A train is going 99% speed of light relative to earth, a rocket is launched in the same direction train is moving. Will the rocket achieve 99% speed of light relative to the train ?

In my experiment the train is at 99%C to earth but that should not stop the rocket to be at 99%C to the train in the same direction train is moving.

If the rocket cannot be at 99%C to the train then there has to be something Universal to decide its speed in the universe Which we know is not the case.

U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???

Dont U think there is something wrong here ?

The previous thread with this question was deliberately closed by JAMES R.

A train is going 99% speed of light relative to earth, a rocket is launched in the same direction train is moving. Will the rocket achieve 99% speed of light relative to the train ?

In my experiment the train is at 99%C to earth but that should not stop the rocket to be at 99%C to the train in the same direction train is moving.

If the rocket cannot be at 99%C to the train then there has to be something Universal to decide its speed in the universe Which we know is not the case.

U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???

Dont U think there is something wrong here ?

The previous thread with this question was deliberately closed by JAMES R.

If we just used the concepts offered by SR then I see nothing to stop the rocket achieving .99% + .99% which exceeds C the constant value of the speed of light. I said that if we just used SR to determine the issue and we ignore SR for the reasons that we aen't comfortable with the conclusions and theory of SR then I stand by the answer.

This doesn't mean that the only choices we have is SR or not, because is SR is negated we will have to find or determine what we do have.

RawThinkTank, I am aware of the Special Relativistic explaination for your
scenario. That does not mean I agree with it. In SR, you must assume the
position of the rest frame of reference. Meaning, you are not traveling
through the universe at .99c, the universe is traveling by you while you
are at rest (think of it as being stationary, not correct terminology in SR).
Therefore, you are allowed to see the rocket travel away at .99c, because you are not moving, you are at rest. However, someone on Earth for example,
can be in another frame of reference and see you traveling at .99c relative
to them, since they are in their rest frame. The Earth-based observer could
not see the rocket leave your ship at .99c, so the relativistic addition of
velocities is used to calculate the rockets velocity. I can't do the maths,
but it will ALWAYS come out to less than the speed of light. Hope it clears it
up for you. It's Special Relativity's way of doing things.

>>>>James R and his followers will again jeopardize this thread.
They will Lock this thread as it shakes the foundations of what They think is right.
They will certainly refrain from answering this.
They don’t want all to know that what they did all the years studying was foolish and hence would like to continue with astray science to maintain their ego and professions.

none of the above?

:-)

RawThinkTank,

Unless I screwed up the math the Velocity Addition Formula imposed (artifically) by relativity would cause the velocity by an earth observer to be 0.9999494975c, not 1.98 c.

However, I have in the past posed a simular challenge which I think makes the issue even more obvious.

Earth has a monitoring station of its first intergalatic project. After far to many years in space the crew is getting cabin fever and are home sick but the captain is bound to finish his mission and from the front of the craft orders the engineer to push forward even more on the trust drive as they approach v = c relative to earth.

Mutiny sets in and at the very moment that the ship reaches v = c (which they of course claim cannot happen) a shot is fired from the rear of the control room in an assassination attempt on the captain.

Velocity Addition in Relativity assigns the following: Where c is set to 1.000 for simplicity.

v = 1.000 and is the velocity of the spacecraft relative to earth.

u = the velocity of the bullet relative to the captain in the space craft. i.e. 1,500m/s hypothetical or 5E^-6c.

ue is the velocity of the bullet relative to earth in accordance with relativity.

ue = (v + u) / (1 + vu) = (1+5E^-6) / ( 1 + (1 *5E^-6) = 1.000005 / 1.000005 = 1.0000.

Speed of the craft = 1.0000. Speed of the bullet = 1.000. Bullet speed relative to the captain = 1.000 - 1.000 = 0.0000

That is to say the bullet does not move.

If you believe Relativity is physical reality I then ask that you take the captains seat Please.

Now for the crucial question of Relativists.

"Does the spacecraft continue its mission into deep space proving Relativity that the bullet didn't move or does the craft suddenly change course and the crew return to earth and stand trial for murder of the captain pleading temporary insanity."

