Hi everyone

I noticed that someone who reads only popular relativity or relativity for dummy tend to misunderstand the relativity as the whole concept. MacM is one of such person.

From the look of the equation for addition of velocities, that is:

w = (v+u)/(1+vu/c²)    [1]

and compared it to most other equations in SR such as momentum, energy, time dilation and Lorentz's contraction, which contain gamma function, <font face=symbol>g</font> = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 one could easily misunderstood that addition of velocities is a different "beast" that has no close connection to other SR equations. MacM even thought that addition of velocities was invented to limit the velocity to less than c. His misunderstanding is somewhat forgiven as he only get his knowledge of SR from "Relativity for Dummy" or "Relativity for Average Joe". I don't mean that one should not read such book, but I strongly recommend to people who read those type of books to not stand too tall and claiming "I know relativity" and "relativity is wrong".

There are many ways to derive addition of velocities equation. The following is my favorite as it looks intuitive and it shows connection with other equations in SR.

The method is like this:

Consider an observer A moving at velocity v relative to another observer B that we considered as in "at rest" condition. Let a particle, say electron, moving at velocity u (in the same direction as v) relative to A, which according to A, has momentum p_u and energy E_u, respectively:

p_u = mu/(1-u²/c²)^1/2 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[2]

E_u = mc²/(1-u²/c²)^1/2 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[3]

The question is, what is the momentum (or energy) of the electron according to B. Certainly, one can just compute the electron velocity w relative to observer B and then determine its momentum and energy using the above equations (replacing u with w). But, there is also another way, that is by using Lorentz's transformation for momentum and energy from reference frame A to B, as follows.

p_w = (p_u+vE_u/c²)/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[4]

E_w = (E_u+vp_u)/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[5]

Substitute [2] and [3] into [4] or [5] will give us [1]. Although, this probably is not an independent proof for addition of velocities, it shows the connection between all the above equations.

Unlike what MacM thought, SR addition of velocities equation is not a made up equation to limit velocity to less than c. It is indeed part of relativity. There is direct measurement that prove the validity of [1]. One Einstein's favorite was Fizeau's experiment.

You can also derive the velocity addition formula directly from the Lorentz transformations, of course.

The velocity formula is not something tacked onto relativity - it follows directly from the fundamental postulates, and is non-negotiable. If you want to throw out the velocity addition formula, you need to throw away one or both of the postulates of relativity.

James R.,

You can also derive the velocity addition formula directly from the Lorentz transformations, of course.

The velocity formula is not something tacked onto relativity - it follows directly from the fundamental postulates, and is non-negotiable. If you want to throw out the velocity addition formula, you need to throw away one or both of the postulates of relativity.

Not that I accept it but Paul's above post is fine. I want to note however:

1 - He choose to start this thread and discuss actual velocity addition. i.e. - two observers, one at rest the other in motion and a third particle in motion.

2 - He choose to come here and attack me rather than stand his gound where he was pummeled for mathematical errors.

3 - He choose to not meet the challenge to point out any specific errors in my math.

4 - He suffered gross embarassment by trying to claim that I should have used velocity addition between an observer at rest and a rocket having two different velocities AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. HAHAHA. What a farce.

Care to correct him on that issue James?

The velocity formula is not something tacked onto relativity - it follows directly from the fundamental postulates, and is non-negotiable. If you want to throw out the velocity addition formula, you need to throw away one or both of the postulates of relativity.

Now wouldn't that be the sh_ts. :D

Paul T,


Hi everyone

I noticed that someone who reads only popular relativity or relativity for dummy tend to misunderstand the relativity as the whole concept. MacM is one of such person.

I will not communicate with you further until you return to the "Contraction Paradox" thread and face your falicies.

So other readers will know what sort of slime ball you really are:

******************************************
In another thread he claimed to be some sort of expert and was just as condensending there as he is being here attacking me.

His claim was that I had errored and obviously didn't understand relativity.

The issue involved an earth observer and a rocket. The rocket had two velocities V1 and V2 (at two different times). His solution was to use the velocity addition formula and because I didn't I then was obviously dumb. HeHeHe :bugeye:

Having made it most clear to anyone what the error really was (Paul T's use of Relativity), he starts this thread to talk about actual velocity addition and attack me.

Paul your are worse than a dumb a-ss you are a slime ball coward.
************************************************

Paul T.,

There is direct measurement that prove the validity of [1]. One Einstein's favorite was Fizeau's experiment.

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html

Milan R. Pavlovic

"The result of Fizeau's test is not proof, and can not be any proof of the correctness of the special theory of relativity. On the contrary, it shows that the theorem on addition of speeds is wrong, that it is based on a wrong assumption and it is applied in a wrong way. "


That is your proof? Hmmmmmmm?

interesting discussion on pavlovic.

