothing.

A child can see that 0.6c is different from 0.8c. What are you going on about?

Then a child should also see that neither are at rest and the inability to detect their inertial velocity does not make then at rest. It would be bad enough to claim two clocks with equal motion were at rest but at least in that case the mathematical result of relavistic affects would be correct.

But to arbitrarily set .2c and .6c as being equally at rest is obvious error. Neither is at rest and the resulting NET time dilation (which will be in the case of the clock with 0.6c velocity) will not be a function of their relative velocity but of their repective absolute relative velocity which means computing and considering both their respective velocity and gammas to determine the net ifferential which is what one sees. One does not see the dilation of the slower clock unless it is viewed from a third frame.

James R

07-27-05, 01:40 AM

MacM:

What is it about pointing out that anything claimed to have motion cannot be considered at rest do you not understand and how do you get from that misconception to another one that somehow establishing an absolute motion or rest is in any way required or claimed. You seem to understand nothing.

The facts:

1. You admit that relativity gives correct time dilation results for at least "one half" of any situation (e.g. the view of a moving spaceship's clock from Earth).
2. You say that "gamma" is right, but only "one way".
3. You say that the calculation done in (1) works because Earth is at rest, while the spaceship cannot consider itself to be at rest.
4. Therefore, you are claiming the Earth is absolutely at rest, while the spaceship is absolutely moving. It is impossible, according to you, that the Earth could be moving and the spaceship at rest.
5. If, in fact, the Earth was absolutely moving, then according to your theory we'd have to take that into account in calculating the spaceship's time dilation. It wouldn't be good enough to know the spaceship's velocity relative to Earth - we'd need to know its absolute velocity, otherwise we'd get the gamma factor wrong.

If you disagree with any of these points, please explain why.

MacM

07-27-05, 02:08 AM

MacM:

The facts:

1. You admit that relativity gives correct time dilation results for at least "one half" of any situation (e.g. the view of a moving spaceship's clock from Earth).

False. You overstate the case. It will only be correct if the spaceship was launched from earth. If launched from mars then both the earth and spaceship possess component velocities comprising the total relative velocity.

In such cases you must calculate the respective gammas to find the ratio.

If the ship were launched from some space port which has motion such that the space craft and earth both have equal absolute velocity to the space port the earth clock and spaceship clock are both mutually dilating and will display NO time dilation between them.

2. You say that "gamma" is right, but only "one way".

Correct assuming you have used a correct gamma in the first place.

3. You say that the calculation done in (1) works because Earth is at rest, while the spaceship cannot consider itself to be at rest.

That is correct, noting only that earth is the point of common inertial rest before the launch. Nobody has said it is at rest..

4. Therefore, you are claiming the Earth is absolutely at rest, while the spaceship is absolutely moving. It is impossible, according to you, that the Earth could be moving and the spaceship at rest.

You are attempting to raise the ugly head of a universal absolute. The meaning of absolute relative velocity is that it is not universal, it is local. that is that given a craft launched from earth the spaceship clock will dilate relative to the earth clock (GR excluded) due to its absolute relative velocity to the earth but the earth clock will never under any view be dilated relative to the spaceship clock.

NOTE: This statement applies to the physical accumulated comparative time on the clocks in a concurrent test period and has nothing to do with observation during relative motion, or simultaneity shift due to some seperated distance.

In this case the absolute relative velocity is the same magnitude as simple relative velocity but the ARV is still required to preclude reciprocity, which does not happen, cannot happen and has never been observed to happen and you cannot cite any physical means for it to happen.

5. If, in fact, the Earth was absolutely moving, then according to your theory we'd have to take that into account in calculating the spaceship's time dilation. It wouldn't be good enough to know the spaceship's velocity relative to Earth - we'd need to know its absolute velocity, otherwise we'd get the gamma factor wrong.

Incorrect. Time dilation is a function of absolute relative velocity from the point of the common rest frame. That rest frame may be inertial and have some unknown velocity but both A and B in this case have that unknown velocity and all you are measuring is the change in status of the one that physically accelerated from that inertial common rest.

If you disagree with any of these points, please explain why.

I have.

James R

07-27-05, 02:18 AM

MacM:

The meaning of absolute relative velocity is that it is not universal, it is local. that is that given a craft launched from earth the space ship clock will dilate relative to the earth clock (GR excluded) due to its absolute relative velocity to the earth.

So, in your version of physics, we need to know the entire history of an object before we can calculate its clock rate. Is that right? If an object started off on Pluto, then its time dilation will be forever linked to Pluto?

Time dilation is a function of absolute relative velocity from the point of the common rest frame.

