PDA

View Full Version : Derivation of the Velocity Addition Formula Violates it's own premis.

MacM
12-09-04, 09:36 AM
In developing the Velocity Addition Formula, which imposes an unsupported view that v = c is an absolute limit on velocity in a vacuum, Einstien wrote:

tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) and t'A - tB = rAB/(c+v)

The terms (c-v) and (c+v) have no meaning if v = c is a limit.?

However, if one replaces these terms with "c", the consequence of the VAF conclusion, then the basis for length contraction and time dilation become absurd and fail.

I suggest that imposing non-existant and prohibited velocities in physical reality mathematically into a formula to impose a velocity limit actually also creates a non-existant velocity limit. :D

jsph27
12-09-04, 11:55 PM
C is the same in all reference frames. V is not. Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?

MacM
12-10-04, 12:08 AM
C is the same in all reference frames. V is not. Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?

Because there is no direct evidence, test data or observation of it. There is in fact FTL objects and actions observed which have not been explained.

Yuriy
12-10-04, 12:12 AM
jcph27:
"Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?"
MacM:
"Because there is no direct evidence, test data or obversation of it."
Says who? MacM or somebody else?

MacM
12-10-04, 12:14 AM
jcph27:
"Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?"
MacM:
"Because there is no direct evidence, test data or obversation of it."
Says who? MacM or somebody else?

Says me. Show otherwise.

everneo
12-10-04, 12:37 AM
which imposes an unsupported view that v = c is an absolute limit on velocity in a vacuum

Yes, v=c as a limit is an unsupported view of yours. Einstein says v could never be c.

Yuriy
12-10-04, 12:55 AM
So, we have one more thread with MacM's critics of SRT...

jsph27
12-10-04, 01:03 AM
If you want a relavistic answer to why c is the upper limit look at the term
(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) that appears well almost everywhere in relativity. Besides, a photons mass is 0, so logically only it can be the fastest particle in the universe. Any force other than 0 will instantly accelerate it to max v. Thats why f=ma doesnt work with a photon.

chroot
12-10-04, 01:10 AM
There is in fact FTL objects and actions observed which have not been explained.
This is a lie.

- Warren

jsph27
12-10-04, 01:14 AM
Nice, short and simple.

MacM
12-10-04, 08:50 AM
Yes, v=c as a limit is an unsupported view of yours. Einstein says v could never be c.

Trying to twist the issue in no manner is a response to his mathematics. Do you have any specific points to show where he has errored?

MacM
12-10-04, 08:53 AM
So, we have one more thread with MacM's critics of SRT...

Another Relativits denial post without any merit content. hmmmm.

MacM
12-10-04, 09:03 AM
If you want a relavistic answer to why c is the upper limit look at the term
(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) that appears well almost everywhere in relativity. Besides, a photons mass is 0, so logically only it can be the fastest particle in the universe. Any force other than 0 will instantly accelerate it to max v. Thats why f=ma doesnt work with a photon.

You have touched on the physics issue and don't even realize it.

1 - By what assumption can you conclude that a property (finite velocity limit) of EM waves applies to mass.?

2 - F = ma asserts a velocity limit assuming a relavistically increasing mass due to velocity becomes the limiting factor. There is no sound arguement for the concept of relavistic mass increase.

All such evidence is based on particle acceleration by a stationary propelling source where there becomes a relative velocity between the source and the accelerated particle. That is it is no surprise that one cannot cause the particle to achieve a velocity greater than the finite velocity of the propulsion force.

3 - Now theoretically assume the particle is a minature rocket where there is no relative velocity between the thrusting source and the load mass. The thrust does not dimenish nor does the mass load increase. Where now is your limit?

4 - It is quite likely that the concept of relativistic mass is actually the misinterpretation of an illusion of decreased energy transfer between the propelling source and the reactive load.

MacM
12-10-04, 09:10 AM
This is a lie.

- Warren

Unfortunately, to call it a lie, IS A LIE. I have posted bonafied research studies of over 100 such objects, along with (8) different known causes for the appearance of FTL and there remains still a majority of such observations as being unexplained.

The primary arguement with what I call the "Illusion Solution" of when such objects are approaching us with motion in a narrow angle along the line of sight, it was shown that it was a solution in less than 0.5% of such observations.

It had been claimed here by Relativists that it was THE solution. The fact is that it is not.

Indeed, I brought up that lack of "Blue Shift" in such observations as meaning they did not fit that solution and it in fact turns out that is the case.

You might start to fare better in your responses if you were to take a scientific approach and address the missing "Blue Shift" and forget your bias and innuendo slander attacks.

MacM
12-10-04, 09:12 AM
Nice, short and simple.

Also unresponsive and false.

jsph27
12-10-04, 12:12 PM
You have touched on the physics issue and don't even realize it.