Is the Captain dead or alive?

A train is going 99% speed of light relative to earth, a rocket is launched in the same direction train is moving. Will the rocket achieve 99% speed of light relative to the train ?Yes
U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???Standing on the train, you are in the trains frame of reference. The rocket is moving away at .99c. Standing on the ground, the train is moving away at .99c. The rocket is moving away at some speed between .99c and 1c. That's the whole point of relativity... you can't just add up the velocities like you can in newtonian physics.

Earth has a monitoring station of its first intergalatic project. Wy is it that people without any backing always try to dilute their misunderstand in a story? I'l abbreviate...
they (ship/crew) approach v = c relative to earth.Ok... we'll just say 'very very fast'
the ship reaches v = c (which they of course claim cannot happen)You're catching on... but considering you want to show that relativity is wrong, you might as well stick to things we can all agree and leave out the things you can't prove. We'll say the ship is going at .99c.

Velocity Addition in Relativity assigns the following: Where c is set to 1.000 for simplicity. And you just made the mistake which made your answer nonsensical.

Wy is it that people without any backing always try to dilute their misunderstand in a story? I'l abbreviate...
Ok... we'll just say 'very very fast'
You're catching on... but considering you want to show that relativity is wrong, you might as well stick to things we can all agree and leave out the things you can't prove. We'll say the ship is going at .99c.

And you just made the mistake which made your answer nonsensical.

You are an idiot.

We note you didn't respond to the issue at hand. Nothing wrong with the math here.

You can't go 1c. You can go .99999c. If you use something beside 1c you'll actually get an answer.

You are an idiot.

Also, more importantlySpeed of the craft = 1.0000. Speed of the bullet = 1.000. Bullet speed relative to the captain = 1.000 - 1.000 = 0.0000This implies that time 'froze' on the ship... which is one of the reasons 1c is not a valid input. Regardless, even after you use .9999... your above math only works for the earth frame of reference. The captain still sees (or doesn't see if he's lucky) the bullet coming at him at the correct speed.

Oh wait, I was wrong. You being an idiot was more important. Sorry.

You can't go 1c. You can go .99999c. If you use something beside 1c you'll actually get an answer.

You are an idiot.

Oon't pretend you didn't see this:

********************** Extract *****************
(which they of course claim cannot happen)
*********************************************

Here

You are the idiot. The scenario is an extrapolation of the ludricrus assumptions of Velocity Addition. Invoking the arbitraty v = c limit is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the issue.

*sigh*

You really aren't this stupid. It's one of the fundamentals of relativity. If you want to talk about what relativity says, understand that it has limits... JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BRANCH OF SCIENCE.
Oon't pretend you didn't see this:And pretend you didn't see the response 'youre catching on'.

If you are going to try and use the math of relativity to try and do something that it doesn't claim to support, don't bitch when your answer makes no sense.

*sigh*

You really aren't this stupid. It's one of the fundamentals of relativity. If you want to talk about what relativity says, understand that it has limits... JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BRANCH OF SCIENCE.
And pretend you didn't see the response 'youre catching on'.

If you are going to try and use the math of relativity to try and do something that it doesn't claim to support, don't bitch when your answer makes no sense.

OK wise guy. Show us the limit specified in the formula. The formula is what it is and in veirtually every book on Reltivity it will tell you that WHEN you have a v = c compounded relative velocity that it still equals c.

You do not see them qualify that explanation with the added stipulation "But you can never really go v = c, blah, blah, blah."

Don't be such a spoiled twit. Velocity Addition claims that in the above cited conditions the bullet doesn't move in one view and in the other view it moves normally.

It is an interesting scenario. If you really want to be pragmatic then we should be talking much above 25,000 mph since that is all mankind has been able to achieve in space thus far. Hardly a relavistic velocity.

And "Catching on"??? I knew this crap while you were still in diapers.