Suppose I launch spaceship A at 0.866c away from Earth. Ship A carries spaceship B inside it. Ship A travels for a while at this constant speed, and then, while still going at constant speed, launches spaceship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A (and still away from Earth), where the 0.866c is measured relative to A.

Questions:

1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?
2. If it is possible, what would the speed of B be, relative to Earth?
3. What would B's final gamma factor be, relative to Earth?
4. What would be the final relative rates of the clocks on Earth, A and B, after B was launched?
5. Is the "common rest frame" of A and B the frame of A, or the frame of Earth?

Again, I await your responses.

geistkiesel

07-29-05, 02:32 AM

False. You overstate the case. It will only be correct if the spaceship was launched from earth. If launched from mars then both the earth and spaceship possess component velocities comprising the total relative velocity.

MacM,
Hi MacM, just a point of observation I am not clear on in your post.

Are you discussing the component velocity of the earth, orbit, sun translatory motion etc?

If I understand you, you are saying that if launched from earth, Ve, where the earth has obvious residual motion, orbit, sun-translatory, rand rotational, so do all objects, Va, accelerated wrt the earth Ve. So when taking a measurement of the realtive velocity of the accelerated objects the component velocities cancel in the subtraction.

Before earth launch:
Ve = sum of residual component motion = rm
Va = sum of residual motion [inherited: of the earth] = rm.

After launch we calulate the relative motion of Ve wrt Ve - (Va + rm) = Va (measured) as the inherited motion of the earth by the object (an intrinsic part of the earth) subtract out. Of course Va is initially at zero velocity (speed) wrt Ve. During launch Va increases from zero to final speed where |Va| > 0.

When launched from Mars only the Mars component motion is canceled, but not the earths?

Finally, if the ship was launched from earth landed on Mars and launched from Mars then the earth's component motion would have subtracted out in the earlier launch. That is if I read you correctly.

Geis:cool:tkiesel

geistkiesel

07-29-05, 03:39 AM

That's right, geistkiesel.

1) Moving relative to the CMBR neutral frame means exactly that... relative. What would the CMBR look like if the Solar system were stationary, and the CMBR radiating surface moving at 600km/s? Exactly the same?=

Lets say for the sake of argument that the relative velocity of the solar system and CMBR is 600km/sec as advertised and that the intrinsic velocity of the earth was 800 and the CMBR 200 [km/sec] moving more ore less parallel wrt each other. Would this make any difference? What if the intrinsic velocities were 2000 and 1400 [km/sec] any difference here?

I don't know off the top, we must look at the relative motion question closer than some limited models allow.

In the link below the studies show that Sagnac effect measurements will not detect the orbital motion of the earth. As Michelson-Morely experiments are indistinguishable from Sagnac experiments the MM results seem supported. However, rotational motion is subject to measurement.
Another look at some consequencee of GPS data. (http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf)

When asking why orbital motion 100 time faster than rotational motion on the planet surface is excluded opens another huge question-box.

One look as I have peeked, shows the direction of the orbit vector moving at 1/365 that of the rotational direction vector at least as to direction {the two are more or less parallel). Assuming the orbit and rotational vectors are as advertised then using simple euclidean maths (302 + .52)1/2 = Total earth motion vector |Ve| then we would see this vector pointing slightly off direct orbit direction at an angle tan-1(.5/30) = .95 degrees which would oscillate due to the daily rotational motion vector of approxilately .015 degrees and .95 degrees per year for the total vector addition in the same plane.

The reason for all this is to bring up the fact that there may be link between the rotational rate being 365 times the orbiting rate, yet 100 time less in magnitude, suggesting that rate of change of direction is significant in the measurements. In other words,the orbit motion is too close to steady state linear motion for the changes of vector direction to be measured, unless of course the measuremnts use other than the earth system as a refernce frame.

If the earth is moving relative to some other massive stellar object, say the sun, then what beside the relative motion of earth-sun could be measured? Aren't there taboos against measuring sone intrinsic absolute velocity? And unless the experiment was designed to measure the earth-sun relative motion, instead of some absolute earth-ether system it would probably be missed.

Certainly the rotational motion and orbital motion of of the earth are not realtive motion, in fact they are intrinsically inseparable, though moving at such a rate than for most intents and purposes the earth can be considered inertial, or at least corrections for variations from inertial can be easily corrected for.

2) Blue-shifted microwaves don't go any faster than red-shifted microwaves. The speed of the CMBR (the radiation itself) past Earth is the same in all directions.

I agree, but I still have this nagging thought in the back of my head that the CMBR is still with us. It would seem that without a source to relplenish losses it should have been dark long ago. I know slightly off topic (and has been answered elsewhere, not to my satisfaction though), but that is because it comes from the back of my head.