1 - By what assumption can you conclude that a property (finite velocity limit) of EM waves applies to mass.?

2 - F = ma asserts a velocity limit assuming a relavistically increasing mass due to velocity becomes the limiting factor. There is no sound arguement for the concept of relavistic mass increase.

All such evidence is based on particle acceleration by a stationary propelling source where there becomes a relative velocity between the source and the accelerated particle. That is it is no surprise that one cannot cause the particle to achieve a velocity greater than the finite velocity of the propulsion force.

3 - Now theoretically assume the particle is a minature rocket where there is no relative velocity between the thrusting source and the load mass. The thrust does not dimenish nor does the mass load increase. Where now is your limit?

4 - It is quite likely that the concept of relativistic mass is actually the misinterpretation of an illusion of decreased energy transfer between the propelling source and the reactive load.

1. e-mc^2, and both have wave functions.
2. f=ma has almost nothing to do with relativity
3. On a rocket the thrusting source is the exhaust gases being pushed out the back, there is a relative v. Besides, photons dont have mass.
4. law of conservation of energy.

MacM
12-10-04, 01:49 PM
1. e-mc^2, and both have wave functions.

Which proves nothing regarding the issue of ability of a self propelled object having a velocity limit.

2. f=ma has almost nothing to do with relativity

Likewise Relativity has nothing to do with a v = c limit. It is only the assumption that time is something other than change via energy transfer that creates temporal paradoxes for FTL. The physical dimensional limit relieves physics of any burden for considerations of FTL physics.

3. On a rocket the thrusting source is the exhaust gases being pushed out the back, there is a relative v.

And that relative velocity does not degenerate with continued velocity increase of the rocket because the rocket inertial system is always at rest to itself for the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load.

Besides, photons dont have mass. Which has no bearing on object that do have mass, nor the issue of v = c limit for such objects.

4. law of conservation of energy.

Are preserved.

Janus58
12-10-04, 06:06 PM
In developing the Velocity Addition Formula, which imposes an unsupported view that v = c is an absolute limit on velocity in a vacuum, Einstien wrote:

tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) and t'A - tB = rAB/(c+v)

The terms (c-v) and (c+v) have no meaning if v = c is a limit.?

The terms c-v and c+v are perfectly valid within relativity when used in the proper context

Example: Object B is moving at a velocity of v (less than c) away from observer A. When B is a distance of x from A a light pulse leaves A heading towards B. How long does it take, according to A for the light to reach B.
Call this time t.
If d is the distance the light travels from A before it reaches B, then we know that d =ct.
We also know that B will travel a distance of vt in that same time. We also know that B was a distance of x away from A at the begining of interval t so at the end of the interval will be x+vt.

Since B's distance from A when the light reaches it is the same as the light distance from A when the light reaches B, we know that x+vt=d

Thus; ct = x+vt
ct-(vt) = x+vt-(vt)
ct-vt = x
t(c-v) =x
t= x/(c-v)

You can do the same if object B was moving towards A when the light was emitted, in this case, it will reduce to

t = x/(c+v)

Thus we have the terms c-v and c+v, all legal and with out violating any principles of Relativity. :D

However, if one replaces these terms with "c", the consequence of the VAF conclusion, then the basis for length contraction and time dilation become absurd and fail.

I suggest that imposing non-existant and prohibited velocities in physical reality mathematically into a formula to impose a velocity limit actually also creates a non-existant velocity limit. :D

And I suggest that if you would just learn the proper context of the formula(s) involved you would quit coming to such glaringly incorrect conclusions.

The Relativistic Addition of Velocities Theorum is only applicable to situations where one of the Three velocities involved (u,v or w) is as measured from a different inertial frame from the other two. You don't just plug it in any time you are dealing with the addition of two velocities. You have to consider the context in which you are dealing with these velocities to determine the proper way to deal with them.

MacM
12-10-04, 07:16 PM
Janus58,

I don't disagree with your post. I can't seem to get the "Search" function to work here so it is a bit of a problem to go back and find it but I just want to pointout that there have been arguements posted previously which attempted to apply the VAF between only two velocities. I objected to that application and was argued with.

Can you think of any application where the relative velocity between two observers (not to a third) should use the VAF?

You seem to have missed the " :D " at the end of my post.

BTW: Your post does not address: " Einstien wrote:

tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) and t'A - tB = rAB/(c+v)

The terms (c-v) and (c+v) have no meaning if v = c is a limit.?"; which is part of the derivation of the VAF. Not some unrelated expressions of motion.

jsph27
12-10-04, 11:20 PM
Stop saying that particles propel themselves. They dont. Objects dont propel themselves either. I dont care if its a rocket or a particle accelerator. In your rocket example you dont take into account fuel consumption. For an object with an "engine" on it it requires some kind of fuel to burn in order to go. Once it runs out of fuel, well u know.