You do not see them qualify that explanation with the added stipulation "But you can never really go v = c, blah, blah, blah."LMAO... you've got to be kidding me. Is relativity book written in crayon?
It is an interesting scenario.Perhaps to you... but don't even pretend you treated that problem correctly. You went to 1c for 'simplicity'. Well, I guess getting a completely wrong answer is as simplistic as possible....
And "Catching on"??? I knew this crap while you were still in diapers.Odd considering that you are now the one who needs diapers.

LMAO... you've got to be kidding me. Is relativity book written in crayon?

Gee. I just did a quick check and found my "Schaum's College Physics Series is actually in printed ink, not crayons.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3408&stc=1

Note that the Velocity Addition Formula says "v = u = c" And that it precludes particles from exceeding v = c. It doesn't preclude v = c.

Unless of course this stipulation which you infer is cited in every legitimate reference was written in disappearing ink instead of crayon.

Perhaps to you... but don't even pretend you treated that problem correctly. You went to 1c for 'simplicity'. Well, I guess getting a completely wrong answer is as simplistic as possible....
Odd considering that you are now the one who needs diapers.

The balance of your post says absolutely nothing of value either scientifically or otherwise.

And that it precludes particles from exceeding v = c. It doesn't preclude v = c. Only if the particle has zero rest mass, otherwise you need an infinite amount of energy in order to accelerate to c.
The balance of your post says absolutely nothing of value either scientifically or otherwise. As opposed to the majority of your posts?

Only if the particle has zero rest mass, otherwise you need an infinite amount of energy in order to accelerate to c.
As opposed to the majority of your posts?

We all know what Relativity claims. This is not about being pragmatic. This is about the theoretical consequences of v = c. and Velocity Addition.

I will add further that it is about the fact that the only evidence of such a limit based on infinite energy is from particle accelerators where there is a relative velocity between the accelerating force and the particle.

It is most logical that no amount of power (energy) can accelerate the particle faster than the finite velocity limit of the propelling force.

Where is the limit on the propelling force, hence acceleration of a rocket where there is no relative velocity between the source and the load?

Your position is an unjustified assumption to keep Relativity consistant. It is not supported by evidence nor test data.

A train is going 99% speed of light relative to earth, a rocket is launched in the same direction train is moving. Will the rocket achieve 99% speed of light relative to the train ?

In my experiment the train is at 99%C to earth but that should not stop the rocket to be at 99%C to the train in the same direction train is moving.

If the rocket cannot be at 99%C to the train then there has to be something Universal to decide its speed in the universe Which we know is not the case.

U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???

Dont U think there is something wrong here ?

The previous thread with this question was deliberately closed by JAMES R.

I'm no scientist but if I may ...

speed of light = 100% << it is a whole; a constant motion. It may not decay.

Anything travelling at less the speed of light is subject to decay because it is not light and does not have the properties of light therefore it has it's first movement as a result of a force acting upon it from it's moment of rest. Since light cannot 'push' anything from behind we can only assume that the force acting upon an object to cause it to move at 99% light speed will diminish, decelerate, decay. It is a finite reaction. Heat energy will dissipate and become cold, kinetic energy is as a result of friction and friction is an impedance to anything, sound energy is as a result of two surfaces moving across eachother and is related to kinetic energy which we have established will dissipate and then we have light energy which may never dissipate because the force acting upon it is darkness which is a void i.e. nothing.

In your experiment we may have no observer in which case we must assume that both the train and the rocket which are travelling at 296794533.42 m/s in the same direction are just like two birds that will eventually come to rest, however if we place an observer in either the train or the rocket both appear stationary just as if one bird was to look to the other in the sky - they could whistle to eachother and would not be conscious of the speed because inside of their bodies they would be at rest whilst their bodies are in motion. Relative to eachother they are in fact stationary but to a rested body on earth they are travelling at 296794533.42 m/s and the rested observer can only imagine the absolute stillness of the objects in motion as though he were an observer on either the train or the rocket.
Without an observer, the whole excercise is nothing more than "Does a tree make a sound when it falls in a forest when nobody is around to hear it."

But it is my guess that relative to eachother they are both absolutely stationary.

