In UniKEF I find that relavistic mass is limited to situations where the accelerating energy is applied via relavistic velocity. i.e. in a particle accelerator.

I also conclude that that affect is an illusion based on a decrease of energy transfer efficiency with relavistic velocity. It is derived completely differently than relavistic mass calculations using Relativity but the curve ends up being the same.

The important distinction is that in UniKEF no "Actual" mass increase takes place, it is a loss of energy transfer efficiency. That results in the view that there is nothing to restrict self propelled objects from exceeding v = c to an observer. i.e. - a rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine or rocket load cannot be restrained from exceeding v = c because of an observers view.

What is thought to happen is the object would vanish by Lorentz Contraction and cease to exist in our physical universe. Our universe by UniKEF has two domain boundries making it finite. "Qualitative (relative velocity v = c) and "Quantitative" which causes the universe physically to appear as a finite bubble in a larger creation.

Without bringing in issues of Lorentz Contraction, Time Dilation, etc., which are primarily also limited to relative velocity between observers, I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars with velocites "Traverse" to us of 760 c to 5,200 c, as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.

However, those observations are being challenged by attacks on "Doppler Shift" and until that is somehow resolved, it is hard to rely upon them as evidence (which I feel they are) of the UniKEF view.

However, I just had a thought and I open up the folloiwng question to the MSB for comment.

I know that gallatic recession velocity increases the further out in time we look, indeed it is believed that those velocities are accelerating.

My question is this. Has there been any evidence that there is a relavistic increase in gallactic mass that correlates even in general terms with relavistic velocity of the gallaxies? I don't think there is.

If not, considering that there are several that are exceeding 90% c and with no evidence of relavistic mass increases, I think that also suggests that the relavistic mass perception is as believed via UniKEF as an energy transfer efficiency effect and not an actual mass change affect.

What is your thoughts?

MacM:

This seems like a good opportunity for us to see if UniKEF really is testable and so on.

<i>In UniKEF I find that relavistic mass is limited to situations where the accelerating energy is applied via relavistic velocity. i.e. in a particle accelerator.

I also conclude that that affect is an illusion based on a decrease of energy transfer efficiency with relavistic velocity. It is derived completely differently than relavistic mass calculations using Relativity but the curve ends up being the same.</i>

Great!

Please post the derivation of these results from the basics of UniKEF theory, so we can all see how they are derived. (If the derivation is too long to post here, a link will suffice.)

<i>Our universe by UniKEF has two domain boundries making it finite. "Qualitative (relative velocity v = c) and "Quantitative" which causes the universe physically to appear as a finite bubble in a larger creation.</i>

Again, I would like to see how you reach this conclusion using the postulates of UniKEF theory.

What are the basic postulates of the theory, by the way?

<i>...I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars with velocites "Traverse" to us of 760 c to 5,200 c, as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.</i>

Show me how I can use UniKEF to calculate the values you quote. Never mind about the Doppler problems you mentioned for now. We can deal with those later.

James R.,

I am clearly not prepared to open UniKEF up to review.

The question was:

*************************
"Is there any evidence of relavistic mass change in the gallactic recession velocites?"
*************************

If there is then there is no basis to view it as further evidence of my view. If not then one must ask why not.


...I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars with velocites "Traverse" to us of 760 c to 5,200 c, as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.

Show me how I can use UniKEF to calculate the values you quote. Never mind about the Doppler problems you mentioned for now. We can deal with those later.
__________________

These are not my calculations. They are NASA's. That fact was my basis for feeling they represent my view but due to the Doppler questions I can't really claim them as the evidence I would like. Although I am having a very hard time visualizing those kinds of errors in Doppler.

Ref: The quasar data. Thinking back I have seen NASA text supporting those findings but the calculations were by other astronomers. I'll post the info shortly. Got to go retrieve it.

Link:

Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the four quasars PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 on the cosmological red shift hypothesis. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to

Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light !

for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html



(Note: It referred to Red Shift, not Doppler)

MacM:

<i>I am clearly not prepared to open UniKEF up to review.</i>

Ok then. Presumably you will post nothing further about it here until you are ready to have it examined.

<i>"Is there any evidence of relavistic mass change in the gallactic recession velocites?"</i>

No, there isn't. The reason is that galactic recession is due to the Hubble expansion of the universe. Galaxies aren't moving in their local spacetime; the global (universal) spacetime is itself expanding, carrying the galaxies with it. For this reason, relativity expects no observed mass increase.

<i>These are not my calculations. They are NASA's. That fact was my basis for feeling they represent my view...</i>

But you said:
...I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars with velocites "Traverse" to us of 760 c to 5,200 c, as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.
If these velocities are derived by NASA, presumably NASA used conventional physics. How on earth can they then constitute evidence that UniKEF is valid? UniKEF hasn't made any predictions in this area, it seems.

edit to add (after MacM's edit):

Actually, it seems this calculation aimed to show that an alternative hypothesis is false. Again, there seems to be no necessary implication that UniKEF must be true as a result.

James R.,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
..I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars with velocites "Traverse" to us of 760 c to 5,200 c, as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If these velocities are derived by NASA, presumably NASA used conventional physics. How on earth can they then constitute evidence that UniKEF is valid? UniKEF hasn't made any predictions in this area, it seems.


****************************
Reply: Where or how do you and others ALWAYS distort statements to turn them negative? The post was abundantly clear that the question went to EVIDENCE regarding v = c as not being an ultimate limit because of infinite mass due to relavistic velocity.
***************************

edit to add (after MacM's edit):

Actually, it seems this calculation aimed to show that an alternative hypothesis is false. Again, there seems to be no necessary implication that UniKEF must be true as a result.
__________________


******************
Reply: Ditto to the above reply regarding distortion. Just WHERE do you see any such assertion "that UniKEF MUST therefore be true"?

The v = c limit issue is but one of numerous issues in UniKEF.

Even if it could be PROVEN true that would not prove UniKEF true, it would only prove that aspect true.

Failure to see a relavistic mass change at relavistic velocities IS grounds to question the validity of the interpretation of other mass change implications from particle accelerators.

And that is a basis to question the conditions of when and where to limit velocity by such change. Frankly those that do not see that simply do not want to see that.

I have never seen anything in Relativity that makes an exception to relavistic mass change with relative velocity. Recession presents objects with relative velocity to us. By what stretch of imagination do you claim that is excluded from the application of Relativity?

Please quote such a passage.

Trying to claim absence of such mass change because of "Local" time-space is like trying to claim our "Local" gravity is somehow different than universal gravity. or local time is different than universal time. We are encompassed in the same universal time-space and all the same laws apply.

My post was not made as an offer to assess a validitity of any claim. It was clearly made as a QUESTION, simply giving the reason for the question.