You said that relativistic mass can be thought of as the misinterpretation of an illusion of decreased energy transfer when something is propelled. If we detected a smaller energy transfer than what is theoretically predicted then that process would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, based on our observations. We know that that cant be so relativistic mass saves that.

nero
12-11-04, 12:11 AM
It really is all a con job.

Big bikkies, but they are crumbling under modern independent pressure

I wouldn't be bothered even discussing the false logic.

I am truly surprised it has taken so long for humans to see through the deception..

and I am sure the deceivers are laughing at how slow humans are.

It certainly ranks with the most notorious.

IMO

MacM
12-11-04, 12:49 AM
Stop saying that particles propel themselves. They dont. Objects dont propel themselves either. I dont care if its a rocket or a particle accelerator. In your rocket example you dont take into account fuel consumption. For an object with an "engine" on it it requires some kind of fuel to burn in order to go. Once it runs out of fuel, well u know.

REALLY? What a dumbass.

You said that relativistic mass can be thought of as the misinterpretation of an illusion of decreased energy transfer when something is propelled. If we detected a smaller energy transfer than what is theoretically predicted then that process would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, based on our observations. We know that that cant be so relativistic mass saves that.

You pathetic lame brain. Energy is always conserved. But energy expended and not accelerating the particle is a decrease in efficiency. The energy input into the particle acclerator is just going around in a circle but not creating any further push. It is still there.

Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.

The particle will never exceed the finite speed of the propelling force, I don't care how much power you dump into your damned accelerator and that has nothing to do with mass increase of the particle.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 01:11 AM
To all reader.
Everything that MacM says about rocket is BS. His posts show that he never saw any calculations of the propulsion phenomena in SRT, at all. Reason very simple - he proved here that he can not understand such calculations...
Do not believe me? Ask him for a single mathematical prove of any of his statements. You never will get it from him... Bla-bla-bla + "You damm ass.." all what you can get from him. All you can get from him is like that one "speed of the propelling force" what is physical and semantical BS.
And of course, you will get citations of some BS articles collected all over Internet's trashboxes (most of which MacM, as he proved it here, can not even understand because they content some Math higher than 8 grade Algebra, but he likes anti-SRT statements there)...

tsmid
12-11-04, 09:09 AM
In developing the Velocity Addition Formula, which imposes an unsupported view that v = c is an absolute limit on velocity in a vacuum, Einstien wrote:

tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) and t'A - tB = rAB/(c+v)

The terms (c-v) and (c+v) have no meaning if v = c is a limit.?

However, if one replaces these terms with "c", the consequence of the VAF conclusion, then the basis for length contraction and time dilation become absurd and fail.

I suggest that imposing non-existant and prohibited velocities in physical reality mathematically into a formula to impose a velocity limit actually also creates a non-existant velocity limit. :D
You may want to read my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm regarding this issue. This addresses the actual mistake Einstein made in deriving his relativistic formulae.

MacM
12-11-04, 09:11 AM
To all reader.
Everything that MacM says about rocket is BS. His posts show that he never saw any calculations of the propulsion phenomena in SRT, at all. Reason very simple - he proved here that he can not understand such calculations...
Do not believe me? Ask him for a single mathematical prove of any of his statements. You never will get it from him... Bla-bla-bla + "You damm ass.." all what you can get from him. All you can get from him is like that one "speed of the propelling force" what is physical and semantical BS.
And of course, you will get citations of some BS articles collected all over Internet's trashboxes (most of which MacM, as he proved it here, can not even understand because they content some Math higher than 8 grade Algebra, but he likes anti-SRT statements there)...

You pathetic, stupid jackass. You think your continued false innuendo changes anything you are nuts. Of course there is nothing about rockets in SRT. I don't think rockets were flying overhead in 1905.

The problem here is you cannot respond technically therefore you feel you must attempt to discredit. You speak of 8th grade math. Just a reminder that I have recieved education in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering including inductory calculus.

If you can't address my issues technically then shut the hell up.

(Q)
12-11-04, 09:22 AM
Mac's qualifiers:

What a dumbass... You pathetic lame brain... You pathetic, stupid jackass... shut the hell up.

Once again, you start a thread in order to make another claim based on your inability to understand the subject matter and once again the thread deterioates into the above qualifiers.

Why, Mac... why?

el-half
12-11-04, 09:38 AM
Don't blame him for mentioning his hatred feelings against inferior creatures.
It is really annoying when idiots attempt to break down useful statements.

Like: Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds... ?

You could at least state your feelings about the other people a bit more mildly though, MacM. There is no use in this discussion becoming a flamewar.