I'm no scientist so I am stepping out of my depth somewhat. Could someone confirm or deny what I have said?

thanks

c20

Gee. I just did a quick check and found my "Schaum's College Physics Series is actually in printed ink, not crayons.It might as well be. Your Schaum's book doesn't explain relativity any better than any other Schaum's book explains it's field of reference. Those books are effectively 'cheat sheets' and expect you to get the detail from actual sources.
We all know what Relativity claims. This is not about being pragmatic. This is about the theoretical consequences of v = c. and Velocity Addition.This is about not complaining when you plug garbage into the equation. Garbage in garbage out.

Relativity is surely easy to explain and again I am no maths guy so you will have to bear with me.

Again I am just feeling the subject so please bear with me ...

The dilemma I guess is to do with motion and rest and whether things are proportionate to eachother or disproportionate to eachother when the size of the body in motion is taken into account.

The trouble with all these things it seems to me are the units we measure things by. A centimeter is not valid when measuring atoms, nor the diameter of the sun. We measure speed in terms of distance travelled over time, we measure physical objects with measuring rods that are split into agreed segments. Every time we create a measuring rod, at least two people have to agree on the spacing of the segments in order for it to be valid relative to each of the two observers. If both observers have different size segments irrespective of the size of the measuring rod, neither will be able to concur when in the act of measuring.
But one may assume that when two people agree on the size of the segments of those measuring rods, that no matter where they are in the universe, as long as they are using the same measuring rods, every object will be defined in terms of those measuring rods and are indeed relative to the measuring rod and not the observer.
Time is a classic example of this. We have split the clock into uniform segments that coincide with the sun's orbit around the earth - day and night so to speak but if we lived somewhere else in the universe, the clocks hands would not move any differently but would probably not carry as much meaning if the clock was in an observor's hand when that observer lived on a planet that had say 92 earth hours in its day cycle. Time is after all a perception of man, we just assign markers to it such as the cycles of the sun. But if two of us agree on any set of markers we may agree to do things when we have agreed that the marker has been reached. To observer (a) it could have been perceived that it took a millenia to reach the marker, whereas to observer (b) the time may have seemed to go very quickly.

Relativity is all about agreed markers. Two points in space/time are only valid in the context of two observers, who of course may agree on a different set of markers when they come together.

Relativity therefore depends on two observors agreeing on the same basis about an object in motion or at rest relevant to their experience of it and the markers they have attributed to measuring the event simultaneously. Ironically the object in motion or at rest could be both at rest and in motion depending on the segments defined on the agreed measuring rods.

Please slaughter that if it needs to be slaughtered. I am here to learn.

Rawthinktank:

Simple answer, from the theory of special relativity:

From the point of view of a person on the train, the rocket travels at 0.99c.
From the point of view of a person on the Earth, the train travels at 0.99c, and the rocket travels a little faster, at 0.999949c

The relativistic velocity addition formula is w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²).

Any other questions?

Persol
Shut up and just answer the bolder font part of the question, there is no need to repeat Ur insanity here that U always do in other threads with MACM, U idiot, yes idiot thats what I feel about U, freedom of expression ?
Just get lost from SciForums U stupid.

c20H25N3o
Sooth yourself.

Neo oops MACM , U r a genius , I didnt think about that before. Your experiment is too smart too. If the bullet is at C relative to the captain then its time should slow down, But if the bullet is stationary for earth then its time should be in sync with earth, But captain is at C with earth and his time should be very slow or zero to earth. That’s all mind-boggling.

JAMES R instead of wasting time changing poll options why don’t U answer MACMs question hu, or have got old or is it that multi dimensional study just burnt out Ur mind.

Which question, RawThinkTank? I believe I have answered all MacM's questions.

Neo oops MACM , U r a genius , I didnt think about that before. Your experiment is too smart too. If the bullet is at C relative to the captain then its time should slow down, But if the bullet is stationary for earth then its time should be in sync with earth, But captain is at C with earth and his time should be very slow or zero to earth. That’s all mind-boggling.