Yet the question got ignored and the reason for the question got attacked.

See my response to your post Alternative Theory Policy. Made 3/19, 8:02PM.

This was a test and you failed. I hope all can see why it is not advisable to attempt to get your ideas evaluated here.

Thank you.
*******************

James,

Galaxies aren't moving in their local spacetime; the global (universal) spacetime is itself expanding, carrying the galaxies with it.

I thought that there was no universal frame of reference. :bugeye:

MacM:

<i>Where or how do you and others ALWAYS distort statements to turn them negative? The post was abundantly clear that the question went to EVIDENCE regarding v = c as not being an ultimate limit because of infinite mass due to relavistic velocity.</i>

I'm sorry, but I still do not find it abundantly clear.

Are you asserting that v=c is not an ultimate limit?
Are you saying that the NASA figures support that view?

Because it seems to me that the NASA figures are there to demonstrate the implausibility of the "cosmological redshift" theory, as compared to the Hubble expansion.

<i>Just WHERE do you see any such assertion "that UniKEF MUST therefore be true"?</i>

Here:
...I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars ... as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.

<i>The v = c limit issue is but one of numerous issues in UniKEF.</i>

Tell me more. Does UniKEF say that v=c is a universal speed limit, or does it say something else?

<i>Even if it could be PROVEN true that would not prove UniKEF true, it would only prove that aspect true.</i>

Of course.

<i>Failure to see a relavistic mass change at relavistic velocities IS grounds to question the validity of the interpretation of other mass change implications from particle accelerators.</i>

Yes, it would be. Fortunately for relativity, the effects of relativistic mass increase are seen in experiments every day.

<i>I have never seen anything in Relativity that makes an exception to relavistic mass change with relative velocity. Recession presents objects with relative velocity to us. By what stretch of imagination do you claim that is excluded from the application of Relativity?</i>

I explained earlier. The universal expansion is not movement of galaxies <b>in space</b>; it is an expansion <b>of space itself</b>. The galaxies are simply along for the ride, so to speak.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure if relativistic mass increase of receding galaxies should be seen or not. What do you propose we measure to see if it occurs or not?

<i>Trying to claim absence of such mass change because of "Local" time-space is like trying to claim our "Local" gravity is somehow different than universal gravity. or local time is different than universal time. We are encompassed in the same universal time-space and all the same laws apply.</i>

Yes, the same laws apply, but gravity is different in different parts of the universe. Gravitational effects on a local level necessarily swamp gravitational effects on larger scales. That's why our solar system is not expanding, even though the universe as a whole is expanding.

<i>See my response to your post Alternative Theory Policy. Made 3/19, 8:02PM.</i>

I am in a different time zone from you, and I don't know exactly which time zone you're in. From my point of view, you made no post on that date at that time, so it is fairly unhelpful to refer to it that way. (In fact, I've tracked that post to one made on 3/20, my time.)

<i>This was a test and you failed.</i>

A test of what? Whether I would accept that UniKEF has predicted something without questioning how? I'm happy to fail that test.

<i>I hope all can see why it is not advisable to attempt to get your ideas evaluated here.</i>

I thought you said you were asking a question, not asking for evaluation of your ideas. Now you say you're attempting to get your ideas evaluated. Which is it?

James R.,

Now I believe we have a discussion, not an attack. So I will be pleased to try and continue through this.


MacM:
MacM:

Where or how do you and others ALWAYS distort statements to turn them negative? The post was abundantly clear that the question went to EVIDENCE regarding v = c as not being an ultimate limit because of infinite mass due to relavistic velocity.

I'm sorry, but I still do not find it abundantly clear.

Are you asserting that v=c is not an ultimate limit?
Are you saying that the NASA figures support that view?

*********************
Reply: v = c is only a limit where the means of propulsion is via relative velocity with applied accelerating energy. i.e. - a particle accelerater. Where something is accelerated by self-propulsion, such as a rocket or some horrendus initial explosion no such limit applies in that an observer is incapable of effecting the physics of the inertial system being propelled. Any relative limit in such a case must be observational not reality.

Observers cannot affect remote physics.

And yes the absence of "Infinite mass" being present in the traverse motion of the quasars does coincide with the UniKEF view of when and where the infinite mass concepts should apply a v =c limit. As does the absence of relavistc mass change for objects in recession at high relavistic velocites to us.
************************



Because it seems to me that the NASA figures are there to demonstrate the implausibility of the "cosmological redshift" theory, as compared to the Hubble expansion.



***************************
Reply: I see this calculation as CYA to a high degree by astronomers responding to NASA/MIT findings of such velocites.
They are verifying the findings of such velocity but are offering a question as to the validity of the calculation by attacking another primary scientific belief - Red Shift.

Logically, I find that effort most inadequate. I would like someone to reverse engineering that suggestion to show how far off Red Shift theory would have to be to result in a 5,200 c mis-calculation. It seems less than plausible to me that such a grand flaw in a concept could be unnoticed in the first instance and the EXCUSE for Relativity seemingly to be defiyed is nothing short of a red herring.
***************************



Just WHERE do you see any such assertion "that UniKEF MUST therefore be true"?

Here:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...I have taken the "Proper Velocity" calculations by NASA of several quasars ... as being evidence that the UniKEF view is valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


**************************
Reply: We seem to have a totally different view of the term "Evidence". My meaning is that it is "Suggestive", certainly not "Proof".
**************************


The v = c limit issue is but one of numerous issues in UniKEF.

Tell me more. Does UniKEF say that v=c is a universal speed limit, or does it say something else?


****************
Reply: Answered above.
****************



Failure to see a relavistic mass change at relavistic velocities IS grounds to question the validity of the interpretation of other mass change implications from particle accelerators.

Yes, it would be. Fortunately for relativity, the effects of relativistic mass increase are seen in experiments every day.



********************
Reply: I have not challenged the evidence of experimental results. I do challenge the interpretation of those experiments as to their broader application to independantly propelled objects.. There is simply no testing which justifies that assumption. And as indicated above there are observations that infact challenge that view.
********************


I have never seen anything in Relativity that makes an exception to relavistic mass change with relative velocity. Recession presents objects with relative velocity to us. By what stretch of imagination do you claim that is excluded from the application of Relativity?

I explained earlier. The universal expansion is not movement of galaxies in space; it is an expansion of space itself. The galaxies are simply along for the ride, so to speak.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure if relativistic mass increase of receding galaxies should be seen or not. What do you propose we measure to see if it occurs or not?


************************
Reply: That is a tricky question and I realised that when I posted this but I think it is a fair question and deserves consideration. Since what we observe in terms of mass, has (or in my opinion should be) alaready been subjected to relavistic mass change, it would be difficult to determine it such cahnge took place because you have no way of knowing the rest mass.