Geistkiesel :cool:

Rosnet

07-29-05, 07:08 AM

MacM, Geistkiesel,

You didn't understand the point I was trying to make. First, let me make clear what I understand about MacM's view. Consider my experiment again. Initially, A and B are at rest on Earth (Ignore gravity and all other stuff). For later use, let there also be another observer who stands on Earth at all times. B accelerates first, for some time, and then reaches a uniform velocity. Now, I'm sure that you agree, that at this point, A sees B's clock running slowly. I'm not going to bring the 'total acumulated time' into the picture anywhere. You don't seem to have understood this. All that is necessary in this experiment is the 'rate' of the clocks, which does not depend on the accumulated time in any manner whatever. Also, I'm not going to talk about what B sees while he is accelerating. Although I'll need to raise a question about what B sees when A accelerates. Now that that's settled, let's get back. A sees B's clock ticking slowly. MacM says that there can be no mutual time dilation (don't take me up on these words) so that B does not see A's clock ticking slowly, but, instead, he sees that A's clock is ticking faster than his own clock. So that B's clock is relatively the slower one in both frames. Again, this is when B is not accelerating. Is this the view you hold, MacM?

Some time later, A starts accelerating, in the direction of motion of B. The Earth observer sees A accelerating for some time, after which he reaches the same uniform velocity as B. What happens according to B? Remember that B has been moving at a uniform velocity for a while, and that at this point, his frame is inertial also. What B sees is this. The Earth, and A, who was standing on it were moving at a uniform velocity, (again, this is not when B was accelerating, but was moving at constant velocity). Then, the Earth continues to move in this same velocity, while A starts to deccelerate. This is true, from B's point of view, since B is inertial also. So that he knows for certain that A was deccelerating. And after deccelerating for some time, A stops (in B's frame). There is a spatial separation between them, but this is quite irrelevant, since this does nothing to the 'tick rate' (not accumulated time) of A's clock as seen by B. Do we all agree upto this point?

Note that A accelerates (or deccelerates) only once. He does not catch B and then deccelerate or anything. A is seen as deccelerating in B's frame only. In the Earth frame, A has accelerated. After this time, no one accelerates at any point. I'll sum up the situation. Initially, A and B were at rest. Then B, after accelerating for some time, started coasting. After some more time, A did the same thing, and is now at rest with respect to B.

From the point of view of the Earth observer, both A's clock and B's clock are running at the same rate. I'm asking you, MacM, to explain what B sees. Ultimately, when A and B are at rest with respect to each other, B should see A's clock running at the same rate as his clock. Agreed? The question is, since A's clock was faster than B's clock, at what point does it slow down, so that it can finally reach the same rate as B's clock? That is, B was seeing A's clock running at a faster rate (than his own clock) all the time when A was on Earth. The only way that A's clock can slow down, is if it accelerates. But B does not see A accelerating. In B's frame, A deccelerates. Since A's speed is getting lower and lower (in B's frame), it's clock should be getting faster and faster. So how come A's clock finally reaches the same rate as B's clock? And if you say that B sees A's clock getting slower, explain this, since, according to B, A is not picking up speed, but losing it?

Note, once again, that I'm not refering to 'accumulated time' anywhere. Also not that I'm asking you to explain things from B's point of view.

MacM

07-29-05, 10:21 PM

MacM,
[indent] Hi MacM, just a point of observation I am not clear on in your post.

Are you discussing the component velocity of the earth, orbit, sun translatory motion etc?

Not sure I follow your post concerning earth orbit, etc. James R had just made a blanket statement that any ship motion could be considered relative to the erath and get a correct gamma calculation.

I was just making the point that that is true only if it were launched from earth. If launched from any other point earth could possess a component velocity as part of the total relative velocity to the ship and you would need to make calculation on the respective velocities of the ship and earth with respect to where it had been launched.

But even that might not be correct because the point from which the ship was launched and earth may have never been at inertial rest to each other as a common factor or it is unkown.

.................Relative Velocity Gamma Unknown Case
Launch..............Ship.......................... ....Earth
....0--------------X------->......<-------------.............Unknowable gamma

...E.....................A........................ ......B
...0---------------X------->------------->....James R's original example.

B was onboard A when A was launched such that A and B were both at inertial rest with E before launch. Then B was launched from A after it became inertial.

Now B can view both E or A as known rest positions and calculation can be made for EA, EB, AB, etc.