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/blackholes/messages/5975.shtml?base=30

MacM, you should know that on the internet, writting in bigger fonts is like shouting.

Please stop shouting

MacM,


I will not communicate with you further until you return to the "Contraction Paradox" thread and face your falicies.

So other readers will know what sort of slime ball you really are:

******************************************
In another thread he claimed to be some sort of expert and was just as condensending there as he is being here attacking me.

His claim was that I had errored and obviously didn't understand relativity.

The issue involved an earth observer and a rocket. The rocket had two velocities V1 and V2 (at two different times). His solution was to use the velocity addition formula and because I didn't I then was obviously dumb. HeHeHe :bugeye:

Having made it most clear to anyone what the error really was (Paul T's use of Relativity), he starts this thread to talk about actual velocity addition and attack me.

Paul your are worse than a dumb a-ss you are a slime ball coward.
************************************************

Hahaha. It was just your insecure feeling that made you felt I was attacking you. I was just simply trying to point out the truth as I know it. Whether it is done under this thread or under other thread, I see no difference.

I know you are getting upset because I pointed out your errors. But, what do I care about your feeling. I just trying to straighten up your incorrect usage of logic. You are just immature, judging from your choice of words. But, I tell you what. That doesn't disturb me at all and you made your self look like an insane guy walking on the street shouting at people for no reason.

MacM,



http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html

Milan R. Pavlovic

"The result of Fizeau's test is not proof, and can not be any proof of the correctness of the special theory of relativity. On the contrary, it shows that the theorem on addition of speeds is wrong, that it is based on a wrong assumption and it is applied in a wrong way. "


That is your proof? Hmmmmmmm?

Wow...what's a link. Funny, you indeed use crackpot source to attack legitimate proof.

1100f,

MacM, you should know that on the internet, writting in bigger fonts is like shouting.

Please stop shouting

Please point out where I have used larger font here.

Please stop your lies.

Please stop your lies.

Only if you stop yours.

Please point out where I have used larger font here.

Please stop your lies.What exactly do you think [ b ] does?

1100f,



Please point out where I have used larger font here.

Please stop your lies.

While technically, posting in Bold red isn't posting in a larger font, it does have the same effect and purpose (as does posting in all capitals), and that is to call more attention to your words. When used to accent particular points that you want to make sure others take note of (and when used in moderation) this is fine. When the majority or all the post is done this way it is the equivalent of a kid shouting "Look at me! Look at me! and is the sign of an immature ego.

Another sign of immaturity is accusing people of lying, when all they are guilty of is a technical mistake. A mature person would have realised what they were refering to and given them the benefit of the doubt as to their choice of description.

Persol,

What exactly do you think [ b ] does?

I do believe it is labled "Bold" and is not associate with script or font size/ You do know the difference I would hope. The fact is bold is much easier to read. Further more you should have noticed that I also normall embolden quotes as well. The issue is mute. As is your participation.

Crisp,

Only if you stop yours.

That post was not to you but in any case I respectfully demand that you post one (1) that is (1) one lie. Otherwise admit you are out to do nothing but slander and cast innuendo without any basis what so ever.

Paul T,

]Hahaha. It was just your insecure feeling that made you felt I was attacking you.

Funny I'm not insecure at all. I am quite secure. ANd I don't need to interprete direct insults and attacks. they are obvious to everybody.

I was just simply trying to point out the truth as I know it.

What you have pointed out is that you apparently are willing to make comment without knowing anything about what you are saying.

Whether it is done under this thread or under other thread, I see no difference.

Actually you are correct it doesn't matter where you spread your outlandish BS. It soens't change the fact that it is unsupported BS.

I know you are getting upset because I pointed out your errors.

LOL. You had numerous errors and being shown legitimate error would not be upsetting. Trying to talk to a rock wall that thinks he knows it all does get upsetting. The simple truth is that you got upset and started slinging mud because I pointed your stupidity on key issues.

But, what do I care about your feeling. I just trying to straighten up your incorrect usage of logic.

Before trying to do that you might try to understand just how stupid you have been in this thread.

You are just immature, judging from your choice of words. But, I tell you what. That doesn't disturb me at all and you made your self look like an insane guy walking on the street shouting at people for no reason.

Ditto.

If "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", then MacM is truly dangerous.

(And please turn off your high-beams. You're blinding me.)

Janus,

While technically, posting in Bold red isn't posting in a larger font, it does have the same effect and purpose (as does posting in all capitals), and that is to call more attention to your words.