But it also occured to me that reverse engineering should allow to compute the rest masses of receeding gallaxies using relavistic velocity calculation in reverse. If we see a general decrease in statistical gallatic masses as we look further and further out (higher recession velocity) then I would suspect that such deviation from the universal standard (average) distribution of mass is an indication that relavistic mass in not subject to self-propelled objects.

You have made a very welcome admission. You are not sure that relavistic mass should or should not be present. Yur initial response fronted that arguement as fact to defeat the discussion. that is the type of thing that I find wrong in trying to discuss things in general when it comes to new concepts. Many times rules are made up "Ad Hoc" by the learned ones. That may or may not be intentional but it happens. It is even harder to disprove false arguement by scholars when they are posted as accept scientific fact.
*************************



Trying to claim absence of such mass change because of "Local" time-space is like trying to claim our "Local" gravity is somehow different than universal gravity. or local time is different than universal time. We are encompassed in the same universal time-space and all the same laws apply.

Yes, the same laws apply, but gravity is different in different parts of the universe. Gravitational effects on a local level necessarily swamp gravitational effects on larger scales. That's why our solar system is not expanding, even though the universe as a whole is expanding.


******************
Reply: I accept localized gravity. but I think it is unjustified to assume the same is true of time-space.
******************



See my response to your post Alternative Theory Policy. Made 3/19, 8:02PM.

I am in a different time zone from you, and I don't know exactly which time zone you're in. From my point of view, you made no post on that date at that time, so it is fairly unhelpful to refer to it that way. (In fact, I've tracked that post to one made on 3/20, my time.)


**********************
Reply: I am in US. Mountain Daylight Savings time zone. I have been on other sites that post times as relative to the location of the site, so I assumed the times indicated are the site time standard. If not it would be helpful if the messages were numbered in each string. i.e. - message #17 in reply to your original post.
*************************



This was a test and you failed.

A test of what? Whether I would accept that UniKEF has predicted something without questioning how? I'm happy to fail that test.


***********************
Reply: No. The post had nothing to do with testing UniKEF. It was a question regarding observed or obvservable data in the Universe as applies to the UniKEF view. As I suspected the question itself went unanswered and the basis for the question became challenged.

I will continue to ask questions, as I could have here, without alluding to the basis for the question because any mention of an alternate ideas spawns a reaction to challenge the idea. that was the test.

The question was ignored but the basis for the question was challenged. The very information which was to be some basis to support the concept was not replied to and the idea is being challenged in abscense of the very data requested to support the concept.

Have I been able to show my point or am I just flapping in the breeze?
********************



I hope all can see why it is not advisable to attempt to get your ideas evaluated here.

I thought you said you were asking a question, not asking for evaluation of your ideas. Now you say you're attempting to get your ideas evaluated. Which is it?
__________________
JR



*******************
Reply: I still see the same tendancy to veer off point. Just where do you see an effort to have UniKEF evaluated? The statement is infact just the opposite. A warning to other posters of new concepts to be wary of asking for such an evaluation or to even mention an idea in a related question, since the question gets ignored in favor of challenging the concept promoting the question.
*******************

"A warning to other posters of new concepts to be wary of asking for such an evaluation or to even mention an idea in a related question, since the question gets ignored in favor of challenging the concept promoting the question."

Before trying to answer a question, it is good to know what the person asking the question is talking about. When you ask questions about your new theory, ofcourse we want to dive in and try to understand it before we can answer anything.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Your point is understood but it is my opinion that is the incorrect approach to theory development.

The case just presented was an effort to ellicite information from conventional physics with regard to certain observations, which go to the possible underpinnings of the theory in question.

To challenge the theory before answering such a question therefore undermines the point of the theory being presented.

That was the meaning of my title in a prior post here "Cart Before the Horse".

Now I fully recognize that if one wants such data it is currently best done without giving the basis for the question. In that manner he will likely get a direct answer.

I have done so here to try and point out the problem as I see it.

Maybe that way the kind of latitude I suggest may become more common.

I am actually trying to accomlish something positive here with regard to James decision to keep "Theory Development" on the main board.

What I am suggesting is a more tolerant attitude to explore and be sure of the meaning before assuming a flaw in the presentation.

My experience thus far shows a tendancy to jump on a mis-typed or mis-spelled word, word useage or improper technical term and never to get back the the issue at hand which had nothing to do with such an error.

Most here seem to have that flexaility but a few do not and those few seem to dominate the responses at every opportunity. It is like a sport. That doesn't constitute Theory Development.

In my presentation, I at no point opened up UniKEF to discussion. I merely gave its view as the reason for asking the question.

At no point did I present UniKEF's view as being proof or of even making a challenge to current theories but only as the basis for the question.

As I hope you can see the information concerning current observation provides ample grounds for such questions to be considered.

What occurs here is not Theory Develpment it constitutes somethingelse which I won't bother to agitate the board by naming.

Thanks for your response.

MacM:

Silly me for not reading your link properly the first time.

I've just had a read through. The site you linked to, and the piece you quoted from it, seem to have no actual link to NASA as far as I can see. The author of the site seems to be postulating that quasars are not actually extra-galactic objects (as virtually all astronomers believe), but are instead a particular type of star.

I am not an astronomer, but I believe this hypothesis is untenable because of the very large energies of quasars. There is simply no known physical process associated with stars which could produce such large energy outputs.

Now, since I don't trust the author's interpretation of these objects, I'm not at all sure I should trust his velocity calculations either. He has claimed to calculate the velocities, but he hasn't published the calculations (or even an outline of the method used).

<i>Reply: v = c is only a limit where the means of propulsion is via relative velocity with applied accelerating energy. i.e. - a particle accelerater. Where something is accelerated by self-propulsion, such as a rocket or some horrendus initial explosion no such limit applies in that an observer is incapable of effecting the physics of the inertial system being propelled. Any relative limit in such a case must be observational not reality.</i>

I think you're missing something here. The v=c limit is <b>always</b> from the point of view of an external observer. An observer sitting inside a rocket always sees the rocket as stationary. The inside observer sees the outside world moving past at some velocity. The point is: no observer can see a velocity greater than c. An outside observer can't see the rocket go faster than c, and an inside observer can't see the outside world go faster than c.

<i>We seem to have a totally different view of the term "Evidence". My meaning is that it is "Suggestive", certainly not "Proof".</i>

Tell me why this evidence is suggestive the UniKEF is correct. So far, you've presented no explanation of how UniKEF reaches the conclusion you say the evidence supports.

<i>I have not challenged the evidence of experimental results. I do challenge the interpretation of those experiments as to their broader application to independantly propelled objects.. There is simply no testing which justifies that assumption.</i>

The theory of relativity makes no distinction between self-propelled objects and objects propelled by some outside influence. The theory distinguishes between observations made by observers in different reference frames. The object being observed is unimportant.