Rosnet

07-30-05, 12:22 PM

Explain please

Special Relativity does not deny the existence of a 'historical' absolute frame, or, in other words, an 'original rest frame'. All it says (or assumes) is that given two observers moving at uniform relative velocities to each other, there is no way that either of them could determine which was moving. Any experiment they conduct within their frame will give the same results, no matter at what velocity they are travelling with respect to anything. In other words no inertial frame of reference has any special properties that are detectable by an observer within it. Or, there is no preferred frame. I've already stated two or three times that only a 'historical' preference is given to this frame. Relativity does not talk about this. Relativity talks about what is happening now. I'll give an analogy. In a glue bottling factory, when a batch of bottles come out on the conveyor belt, an onlooker can tell which was the first one to be bottled, because he can see which one is at the front. This glue bottle is the 'original' bottle. But if this whole batch is put in a box and shown to someone else, he won't be able to tell which was the first one. There's nothing special about the first one. They all have the same properties. But we know that one of these did come first. This has nothing to do with any theory we make concerning glue bottles.

geistkiesel

07-31-05, 09:16 AM

"...In other words no inertial frame of reference has any special properties that are detectable by an observer within it. Or, there is no preferred frame. .... Relativity talks about what is happening now."
A target range of 1 km is prepared on the stationary and train frames when the train is at rest wrt the embankment. When the train is moving at some velocity v wrt the embankment bullets are fired from guns when the guns are adjacent, that is at the mutual 0 point in each frame. Observers on the train and the embankment can see the velocity of the bullet fired on the train will lead and gain distance on the bullet moving wrt the embankment. The bullet on the train will arrive at the 1 km mark on the embankment before the bullet fired from the embankment arrives there.

Has not this experiment distngished which frame is moving and assuming we know the muzzle velocity of the identical guns the absolute velocity of the frame wrt the embankment can be determined.

Take the experiment to outer space and have the two ships approach each other at some relative velocity Vr. As the gun of each is adjacent to the 1 km mark of the other the guns fire. If the ships are moving at the same absolute velocity (as measured from a common earth frame Ve assumed zero) then the bullets will both meet at each other halfway point. If the velocity of one frame is faster than the other then that frame's bullet will reach the midpoint of both frames before the other frames' bullet.

I am not quite with you on what observers on inertial frames can measure or, in your claim, what they cannot measure.

Geistkiesel :cool:

James R

07-31-05, 06:36 PM

Has not this experiment distngished which frame is moving and assuming we know the muzzle velocity of the identical guns the absolute velocity of the frame wrt the embankment can be determined.

No. You have only determined the relative velocity of the train with respect to the embankment. Can you still not see that?

Rosnet

08-02-05, 08:44 AM

geistkiesel

08-02-05, 01:37 PM

Rosnet

08-04-05, 01:53 AM

As I understand the first postulate it says that,

"It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system through free space."

What does 'it' mean? What does 'is' mean? What does 'impossible' mean? What does 'to' mean? What does 'measure' mean?.... What does 'free' mean> What does 'space' mean?

The meanings of these words aren't mentioned in the first postulate, are they? Because it isn't necessary. They're defined elsewhere. The meaning of the firt postulate is given elswehere. If you tried to frame a postulate which was fully self-explanatory, you won't accomplish it in a lifetime. Postulate, and definitions, are meant mostly as aids to fast communication and memorization. But their actual meaning has to be explained somewhere else. That's what I did.

MacM

08-04-05, 07:19 PM

What does 'it' mean? What does 'is' mean? What does 'impossible' mean? What does 'to' mean? What does 'measure' mean?.... What does 'free' mean> What does 'space' mean?

The meanings of these words aren't mentioned in the first postulate, are they? Because it isn't necessary. They're defined elsewhere. The meaning of the firt postulate is given elswehere. If you tried to frame a postulate which was fully self-explanatory, you won't accomplish it in a lifetime. Postulate, and definitions, are meant mostly as aids to fast communication and memorization. But their actual meaning has to be explained somewhere else. That's what I did.

And what is your post supposed to mean.?

BTW: Einstien's work literally translated (paraphrased) "An object observed while in relative motion will "APPEAR" to be length contracted".

He never even claimed a physical reality of SRT.

geistkiesel

08-04-05, 11:12 PM

Relativity (the first postulate) says that we cannot detect motion by doing any experiment not involving things outside the frame. and this assumption (along with the second postulate) is sufficient to derive the properties of space and time, as done in SR. If you don't understand this, read some basics of SR, where you can see what we're talking about.
Rosnet,
The fallacy of simultaneity descriptions in SR.
When AE explained SR in 1916 in "Relatvity" he did not restrict his descriptions to measurements within windowless inertial frames, using blind, deaf and dumb observers. He made it clear that observers on the embankment and the moving train (Chapter VII) were observing each other. Your contained environment is useless junk. You cannot even know there is another inertial frame of reference to measure against if your totally blind observer model is used. In all the gedanken that AE used as models the no observers were as blind as the ones you describe Rosnet. It appears your model is only proposed to counter arguements that cut the knees of SR cleanly off.