Then let me point out the flaw in your statement. I don't do it for my words but quotes as well. It is easier to read and in red makes it easier to see who is saying what. The charge is false.

When used to accent particular points that you want to make sure others take note of (and when used in moderation) this is fine. When the majority or all the post is done this way it is the equivalent of a kid shouting "Look at me! Look at me! and is the sign of an immature ego.

That is shear nonsense as pointed out above I am not highliiting my word but all words. The charge is false.

Another sign of immaturity is accusing people of lying, when all they are guilty of is a technical mistake. A mature person would have realised what they were refering to and given them the benefit of the doubt as to their choice of description.

I disagree. I was being attacked and then accused of doing something which I clearly have not done. It is more than natural to not give such a person the benefit of the doubt when those same persons never give it in the first instance. In hind sight I suspect you are correct and it was an innocent mistake but a false charge none the same in series of such incorrect charges. Under those circumstance I do not feel it was wrong to correct him in the strongest manner. Had it been an isolated case without all the ongoing insults and attacks, yes I would have questioned him on what he meant by it but that is not what happened here.

I do believe it is labled "Bold" and is not associate with script or font sizeIf you want to try something take screen shot of the bold text, and place it next to the non-bold text. The text IS larger.

Persol,

If you want to try something take screen shot of the bold text, and place it next to the non-bold text. The text IS larger.

I would not contest that statement but that isn't the issue. It is the same pitch (size). It is not larger font size.

Also note that to appease the masses I will stop using bold and red (except to actually induce emphasis) but I want to clearly point out again that I have consistantly emboldend quotes as well and my style I do believe is easier to read than some where you can't tell who is saying what.

I have not used that style to suggest my word is any different that anybody elses. I just don't need the added misunderstanding of my persona, since that seems to be a general view here.

Sideshowbob,

If "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", then MacM is truly dangerous.

(And please turn off your high-beams. You're blinding me.)

HeHeHe. You give more credit than most. Also see my above post to Persol.

MacM,


I have not used that style to suggest my word is any different that anybody elses. I just don't need the added misunderstanding of my persona, since that seems to be a general view here.

In my opinion, you felt that you are an important guy...the inventor of UniKEF and that's why you need special font style and color.

Anyway, cut the bulshit. If you really want to prove you know relativity, address the two main issues that I have highlighted under the other thread and see whether it was me who didn't know what I was talking about or it was you.

Paul T,

Wow...what's a link. Funny, you indeed use crackpot source to attack legitimate proof.

Ok you didn't like that one and I concur, even though I don't suggest he is wrong, his credability dosen't seem the best.

So try this one:

************************************************** *******

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

By Curt Rendshaw:
The Experiment of Fizeau as a Test of Relativistic Simultaneity

"Surprisingly, however, an actual test of the most troubling aspect of SRT—relative simultaneity—has already been performed, and demonstrates that relativistic simultaneity, in the form of the relativistic velocity addition formula, is incorrect."
************************************************** *******

I just grabbed the first one that popped up there is a large amount of such papers on the subject.

Paul T,

In my opinion, you felt that you are an important guy...the inventor of UniKEF and that's why you need special font style and color.

Personally I don't really give a sh_t what Paul T thinks. You have already shown whatever you say must be taken with a grain of salt and carefully analyized.

I am not an important guy, even for having authored and concieved UniKEF. Should I turn out to be right and others elevate me then and only then might I be prone to get a big head. In fact I would most defintely come back here and rub some noses. But other than that you are wrong.

Anyway, cut the bulshit. If you really want to prove you know relativity, address the two main issues that I have highlighted under the other thread and see whether it was me who didn't know what I was talking about or it was you.

Ditto. As soon as you give a reasonable explanation as to why you think one should use the velocity addition in my case where there are only two observers and one is considered at rest. You don't get off the hook by trying to change the subject.

While you are at it explain why you think the amount of acceleration between stipulated velocities V1 and V2 must be increased because they are relavistic velocities.

curt renshaw

http://www.crank.net/ftl.html

Boris2,

I am not really surprised. It does seem anything that is said against Relativity becomes cited as "Crank".

I am sure much of it may be but from my perspective I also see a general tendancy to simply lable such work without ever doing any actual proof of invalidation.

So from my perspective I retain such information as a potential proof not properly challenged but having been subjected to deliberate smear by absolute bias for Relativity.

Can you provide a specific supported point which RCM violates known evidence? Then I WILL listen to you but not before.

READERS:

I would like to draw your attention to Paul T's topic "MacM's Exercise" and Pete's contribution 7 June @ 9:19 AM as well as my post following.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37156