<i>But it also occured to me that reverse engineering should allow to compute the rest masses of receeding gallaxies using relavistic velocity calculation in reverse.</i>

Actually, we can calculate the rest mass of a galaxy by looking at its internal dynamics. The recessional speed is then irrelevant. What I'm wondering is: can you think of a way to measure a galaxy's relativistic mass from a distance? I can't, except indirectly.

James R.,

I think we have actually found some common territory.

Let me start by saying I am not atesting to the calculations made by others but I refer
you to the following extract from UniKEF Vol_1.

Extract:
******************
f - In 1971 collaboration between NASA and MIT radio astronomers to
take measurements of remote "Quasars" resulted in data that showed
their components were "Apparently flying apart with velocities that
GREATLY EXCEEDED THE VELOCITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT".

Professor Jesse Greenstein posted the following poem on Caltech
blackboards.

Horrid quasar,
Near or far,
This truth to you I must confess:
My heart for you is full of hate.
O superstar,
Imploded gas,
You glowing speck upon a plate,
Of Einstein's world you've made a mess.
***********************

Now to your post:

I think you're missing something here. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................. The point is: no observer can see a velocity greater than c. An outside observer can't
see the rocket go faster than c, and an inside observer can't see the outside world go
fasterthan c.

**********************
Reply: We generally agree with the above statement. But I have to hold that it is you and many
others (but certainly not all) that are missing something.

You take it to mean nothing can attain a velocity of v>c. It
doesn't say that, it says an
observer "Cannot SEE a velocity of v>c".

I agree with what it actually says as stated just above. The proper traverse velocites of Quasars
doesn't violate that principle. It is not motion relative to us. It is lateral motion.

There is nothing that says (that I am aware of) in Relativity that says nothing can exceed v = c. It is a
mis-interpretation of other issues. If Relativity does directly say that then observation favors LR over
GR or SR. It is that simple. Observation is stronger than a mathematical extrapolation.
************************


We seem to have a totally different view of the term "Evidence". My meaning is that it is "Suggestive",
certainly not "Proof".

Tell me why this evidence is suggestive the UniKEF is correct. So far, you've presented no explanation
of how UniKEF reaches the conclusion you say the evidence supports.


*************************
Reply:No I haven't outlined the basis from the theory, for it has not been reduced to the format you have
claimed is required. It is at an intellectual level of logical conclusion based on untested
mathematical interpretation of what relavistic mass change may really be instead of actual mass change.

"IF" as I believe, mass is not changing, but the observation is actually that of an energy efficiency
decrease with relative velocity, then there exists no v = c limit for self-propelled systems.

There will be a v = c limit for objects being accelerated by external forces where the energy is
being applied at relavistic velocites. i.e - particle accelerators.

This view is consistant with observation and testing of such a limit but is also consistant with the
observation of Quasar velocites; which Relativity (the mis-interpretation of it) isn't.

As I have said before that Relativity isn't necessarily wrong but may be being mis-interpreted.
*******************************


I have not challenged the evidence of experimental results. I do challenge the interpretation of those
experiments as to their broader application to independantly propelled objects.. There is simply no
testing which justifies that assumption.

The theory of relativity makes no distinction between self-propelled objects and objects propelled
by some outside influence. The theory distinguishes between observations made by observers in
different reference frames. The object being observed is unimportant.

****************************
Reply: Therein may be the only correction required to have current observation and logical conflicts
resolved. The fact that no distinction is made is not the same thing as stating there is no distinction.
Had Quasars been observed in 1905, I suggest such a distinction would have clearly been
mandated and made.
****************************


But it also occured to me that reverse engineering should allow to compute the rest masses of receeding
gallaxies using relavistic velocity calculation in reverse.

Actually, we can calculate the rest mass of a galaxy by looking at its internal dynamics. The recessional speed
is then irrelevant. What I'm wondering is: can you think of a way to measure a galaxy's relativistic mass from
a distance? I can't, except indirectly.



*************************
Reply: I don't believe its velocity is irrelevant. I believe that is the very point at issue. And yes I believe
the only way to assess the issue is by indirect means of mathematics.

If you calculate a galaxy's mass dynamically and then apply a reverse calculation of its traverse velocity
to find its rest mass, you will get a nonsensical answer (what are you going to do with 5,200c in Relavistic
Mass calculation).

That suggests that Relavistic Mass change is not real mass change in an absolute universal sense but
is only an illusion of energy transfer efficiency change. To not ruffle feathers I won't go further here on
details because this string really was not an effort to present UniKEF.
**********************

Let me promise this. If there is any interest in what is starting to unfold here, then let individuals that choose
simply go to the site and read the material. I will not post further UniKEF views here except to respond
to questions asked about UniKEF. There are close to 100 pages over there mostly gross speculation but
some graphics and mathematics and that is only an extract version of the original manuscript.

It is far to informal and complex to bring over here to disect.

Thanks for your time. I really think we are starting to communicate vs argue some points. It has a good feel.

THIS POST WENT WIDE FOR SOME REASON. I HAD TO EDIT LINE BREAKS TO TRY AND KEEP IT ON SCREEN?

Hi MacM,

"You take it to mean nothing can attain a velocity of v>c. It
doesn't say that, it says an observer "Cannot SEE a velocity of v>c".

I agree with what it actually says as stated just above. The proper traverse velocites of Quasars
doesn't violate that principle. It is not motion relative to us. It is lateral motion."

You seem to imply that an object can have a velocity v>c, but that an observer cannot see a velocity v>c. That is quite a tricky statement you make, for several reasons:

If you cannot observe an effect your theory predicts, or you agree with, then it is not-scientific: the results and predictions are not testable. This might sound like a silly remark, but it is important for further consistencies.
If you say that an object has a velocity "v>c" then you must specify what the velocity is relative to. Unfortunately, that means specifying an observer (or origin of coordinate system, but that is an observer), so your statement is a contradiction in itself.
If we cannot see velocities v>c, how do you try to explain those quasers you talk about all the time then ? Aren't we observers here on earth?


Concerning the last remark: you try to make a distinction between "relative" and "lateral" motion. There is no such division in special relativity: all motion is "relative" (i.e. the one described by SR), even if the objects are moving in a direction perpendicular to your own velocity.

" It is at an intellectual level of logical conclusion based on untested mathematical interpretation of what relavistic mass change may really be instead of actual mass change."

Relativity clearly states what change in (relativistic) mass is: the restmass remains constant. Because of the mass-energy equivalence, the increase in relativistic mass is directly related/proportional to the increase in energy.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Good responses. I think we are making progress here. This is more of a discussion and that is what I have said should be the tone of the MSB. I appreciate that.