As an aside, if the history of motion is a reality, why not use that history in measuring realtive motion,. NOW?

Here is an example as described by AE in "Relativity", deal with it as you may.

When an observer O', on a train moving with velocity v wrt the embankment is midway between light sources A and B on the embankment the lights emit a burst of photons. As the train is heading toward B the B light arrives first. Passengers behind O'on the train later are co-located with the A and B lights arriving simultaneously at the miodpoint of thesources on the embankment. Later the A light arrives at O'. O' concludes the light from B must have been emitted before the light from A, as O' is assumed at rest wrt the embankment. So, O' cedes that the lights were emitted from the A and B sources and even that O' was at the midpoint of the lights wrt the embankment as stated. O', however, insists the lights were emitted sequentially as she recorded the arrival times.

Synchronized clocks at A' and B' on the train co-located with A and B the instant the lights were emitted show the lights were emitted on the moving frame at the same instant as measured on the train. The passengers co-located at M, the embankment midpoint of the A and B sources, when the A and B lights arrived simultaneously verifies the A' and B' measurements. Using the moving frame clocks the the difference in arrival times of the lights when the B and A lights are recorded by O' is t' = vt/(c - v)where t1 is the time of flight the B light travels from the B source which is identical to t1, the time from the instant the train was located at the embankment midpoint (draw it out it is very basic). As t2 is the time of flight of the light from the source to the midpoint the velocity of the train is easily determined, so t' = ct1/(c - v), which allows a confirmation of the velocity of the train. Likewise, any t' measured as zero is unambiguous proof of the train motion wrt the embankment not the other way around.

The fallacy of the equivalence of inertial frames.
AE described the velocity of a man walking on a train moving with velocity Vte,(velocity of train wrt the embankment)as Vme = Vte + Vmt. Vme, the velocity of the man wrt the embankment is the sum of the velocity of the train wrt the embankment plus the velocity of the man wrt the train.

AE then uses this identical model in describng the velocity of light wrt the embankment that was emitted on the moving train as, Vce = Vte + Vct and as Vce - Vte < Vce (C) he concludes that the velocity of light will be measured the same from any inertial frame including the relative velocity of frame and photon. Where did AE err?

In describing the velocity of the man moving wrt the train the Vmt assumes the train is at rest. In the light expression the same assumption was made. However, as the velocity of light is independent of the speed of the source of the light, the velocity of the train must be subtracted to insure complete independence. To equate the light with the man AE simply set the train velocity to zero, which shows a dependence of the light wrt the source. AE knew this as in the first part of chapter VII he went through De Sitter's experiment showing the independence of light speed and source of the light.

Therefore in establishing the Vct, the train velocity must be subtracted from the Vce emitted on the train), V'ce = Vct - Vte. Then the Vce = Vte + V'ce = Vte + Vct - Vte, or Vce = Vct (where V'ce is understood to have been emitted on the train).

Notice, the relative velocity of frame and photon are undisturbed in all of this so Vc - Vt are mere indications of the difference in speed of frame and photon, as is the clear and unambiguous reality of motion in the universe.

Rosnet you keep insisting that others go read fundamental books on SR, I suggest that you burn your SR books for the obvious erroneous teachings therein.

I trust this wasn't too 'rambling' for yourself and Funkstar, Superluminal et al.

Geistkiesel :cool:

superluminal

08-05-05, 12:38 AM

geistkiesel

08-05-05, 09:14 AM

Geist,

Let's do some physics.

We are each in transparent spaceships (so we're not blind) with radios (so we're not deaf) and radars. We are in deep space approaching each other.

I call you and ask you, "Kindly check my speed with your radar".

You respond, "It says 0.2c. Could you check my speed please?"

"Sure" I say. "It says 0.2c".

Can you please analyze this simple situation and tell me which ship is moving?

Not only will you be told which ship, now named A and B, is moving, but by how much are both moving in absolute terms, i.e. |Va| and |Vb|.

By the use of radar the .2c measurement is measurement of the relative motion of the two inertial frames. With just the information you have provided there needs to be a measure of the instrinsic speed of the two ships, A and B. We assume B is faster than A by as yet some unknown amount (don't worry we wont lose generalization by the assumption. We launch a mini-inertial frame probe from A where the intial relative velocity of A wrt B is Vab = Va + Vb = j (j = .2c), a constant or, Va - (-Vb)). Here we still don't know what Va or Vb is, but we know the intrinsic velocities are some constant value.