JAMES R instead of wasting time changing poll options why don’t U answer MACMs question hu, or have got old or is it that multi dimensional study just burnt out Ur mind.

HeHe. Thanks but it doesn't take a genius to see through Relativity. You will note that James R and others will not volunteer to take the captains seat, unless we agree that the mathematical projection of their theory is limited to preclude the test.

Persol
Shut up and just answer the bolder font part of the question, there is no need to repeat Ur insanity here that U always do in other threads with MACM, U idiot, yes idiot thats what I feel about U, freedom of expression ?
Just get lost from SciForums U stupid.

c20H25N3o
Sooth yourself.

Unfortunately RTT, Persol has this limit as to his ability to contribute to the discussion.

Which question, RawThinkTank? I believe I have answered all MacM's questions.


I take exception to your choice of words here. You respond but you do not answer. Your responses are diversionary and are based on fiat using the claims of SRT to prove SRT. It is nothing more than assertions of authority in complete disregard of physics and physical reality.

Shut up and just answer the bolder font part of the questionI already did.

MacM:

No thought experiment will ever prove relativity. The truth of relativity rests with the experimental and observational evidence which supports it.

Therefore, I have restricted my efforts here to pointing out your errors in your thought experiments which you think disprove relativity. I have explained carefully to you what relativity predicts in a number of different situations, which is usually very very different to what you claim it predicts.

You, of course, have never proposed an alternative description of any of your scenarios, so even if relativity is wrong it is still the best approach we have come across on this forum.

MacM:

No thought experiment will ever prove relativity. The truth of relativity rests with the experimental and observational evidence which supports it.

Therefore, I have restricted my efforts here to pointing out your errors in your thought experiments which you think disprove relativity. I have explained carefully to you what relativity predicts in a number of different situations, which is usually very very different to what you claim it predicts.

You, of course, have never proposed an alternative description of any of your scenarios, so even if relativity is wrong it is still the best approach we have come across on this forum.

It of course is your unsupported privilege to call disagreement an error but that shows ego not common sense.

Response Here Within the texts given there must be reference to at least a dozen experiments.

A train is going 99% speed of light relative to earth, a rocket is launched in the same direction train is moving. Will the rocket achieve 99% speed of light relative to the train ?
...
U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???
...

What U humans did here was expected from; when in the train and U know that the rocket is at 99%C and train is too at 99%C to earth,then all U have to do is add both speeds and say that from trains frame of refrence the rocket is at 198%C to the earth. U just cant trun blind eye to one when U look at the other.

U r not kids anymore, growup and abondand all those wrong theories and start building new correct ones.

RawThinkTank,

Please do a google search for "relativistic velocity addition formula". You'll find many useful and informative references, even if you only search sciforums.

Grow up. Abandon your wrong theories and start building correct ones.

RawThinkTank,

Please do a google search for "relativistic velocity addition formula". You'll find many useful and informative references, even if you only search sciforums.

Grow up. Abandon your wrong theories and start building correct ones.
James R inertial frames A and B are moving in a near ciollision course traectectioresrs. A and B are moving relative to each other atA relaruve velocity Va + Vb = 10000 units; Inertiak fframe A' is released from the rear of the A frame and accellreates iin the -X direction while recording the current relative motion of Va'a and Va'b until Va' - Vb = 0 And the current relative motion is calcualted as the negative of the relative velocity. whener the Va'a relatiive miotin us absikyAmy mre>]

Geistkiesel, Im mysef and quite frankly I don't have to add velocities like FREAKING SR DICTATES says The g man you see, I have proved that ABSOLUTE MOTION can be detected and measured . I did it,.

RawThinkTank,

Please do a google search for "relativistic velocity addition formula". You'll find many useful and informative references, even if you only search sciforums.

Grow up. Abandon your wrong theories and start building correct ones.[Copy cat]

I know that internet is full of such garbage due to the damage done for nearly 100 years now. But volla the dark ages of Astronomy will be finally out. Courtesy - The Internet. Collective conciousness of humans is gona inserenate U.