You seem to imply that an object can have a velocity v>c, but that an observer cannot see a velocity v>c. That is quite a tricky statement you make, for several reasons:

If you cannot observe an effect your theory predicts, or you agree with, then it is not-scientific: the results and predictions are not testable. This might sound like a silly remark, but it is important for further consistencies.

***************************
Reply: I suppose you can use the term imply. I would rather think that it is being pointed out that objects are being seen to have velocites of v>c.

You can observe v>c if the v is not in direct relation to you. That is anticipated to be as a consequence of Lorentz Contraction. In other words the traverse velocity does not impose relavistic functions between you and the object.

When one looks at observation in a macro view it starts to become more clear. You see objects approaching v = c in direct relative veolcity to you but there is no observation of objects at v>c in that plane. But you also see objects that are v>c but only when that velocity is not relative to you in a direct vector.
******************************



If you say that an object has a velocity "v>c" then you must specify what the velocity is relative to. Unfortunately, that means specifying an observer (or origin of coordinate system, but that is an observer), so your statement is a contradiction in itself.

****************************
Reply: That is already stated. The "Proper velocity calculations are traverse motion between objects or component parts of the quasar itself. Fragments if you will from the explosion. These velocites are relative to each other but not directly to us. We are observing the motion from a non-relative vantage point.
****************************



If we cannot see velocities v>c, how do you try to explain those quasers you talk about all the time then ? Aren't we observers here on earth?


************************
Reply: Answered above. We are limited only by relative velocity in direct relation to us. The velocity is not relative to us.
************************




Concerning the last remark: you try to make a distinction between "relative" and "lateral" motion. There is no such division in special relativity: all motion is "relative" (i.e. the one described by SR), even if the objects are moving in a direction perpendicular to your own velocity.


***********************
Reply: As I have stated elsewhere, I find that there is a signifigant difference between the theory "Not making a distinction" and saying "That there is no distinction". I do not believe the issue is addressed at all. Considering that fact it becomes an omission based on absence of observation at the time of the theory. In otherwords had these Quasars been observed in 1905, surely this distinction would have been mandated and made. Instead it was assumed that there existed this prohibition on such velocity but observation today seems to challenge that view.

If such a distinction is specifically made in SR then it appears that LR is a more correct theory than SR since it has no such prohibition of v>c.
****************************



" It is at an intellectual level of logical conclusion based on untested mathematical interpretation of what relavistic mass change may really be instead of actual mass change."

Relativity clearly states what change in (relativistic) mass is: the restmass remains constant. Because of the mass-energy equivalence, the increase in relativistic mass is directly related/proportional to the increase in energy.

**************************
Reply: I agree with the above statements. HOwever, the energy (mass) gain at the speed of light is not infinite. Simply do standard math to derive the energy added by velocity. But to use Relativity to compute mass appears to be based on an illusion not reality. that illusion is based in the indirect implication of power increase to accelerate particles. But that is a case where accelerating energy is being applied via relavistic velocities.
It may be that the increased power required is due to "Energy Transfer Efficiency Decrease" as opposed to actual mass increase.

That view is consistant with observation of the Quasars and logically suggests that v =>c is not a physical limit of objects in absolute terms. That is self-propelled objects could exceed v=c, since there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine and load being accelerated. that is actually still consistant with Relativity; except for what seems to be a mis-interpretaion and/or application of Relativity to suggest somehow that an observer can affect the physics of a distant independant rocket.
*******************

Hi MacM,

"You can observe v>c if the v is not in direct relation to you. That is anticipated to be as a consequence of Lorentz Contraction. In other words the traverse velocity does not impose relavistic functions between you and the object."

That is is incorrect: from a point of view of the theory of special relativity (which you use since you talk about Lorentz transformations and Lorentz contraction), no velocity with v < c can give rise to a transformed velocity with v' > cin another frame of reference. Also, from the moment you are able to measure the velocity v, there is a "direct relation" between the observer and the moving object. As a matter of fact, there is no restriction on measurements in SR: you can measure any object going at any speed.

"When one looks at observation in a macro view it starts to become more clear. You see objects approaching v = c in direct relative veolcity to you but there is no observation of objects at v>c in that plane. But you also see objects that are v>c but only when that velocity is not relative to you in a direct vector."

I do not entirely understand your picture, but you should keep in mind that the classical velocity addition formula (which you seem to be using in your geometrical view) is no longer valid in special relativity. From the Lorentz transformations you can deduce a new velocity addition formula, which can not give rise to a velocity with v > c of the original object is not going faster than c. As a matter of fact, when the original speed is larger than c, the Lorentz transformations will give imaginary results, not quite what you want in a physical situation.

The point is that you cannot make a seperation between "an observer measuring a velocity with v > c" and "the object going at a velocity with v > c". From the moment you can talk about velocity, you are talking about observers. It is non-sense to drag in "vectors that are not directly relative to you", any velocity you measure is relative to an observer (you in this case). If you do not specify an observer when talking about velocities, you are talking non-sense.

To summarize: there are only two velocities of an object you can talk about:

The velocity you measure in the object's frame of reference; this is trivially v = 0.
The velocity you measure in another frame of reference; this is always "relative to you" and should always satisfy v < c for a massive object. If the velocity is transverse, orthogonal to your direction of motion, parallel with your direction of motion, or in a I-don't-care-how-the-velocity-vector-is-pointing direction of motion, does not influence how you measure the velocity.


"That is already stated. The "Proper velocity calculations are traverse motion between objects or component parts of the quasar itself. Fragments if you will from the explosion. These velocites are relative to each other but not directly to us. We are observing the motion from a non-relative vantage point."

The basic transformations between reference frames (the Lorentz transformations for SR) allow you to transform the "velocities relative to each other" directly "to us". In practice, this is done the other way around: we measure the velocities from our frame of reference. If whoever-did-the-calculations then transforms to reference frames relative to fragments of the explosion and finds speeds v > c using the Lorentz transformations, then his calculations are guarantueed to be flawed (because, as I stated above, an input velocity v < c measured in our frame of reference can never give rise to a velocity v' > c in another frame of reference).

There is only one way out of the dilemma and that is to say that the measurements on earth here gave velocities v > c of the fragments. If that is the case, then you mathematically simply cannot calculate "velocities of fragments relative to eachother" because the Lorentz transformations would give imaginary results.

How do you explain measurements of fragments going at v > c then ? I have absolutely no idea, but as long as no confirming repeated measurements have been made, I'll remain a bit sceptical on the results as a theoretical physicist ;).

"As I have stated elsewhere, I find that there is a signifigant difference between the theory "Not making a distinction" and saying "That there is no distinction". I do not believe the issue is addressed at all. Considering that fact it becomes an omission based on absence of observation at the time of the theory. In otherwords had these Quasars been observed in 1905, surely this distinction would have been mandated and made. Instead it was assumed that there existed this prohibition on such velocity but observation today seems to challenge that view."