Initially Vcb = Vab, OK so far?

Now we increase the speed of C (wrt A) in the direction of the B velocity. We notice that we can easily set Vc = Vac with the A frame at rest wrt C. After all we are accelerating (or changing) C and we are not changing the A speed.

When the C probe, |Vc|, reaches |Vb| we notice what the Vca is reading. Remember Vca = Vc in the A/C system and reflects an increase in speed of C wrt A. So when Vcb = 0, Vc = Vb in the C/B system.

What is Vc in the C/A system? This is the difference in speed of B wrt A. or Vb = Va + k.
Substituting into Vab = j, Va + Va + k = j, or,
Va = (j - k)/2, and substituting again,
(j - k)/2 + Vb = j, Vb = j - (j - k)/2 or,
Vb = (j + k)/2.

If you see what is occuring, as the relative speed of C wrt B decreases, the change in relative speed of C wrt A increases. The changes are the rate of change of each. Va + Vb = j, a constant. Taking the differential of this expression, V'a = - V'b, OK again?

If we actually had changed the A and B speed we maintain the constancy of Vab by assuring the differential is as calculated. So we simulate the variation in A and B speed by use of the C inertial probe. We are using, V'c(wrt A/C) = -V'c(wrt B/C)in place of V'a = -V'b.

So, you launch the probe from A and find Vc, the changed speed of C wrt A assumed at rest in the A/C system at the instant Vc = Vb in the C/B system. The changed speed of C wrt A is the difference in speed of B wrt A, both constant throughout.

Just remember,the C motion simulates both the A and B motion changes as indicated. Finally, as we have measured the intrinsic velocities of A and B we have contradicted the 1st and most fundamental postulate of SR, so SR arguements don't cut it as objections to what you read here, OK? Find another reason to object is what I am suggesting.

Its just physics SL, simple physics.

Geistkiesel :cool:

superluminal

08-05-05, 09:32 AM

MacM

08-05-05, 07:30 PM

TELL ME THE ABSOULTE SPEED OF MY SHIPS DAMNIT!

The problem is fully defined. I gave you the relative velocity, now give me the absolute motions of my ships.

I would say you can't. But comparing tick rates one can determine which has the higher component velocity and by how much.

superluminal

08-05-05, 07:41 PM

Bah. Humbug. Stuff and nonsense.

geistkiesel

08-05-05, 11:22 PM

Geist you putz, you completely changed my setup. There is no "mini inertial frame probe"! It's A and B. That's it.

But fine. Use your stupid probe C and some numbers for it's speed and TELL ME THE ABSOULTE SPEED OF MY SHIPS DAMNIT!

The problem is fully defined. I gave you the relative velocity, now give me the absolute motions of my ships.

SL, If you want to know the absolute speed of your ship then measure it. I told you how to do it. The conditions you gave only allow the measurement of the relative velocity of the two ships.

You do recognize do you not the physical reality that the maximum possible speed of each is .2c and the minimum possible speed is zero. You must also recognize that some absolute speed of each ship is a physical necessity. The ships' speed is not some kind of quantum mechanical probability function, the speeds are real. All you have to do is find out which is moving faster, trivial, and how much faster.

OK, you don't want to use my precious instrumentation package that is sop on each ship.

Here is what you do to measure your absolute speed |Va| and |Vb|.

You turn the direction of A to point in the direction of motion of B. Then you accelerate A with respect to your present position assumed at rest. As you find the speed of B, or when Va = Vb, then consult your acceleration vs. speed charts that are in the possession of the ships' propulsion engineer. From a history of your accelerations the instant Va = Vb, the past history determines how much faster is B than A was before accelerating. Using the original conditions of the initial measured relative velocity |Va| + |Vb| = |Vab| calculate Vb = Va + k, where k is the calculated, nay measured velocity change of the A frame at the instant Va = Vb after accelerating. Using Va + Vb = Vab = j, or Va + Va + k = j, Va = (j - k)/2 and substituting back into the Vab = j expression Vb = (j + k)/2, the same expression I provided before.

BTW did your keyboard stick on the "Caps Lock" button when you typed your response? That's what I thought happened.

Geistkiesel :cool:

geistkiesel

08-05-05, 11:26 PM

Superluiminal,
BTW, I have alweays understood that no experiment can ever determine the translatory motion (absolute velocity) of inertial frames. The C inertial probe isn't in violation of the prohibited conditions, it is merely a parameter in an experiment that can and in fact does measure the absolute velocity of |Va| and |Vb| which I named the two ships' velocity expressions. Do you want to be on the 'A' ship? OK you've got it.