An often made mistake. Special relativity does not assume that "no object can travel faster than lightspeed", it predicts it.

From a theoretical point of view, there is no difference between "the theory not making a distinction" and saying "that there is no distinction". A theory is a model built on certain premises. From that point onward, any correct calculation produces statements that are guaranteed to be correct within the framework of the theory. Saying that "in reality, there really is a distinction between x and y while in theory there isn't" indicates a failure of the theory to describe reality.

If you want to use SR, then you must accept that there is no distinction between "relative" and "transverse" velocities as you call them (I should point out again that any velocity, even transversely directed ones, are "relative" to all possible frames of reference, even ours). If you want to make the distinction, then you are prohibited to use any result from any current physical theory, because none of them makes that distinction... In other words: you would have to derive and check every statement you make from the first principles of your own theory.

"If such a distinction is specifically made in SR then it appears that LR is a more correct theory than SR since it has no such prohibition of v>c."

What is LR ?

"But to use Relativity to compute mass appears to be based on an illusion not reality. that illusion is based in the indirect implication of power increase to accelerate particles. But that is a case where accelerating energy is being applied via relavistic velocities. It may be that the increased power required is due to "Energy Transfer Efficiency Decrease" as opposed to actual mass increase."

Incorrect. Special Relativity does not assume that mass goes to infinity as you let v -> c, it predicts it. And appearantly the prediction is right, because experiments indicate that the energy required to push an energy to v = c. Whether there is really something else going on, is irrelevant for the theory. If you want to explain that "something else" that is responsible for objects not being able to attain lightspeed, you will have to derive it completely from a new theory.

It seems that you have the basics of SR mixed up. Allow me to repeat the two basic assumptions of Special Relativity (of which one is divided into three points, so there are 4 assumptions if you like):

1. The Galilean Principle Of Relativity

There exists a notion of "inertial frame of reference".
A frame of reference that moves with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame of reference is in turn itself an inertial frame of reference
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. The speed of light in vacuum is c for all observers.

From these two assumptions, you can derive everything that relativity predicts. No further assumptions are required.

Bye!

Crisp

Yes, I came back. For a minute anyway.

I'm disappointed that none of you have yet realized that MacM is talking out his ass about the superluminal quasar jet velocities. This topic is covered, literally, in the first semester of introductory astrophysics in colleges around the country. Here is a page from the University of Colorado:

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum.htm

I also suggest that you pick up a copy of Carroll & Ostlie's "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics." This textbook was published nearly ten years ago, and contains a similar (yet easier to read) explanation of the apparent superluminal motion.

The answer: the angle of inclination between the jet axis and our line of sight is very small. Relativistic beaming creates the illusion.

- Warren

Crisp,




"You can observe v>c if the v is not in direct relation to you. That is anticipated to be as a consequence of Lorentz Contraction. In other words the traverse velocity does not impose relavistic functions between you and the object."


That is is incorrect: from a point of view of the theory of special relativity (which you use since you talk about Lorentz transformations and Lorentz contraction), no velocity with v < c can give rise to a transformed velocity with v' > cin another frame of reference. Also, from the moment you are able to measure the velocity v, there is a "direct relation" between the observer and the moving object. As a matter of fact, there is no restriction on measurements in SR: you can measure any object going at any speed.

**********************
Reply:I think we agree on the above but that you mis-interpret the meaning of "Proper Velocity". Nobody is claiming that a relative velocity of v>c exists between fragments of the quasars.

1 - Either the Velocity Addition Formula (VAF) must adjust the velocity as seen by those observers.

2 - More than likely v = c is not a physical limit of absolute velocity and those fragments no longer exist to each other by Lorentz Contracton.

3 - All mathematical extrapolations into this area must be viewed with a certain amount of latitude since nothing has ever tested the extrapolation of Relativity "Of Self-Propelled" objects into that realm.
*******************************



"When one looks at observation in a macro view it starts to become more clear. You see objects approaching v = c in direct relative veolcity to you but there is no observation of objects at v>c in that plane. But you also see objects that are v>c but only when that velocity is not relative to you in a direct vector."

I do not entirely understand your picture, but you should keep in mind that the classical velocity addition formula (which you seem to be using in your geometrical view) is no longer valid in special relativity. From the Lorentz transformations you can deduce a new velocity addition formula, which can not give rise to a velocity with v > c of the original object is not going faster than c. As a matter of fact, when the original speed is larger than c, the Lorentz transformations will give imaginary results, not quite what you want in a physical situation.

************************
Reply: I would be the last one to argue that SR or LR adequately describes what is going on with respect to the observations of such "Proper Traverse" velocities. But I would hold that the observation is much stronger than theories which don't support the observation. An indication that the usefulness of the conventional theories has become limited in todays enviornment.
************************



The point is that you cannot make a seperation between "an observer measuring a velocity with v > c" and "the object going at a velocity with v > c". From the moment you can talk about velocity, you are talking about observers. It is non-sense to drag in "vectors that are not directly relative to you", any velocity you measure is relative to an observer (you in this case). If you do not specify an observer when talking about velocities, you are talking non-sense.

*********************
Reply: The observers are two.

1 - You (us) being traverse to the motion and not at a relative velocity directly with the motion and hence suffer no Relatistic affects.

2 - The observers in the Quasar fragments. Which have such observerd relative velocity. As you have indicated current theory prohibits such velocites. What is not clear without actual data is if that is by VAF or Lorentz Contraction. The later could mean that we see objects that no longer exist physically to each other in their velocity jplane.

I frankly prefer that view but it remains to be determined what exactly is going on there.
***************************



To summarize: there are only two velocities of an object you can talk about :

The velocity you measure in the object's frame of reference; this is trivially v = 0.

The velocity you measure in another frame of reference; this is always "relative to you" and should always satisfy v < c for a massive object. If the velocity is transverse, orthogonal to your direction of motion, parallel with your direction of motion, or in a I-don't-care-how-the-velocity-vector-is-pointing direction of motion, does not influence how you measure the velocity.


*************
Reply: I take exception to the later view. It does matter and that account for the observation without undermining other current theories.
**************


"That is already stated. The "Proper velocity calculations are traverse motion between objects or component parts of the quasar itself. Fragments if you will from the explosion. These velocites are relative to each other but not directly to us. We are observing the motion from a non-relative vantage point."

The basic transformations between reference frames (the Lorentz transformations for SR) allow you to transform the "velocities relative to each other" directly "to us". In practice, this is done the other way around: we measure the velocities from our frame of reference. If whoever-did-the-calculations then transforms to reference frames relative to fragments of the explosion and finds speeds v > c using the Lorentz transformations, then his calculations are guarantueed to be flawed (because, as I stated above, an input velocity v < c measured in our frame of reference can never give rise to a velocity v' > c in another frame of reference).

********************
Reply: I would agree with these statements but argue that simply means the current theories are limited to relative velocities in the vector plane. Their application to traverse velocites is inappropriate.
********************



There is only one way out of the dilemma and that is to say that the measurements on earth here gave velocities v > c of the fragments. If that is the case, then you mathematically simply cannot calculate "velocities of fragments relative to eachother" because the Lorentz transformations would give imaginary results.


*****************
Reply:I agree. So don't use faulty mathematics or mathematics not intended to dsescribe the motion being considered.
****************



How do you explain measurements of fragments going at v > c then ? I have absolutely no idea, but as long as no confirming repeated measurements have been made, I'll remain a bit sceptical on the results as a theoretical physicist .


***********
Reply:There have been over 60 such measurements and these are made by NASA. I tend to believe NASA and not the unlimited application of a 100 year old mathematical concept.
************



"As I have stated elsewhere, I find that there is a signifigant difference between the theory "Not making a distinction" and saying "That there is no distinction". I do not believe the issue is addressed at all. Considering that fact it becomes an omission based on absence of observation at the time of the theory. In otherwords had these Quasars been observed in 1905, surely this distinction would have been mandated and made. Instead it was assumed that there existed this prohibition on such velocity but observation today seems to challenge that view."

An often made mistake. Special relativity does not assume that "no object can travel faster than lightspeed", it predicts it.


*************************
Reply: I agree but that prediction (unproven) flies in the face of current observation and logic.
**************************


From a theoretical point of view, there is no difference between "the theory not making a distinction" and saying "that there is no distinction". A theory is a model built on certain premises. From that point onward, any correct calculation produces statements that are guaranteed to be correct within the framework of the theory. Saying that "in reality, there really is a distinction between x and y while in theory there isn't" indicates a failure of the theory to describe reality.

***************
Reply: That is my point precisly. It fails to describe reality since object hving velocities of v>c were not considered possible, hence the prediction. The prediction seems wrong and the theory should be modernized, not necessairly abandoned.
********************



If you want to use SR, then you must accept that there is no distinction between "relative" and "transverse" velocities as you call them (I should point out again that any velocity, even transversely directed ones, are "relative" to all possible frames of reference, even ours). If you want to make the distinction, then you are prohibited to use any result from any current physical theory, because none of them makes that distinction... In other words: you would have to derive and check every statement you make from the first principles of your own theory. [quote]

**************
Reply: Seems one need not scrap current theory but modernize it to note the limited application of such mathematics as being limited to motion in the direct vector of the observers.
*****************


[quote]
"If such a distinction is specifically made in SR then it appears that LR is a more correct theory than SR since it has no such prohibition of v>c."

What is LR ?

*******************
Reply: Lorentz Relativity.
********************



"But to use Relativity to compute mass appears to be based on an illusion not reality. that illusion is based in the indirect implication of power increase to accelerate particles. But that is a case where accelerating energy is being applied via relavistic velocities. It may be that the increased power required is due to "Energy Transfer Efficiency Decrease" as opposed to actual mass increase."

Incorrect. Special Relativity does not assume that mass goes to infinity as you let v -> c, it predicts it. And appearantly the prediction is right, because experiments indicate that the energy required to push an energy to v = c. Whether there is really something else going on, is irrelevant for the theory. If you want to explain that "something else" that is responsible for objects not being able to attain lightspeed, you will have to derive it completely from a new theory.

******************
Reply: Definitely not so. The recognition that the affect is an energy transfer efficiency function, not a mass function, does not violate any observation or test data. It opens the door to allow current observation with a different understanding of what the theory actual means.
******************



It seems that you have the basics of SR mixed up. Allow me to repeat the two basic assumptions of Special Relativity (of which one is divided into three points, so there are 4 assumptions if you like):

1. The Galilean Principle Of Relativity



There exists a notion of "inertial frame of reference".

A frame of reference that moves with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame of reference is in turn itself an inertial frame of reference

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.


2. The speed of light in vacuum is c for all observers.

From these two assumptions, you can derive everything that relativity predicts. No further assumptions are required.


****************
Reply: Agreed. AS LONG AS YOU ARE CONTENT TO HAVE YOUR THEORY PROHIBIT WHAT IS CURRENTLY OBSERVED. Otherwise it is time to either modernize it or scrap it. Repeating what theoories say or predict do not make them correct where there has been no tests of the prediction.
*****************

Hi MacM,

"I think we agree on the above but that you mis-interpret the meaning of "Proper Velocity".".

I think that you mis-interpret the meaning of "Velocity", which is simply the change of position divided by the change of time (for very small time intervals). If this object appears to move one lightyear in one second, no matter what direction, no matter whether it is transverse, circular, dunno-what, then the velocity from our point of view is one lightyear / second. Once again, when I say velocity, I mean "all kinds" (even though there is no such thing as a particular kind of velocity). Relativity encompasses all kinds of velocity, even "proper velocity" (and BTW, I *do* know what that is).

"An indication that the usefulness of the conventional theories has become limited in todays enviornment."

You are still yet to produce a good argument that SR is wrong on this. Up to now, you are only making an articificial difference between direction of velocities. Fine, if you really want to do that, no problemo... But how you can get a result that contradicts SR by simply doing that baffles me (since SR encompasses your theory with that respect). I can only conclude that your reasoning or calculations are flawed.

"You (us) being traverse to the motion and not at a relative velocity directly with the motion and hence suffer no Relatistic affects."

The direction of motion is irrelevant, relativity theory applies to all directions of motion, you are applying it in a wrong way (look for the difference between Lorentz and Boost transformation).

The rest of your post is something along the lines of:
"I take exception to the later view. It does matter and that account for the observation without undermining other current theories"

If you accept that there is a difference when an object moves transverse from our point of view or parallel from our point of view, then you are not allowed to use any (conventional) theory from physics. They all assume that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (i.e., if instead of looking at your object from a transverse point of view, you would walk to a point where the motion would be parallel from your point of view, you can conduct the same experiments and get the same results).

So, if you really want to make the distinction, let's talk about that then. First:
1) How do you define transverse velocity
2) How do you define relative velocity
Please, don't use words to describe this, I would like to see a formula where you relate the change of position and the change of time. Then I will be glad to listen to your argument on why both are not equivalent and why there should be a clear distinction between both (and not just "because we observe them darn quasar thingies doing wierd things").

Bye!

Crisp

MacM:

Take a look at chroot's link. In particular, go to the page in the link with the movies showing what is happening with your quasars.