Geistkiesel, :cool:

geistkiesel

08-05-05, 11:34 PM

What does 'it' mean? What does 'is' mean? What does 'impossible' mean? What does 'to' mean? What does 'measure' mean?.... What does 'free' mean> What does 'space' mean?

The meanings of these words aren't mentioned in the first postulate, are they? Because it isn't necessary. They're defined elsewhere. The meaning of the firt postulate is given elswehere. If you tried to frame a postulate which was fully self-explanatory, you won't accomplish it in a lifetime. Postulate, and definitions, are meant mostly as aids to fast communication and memorization. But their actual meaning has to be explained somewhere else. That's what I did.

Rosnet,
So words don't mean what they say, they mean what you say they mean [to suit your own purpose]. Alice was right you are saying? I don't think so. I copied my defintion from the 'Handbook of Astronautical Engineering' Chapter 11, 1st edition 1961, Ed. Heinz Herman Koelle, with forward by Werner von Braun.

BTW Alice gave me the reference.
Geistkiesel :cool:

geistkiesel

08-05-05, 11:44 PM

SL,
I didn't see where you said it was OK to use my 'probes' I cannot tell you your speed from the information you gave, which was sufficient to determine relative velocity only. You must measure the difference in absolute speed between A and B, then you have enough to calculate the absolute velocities. I did this using my probe scheme and supported this with the "acceleration history mode" , however, the second approach requires you accelerating and destroying the constant Vab, or does it? Nope, at all times Vab = j = .2c. You do see this I trust. I refer you to the differential expression in the my original post introducing the C probe.

Your anger, as is most anger, from disatisfaction from conditions internal to yourself. I didn't "create" that anger, you did. It doesn't make you a bad person, necessarily.

Geistkiesel :cool:

MacM

08-06-05, 12:11 AM

Bah. Humbug. Stuff and nonsense.

Really? Prove it.

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 04:01 AM

Geistkiesel, don't you see that the points which you say are 'physically invariant', are still relative. They're the midpoint of two other points in every reference frame. Allright. But that only means that they're invariant with respect to these two points. With respect to any other point, they'd have changed (due to length contraction). According to your argument, every point in the universe is the midpoint of pairs of other points. Then this means that every point is invariant, which they're not, according to observation.

Rosnet,
You missed it here. The invariant point I discussed is defined by the physical motion of light. That point is invariant in space and time. This is the only point I discussed. Other points are your problem. How do you deal specifically with the development of the invariant point as I described? Every point can be an invariant point, it is all a matter of how you find the point. Just by putting some mathematical description on sonme vague "point" is insufficient.

They are invariant as defined by the physical motion of light. The point does not move period. Can you show motion of the point as described?
No you cannot, so don't try.

My invariant point was defined by the motion of light remember?

Geistkiesel

Rosnet

08-06-05, 07:32 AM

What is the use of determining such a point, assuming it is possible?

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 07:52 AM

What is the use of determining such a point, assuming it is possible?
Rosnet,
Perhaps some future space ship crew might want to know their absolute velocity with respect to an absolute zero reference frame. The point being invariant is by definiton, absolute zero velocity, isn't it?
Geistkiesel :cool:

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 08:05 AM

Bah, Humbug. Stuff and nonsense.[

SL,
So what do want or need proved, the use of the third C probe? Its, 'res ipsa loquitor', the thing speaks for itself. What is your specific objection here?

As for the acceleration method of adding a measurable amount of speed to a m,oviong frame, are you questioning the ability of a space ship crew to determine a change in speed by the addition of known accelerations?

At least let me know what your specific objections are? This response is the old non-scientific SL that I thought had matured considerably?

There isn't even any SR postulates violated in the steps taken in either case. What is the problem? Personal perhaps?

Geistkiesel :cool:

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 08:40 AM

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 08:51 AM

“ Originally Posted by Rosnet
Geistkiesel, don't you see that the points which you say are 'physically invariant', are still relative. They're the midpoint of two other points in every reference frame. Allright. But that only means that they're invariant with respect to these two points. With respect to any other point, they'd have changed (due to length contraction). According to your argument, every point in the universe is the midpoint of pairs of other points. Then this means that every point is invariant, which they're not, according to observation.

Rosnet,
I overlooked something crucial in your statement. When you refer to "two other points in every reference frame", you have not described the absolute zero velocity point I produced. The frame is moving wrt the zero velocity point. The point is frame independent as you can see. The speed of the photons moving as described are the physical entities that define the invariant point. The frame is just there. For sure the frame observers can determine the point, which may be of relatively short duration, but hey, just generate another point from which to make continuous measurements of the ships' speed. If the "device" is assembled in three dimensions one can also obtain direction as well as absolute speed.
Geistkiesel :cool:

superluminal

08-06-05, 01:27 PM

Look G (and MacM),

Here's what I want.

Setup two situations with as many observers, extra space probes, and gizmos as you'd like (anywhere you want), scattered around the solar system or wherever.

Put a ship moving at any velocity you wish, anywhere you want.

I want to know it's absolute velocity such that anyone in the universe will calculate the same number. The answer will be in meters/sec and cannot be "with respect to" anything. It's absolute after all.

Make up your own numbers. I don't care.

Let's see what you come up with.

P.S. Geist, my anger is indeed internal and stems from a self knowledge of the masochistic nature of continuing to debate these subjects with you and Mac. It's a form of self abuse.

As far as me being a bad person or not, I'm good when I need to be, and bad when I need to be.

Aer

08-06-05, 01:31 PM

Hah, this should be entertaining if either steps up to the challenge. Possibly with the except of G as I can never understand what he is actually saying because he'll say two sequential sentences that contradict each other.

superluminal

08-06-05, 01:32 PM

I have been asking this in some form for almost a year now. Like I said, it's masochism...

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 02:53 PM

SL and Aer, Here goes.
I derived expressions for the difference in speed of the A frame and the B frame assuming the B frame was faster than the A. I also assumed that the speed of the frames from which the relative motion was measured, .2c according to SL were real velocities and nt sme QM like probability function. The speeds were as if they were measured from the embankment.

Ok, the relative speed of the A and B frame is .2c. and as theB is larger this mustg be greagter than .1, so we'll say the measured difference in speed is .09c. therefore Vb = Va + .09. As we had tenetaively set the Va + Vb = Vab = j then Va + Va + k = j, of Va = (j - k)/2. j = .2 and k = .09, so Va = (.2- .09)/2 = .11/2 = .055c. Vb was determiend to be (j + k)/2 = (.2 + .09)/2 or .29/2 = .145. As a check .145 + .055 = .2 in units of C.
j was measured by A and B (per SL). As we don't know what the actual difference of the A and B frame is until measured I had to make this number up.

Any questions or objections?

And of course I thank you for your interest and attention in ths very important matter.

Geistkiesel :cool:

geistkiesel

08-06-05, 02:58 PM

Aer,
You made a statement that I am known by yourself to "contradict" myself in succeeding sentences. Could you give one or two examples please?

From the tone of your statement you made this attribute of myself that you described seem like a frequent occurrance, so would you please justify your statement? I hadn't recognized that I was doing this so I would appreciate your assistance.

Geistkisel :cool:

Aer

08-06-05, 03:42 PM

Aer,
You made a statement that I am known by yourself to "contradict" myself in succeeding sentences. Could you give one or two examples please?

Here you go:
I derived expressions for the difference in speed of the A frame and the B frame assuming the B frame was faster than the A. I also assumed that the speed of the frames from which the relative motion was measured, .2c according to SL were real velocities and nt sme QM like probability function.

Relative to what?

How is a real velocity different from a relative velocity?

superluminal

08-06-05, 04:00 PM

I derived expressions for the difference in speed of the A frame and the B frame assuming the B frame was faster than the A.
What? You can't do that. Faster wrt what?

I also assumed that the speed of the frames from which the relative motion was measured, .2c according to SL were real velocities and nt sme QM like probability function. The speeds were as if they were measured from the embankment.
What??? No! The 0.2c is one measuring the other! What embamkment?

Ok, the relative speed of the A and B frame is .2c. and as the B is larger this must be greagter than .1, so we'll say the measured difference in speed is .09c.
What the hell? You'll just say?

therefore Vb = Va + .09. As we had tenetaively set the Va + Vb = Vab = j then Va + Va + k = j, of Va = (j - k)/2. j = .2 and k = .09, so Va = (.2-.09)/2 = .11/2 = .055c. Vb was determiend to be (j + k)/2 = (.2 + .09)/2 or .29/2 = .145. As a check .145 + .055 = .2 in units of C.
This is complete nonsense. So, you conclude that the absolute speed of A is .145 and B is .055 ?

j was measured by A and B (per SL). As we don't know what the actual difference of the A and B frame is until measured I had to make this number up.
It's 0.2c! That's a given!

Ok. Let's redo you "calculations" with my assumption.

Ok, the relative speed of the A and B frame is .2c. and as the B is larger this must be greagter than .1, so we'll say the measured difference in speed is .04c. Let's just say.

therefore Vb = Va + .04. As we had tenetaively set the Va + Vb = Vab =