The apparent speed of the quasar is greater than the speed of light because the quasar jet is at an angle to the Earth. The (incorrect) assumption that the jet is transverse, when in fact it has some motion towards the observers (us) gives us the wrong answer for the speed of the jet unless we are careful.

The bottom line is: in fact, no quasar moves faster than c, even though it may look like it does.

Some comments on your post to me...

<i>f - In 1971 collaboration between NASA and MIT radio astronomers to take measurements of remote "Quasars" resulted in data that showed their components were "Apparently flying apart with velocities that GREATLY EXCEEDED THE VELOCITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT".</i>

Yes. And the problem was sorted out not long after that - about 30 years ago. It is now a well-understood phenomenon and is not at all a problem for relativity.

<i>I agree with what it actually says as stated just above. The proper traverse velocites of Quasars doesn't violate that principle. It is not motion relative to us. It is lateral motion.</i>

Lateral motion <b>is</b> motion relative to us, if we're the ones watching it. The words "lateral motion" mean motion across our line of sight, as opposed to motion towards or away from us. The words "motion relative to us" mean simply "motion as seen by us".

<i>There is nothing that says (that I am aware of) in Relativity that says nothing can exceed v = c.</i>

You're right. But there is something in relativity which says that no massive object can ever be accelerated to the speed of light (or beyond) by any means - self-propelled or not.

<i>If Relativity does directly say that then observation favors LR over GR or SR.</i>

Please explain why. How does LR differ from SR or GR, exactly? I'm not familiar with LR.

<i>I haven't outlined the basis from the theory, for it has not been reduced to the format you have claimed is required. It is at an intellectual level of logical conclusion based on untested mathematical interpretation of what relavistic mass change may really be instead of actual mass change.</i>

Please show me the maths, then.

<i>As I have said before that Relativity isn't necessarily wrong but may be being mis-interpreted.</i>

Yes, but misinterpreted by whom?

Crisp,

To cut down on MSB space I will not re-quote, re-quotes but attempt to supply answers in sufficient direct response to questions raised to permit continuation of this dialog.

Let me first state that I appreciate the tone of your response. It is in good healthy terms for discussion. I do not use the term debate. This is not a debate. A debate would be if I had an intrenched position and were making an effort to impose it as the truth over your position.

My postings are more in the form of dialog or discussion seeking your response for solutions to the problems that appear to exist with current theory.

That is to say I am seeking the truth, whatever that may be. But that does not mean I will roll over and accept your answer if it seems to be off point or incorrect.

A:

1 - Your response seems to indicate that motion is motion regardless of vector and that ALL motion is subject to SR. I would not for the moment challenge that statement although I believe that ultimately that will be found to not be correct, even if it is the foundation of the theory.

2 - You and other continue to assert that some how "My" interpretaion and/or "My" calculations are in error. I repeat these are not "My" calculations, nor "My" conclusions. They are those of NASA, MIT and other reputable scientific sources.

I have neither re-interpreted what has been said or implied. I am being a parrot repeating what is being said in the scientific community at the highest levels. (I am assuming you accept NASA, MIT etc., as such reliable sources of good science).


B:

If SR applies to traverse motions as you state. Please provide us with a correct interpretation of the Quasar "Proper" velocity of 5,200 c. That is a motion "Measured" by us of motion orthogonal to us that is 5,200 c = dd/dt between Quasar fragments.



C:

1 - Relavistic velocity would be one where the measure of such velocity is that component that is parallel to us.

2 - Proper velocity is that component of motion that is traverse or orthogonal to us. It is measure by Vp = dd/dt.

It is not incumbent upon me to show SR doesn't apply. It is incumbent upon you to show that SR does apply since the information comes from scientific sources that state the problem is real.

I am not attacking SR, you are defending Sr.

Please show us the solution for Vp = dd/dt = 5,200 c, using SR.

D:

Then I will be glad to listen to your argument on why both are not equivalent and why there should be a clear distinction between both (and not just "because we observe them darn quasar thingies doing wierd things").


This response suggests to me that you are incapable of explaining such findings using SR and I find it merely a diversionary tactic to place upon me the burden of disproving SR; when you can not use SR to explain such measured velocities in a "Proper" way.

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum.htm

Hi MacM,

"Your response seems to indicate that motion is motion regardless of vector and that ALL motion is subject to SR. I would not for the moment challenge that statement although I believe that ultimately that will be found to not be correct, even if it is the foundation of the theory."

Not all motion, but certainly all motion that involves constant velocities with respect to eachother (which is what this example is all about). This is not because of any particularity of SR, but rather a consequence of the Galilean Principle of Relativity: if all frames of reference that move with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame are inertial frames, and if the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, then special relativity applies to all frames moving with constant (linear) velocity with respect to eachother (this is an incredibly trivial statement actually).

The Galilean Principle of Relativity is also used in Newtonian Mechanics, and basically is assumed to be true in any physical theory. So saying that you disagree with it is more or less saying that you disagree with the fundation of all theories... which is what I have been saying all along.

I have no problem with you disagreeing though, it just seems to me that the alternative you present is not very convincing...

"I have neither re-interpreted what has been said or implied. I am being a parrot repeating what is being said in the scientific community at the highest levels. (I am assuming you accept NASA, MIT etc., as such reliable sources of good science)."

I don't... I'll accept a published article in a peer-reviewed magazine as a reliable source of science, not something grabbed from the website of NASA or MIT. I also own a personal website at a university, and I can assure you that there is nothing sensible on it ;)... I am exagerating ofcourse, but just because "it is on NASA's website" doesn't make it true. There is also a website on FTL somewhere on NASA, but that doesn't mean it is invented and working (even though they are doing research on it).

"If SR applies to traverse motions as you state. Please provide us with a correct interpretation of the Quasar "Proper" velocity of 5,200 c. That is a motion "Measured" by us of motion orthogonal to us that is 5,200 c = dd/dt between Quasar fragments."

Chroot and James R already explained this in another thread, and I think I also mentioned something about possible gravitational lensing or "visual" effects somewhere... There are many possible and reasonable explanations within the framework of SR and GR.

"It is not incumbent upon me to show SR doesn't apply. It is incumbent upon you to show that SR does apply since the information comes from scientific sources that state the problem is real. [...] This response suggests to me that you are incapable of explaining such findings using SR."

Ah, I thought it was you who came up with the idea of making a clear distinction between transverse and relative velocities. I pointed out that modern theories have no need for such distinction and encompass both. I have nothing more to say on that, expect that it is a fact (if you don't believe me, you are free to check your nearest library for the first book on SR you can grab and verify it for yourself). The v > c problem was tackled in another thread.

Bye!

Crisp

Persol,

I viewed the movies several times. Frankly the mathematics makes more sense (Not that it proves anything:D ) Thanks anyway.


Crisp,

A good post. We are still friends. But I still think there is room to wiggle.