Anyway, although I don't know you at all it seems you have a serious touch of arrogance...

MacM
12-11-04, 10:10 AM
Mac's qualifiers:

What a dumbass... You pathetic lame brain... You pathetic, stupid jackass... shut the hell up.

Once again, you start a thread in order to make another claim based on your inability to understand the subject matter and once again the thread deterioates into the above qualifiers.

Why, Mac... why?

That is really quite simple. When one responds as though he is superior and writes "particles don't accelerate themselves" and that "rockets require fuel", it is worse than an insult, it is a complete waste of time and is unresponsive to the issue.

MacM
12-11-04, 10:18 AM
Don't blame him for mentioning his hatred feelings against inferior creatures.
It is really annoying when idiots attempt to break down useful statements.

Like: Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds... ?

You could at least state your feelings about the other people a bit more mildly though, MacM. There is no use in this discussion becoming a flamewar.

Anyway, although I don't know you at all it seems you have a serious touch of arrogance...

Thanks for your post. You appear fairly new here so WELCOME, but I learned long ago politeness and soft rebuttals go nowhere here. One must expose their stupidity of their responses with harse reality.

As far as arraogance goes. I am most certainly not arrogant. I however am not a push over that these nin-com-poops think they can dance around and ignore the issue by making personal attacks based on nothing but fabricated crap.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 10:23 AM
The only one what makes our Forum look like walls of the public toilet is the presence of MacM.

el-half
12-11-04, 10:35 AM
The only one what makes our Forum look like walls of the public toilet is the presence of MacM.

While I cannot judge that statement as I am new here I can say the following really is correct:

That is really quite simple. When one responds as though he is superior and writes "particles don't accelerate themselves" and that "rockets require fuel", it is worse than an insult, it is a complete waste of time and is unresponsive to the issue.

I am not taking sides or something. I attempt to defend whoever I think is right.
I thought adults where intellectual beings? I thought ignorant idiotic statements were only made by my friends when I told them about relativity theory?

I guess I'm pretty naïve.

Also, if there are some people who don't like MacM it may result in almost everybody else not liking him too because of lame mass histeria. That is not a good thing.

Crap, after having read the entire thread I feel lost. There is too much to reply too. All these things that are being overlooked in numerous replies... :bugeye:

MacM
12-11-04, 10:52 AM
The only one what makes our Forum look like walls of the public toilet is the presence of MacM.

I can only say that it is Yuriy's name that seems written most often on those walls. :D

If you cannot respond technically then don't respond. That is my advice. Your inability to respond technically does not in any manner address nor minimalize the issues raised.

Your responses minimalize you personally.

MacM
12-11-04, 10:57 AM
While I cannot judge that statement as I am new here I can say the following really is correct:

I am not taking sides or something. I attempt to defend whoever I think is right.
I thought adults where intellectual beings? I thought ignorant idiotic statements were only made by my friends when I told them about relativity theory?

I guess I'm pretty naïve.

Thanks for your post.

Also, if there are some people who don't like MacM it may result in almost everybody else not liking him too because of lame mass histeria. That is not a good thing.

That is the understatement of the day. :D

By the way WELCOME to SciFi or I mean SciForums. :D

jsph27
12-11-04, 07:03 PM
REALLY? What a dumbass.

You pathetic lame brain. Energy is always conserved. But energy expended and not accelerating the particle is a decrease in efficiency. The energy input into the particle acclerator is just going around in a circle but not creating any further push. It is still there.

Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.

The particle will never exceed the finite speed of the propelling force, I don't care how much power you dump into your damned accelerator and that has nothing to do with mass increase of the particle.

At what point did i say that a particle can exceed its propelling force? BTW, if you dont have something nice to say, dont say anything at all.

Persol
12-11-04, 07:20 PM
Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.Actually, it can. That's the magic of momentum.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 07:30 PM
To all readers.
1. At any consideration of the relative velocity of two object one should use Einstein's law of addition of velocities.
2. True theory of propulsion rocket leads to the conclusion that at any stock of fuel and any its features the rocket can not reach c.
3. True theory of any force acting on any body shows that there is no possibility to excide limit c for velocity of any body under action of any driven force.
All these information anybody can find in any textbook on the Mechanics of SRT accepted by any university in World. If someone has any questions about this Mechanics (after reading that textbook, not MacM's arrogant posts, who, obviously, never read any of such books!), please, ask me and I will answer your questions...

jsph27
12-11-04, 07:54 PM
Dear MacM,

Hi. Hows it going? Anyway, im not trying to be superior to u in any way. Its just that those are the arguments that i see fit to use in these numerous debates. Im just a sophomore in college right now and im only 19. I have no credentials whereas you have probably a laundy list of things to be proud of. My only vice with you is that you are putting words in my mouth and then bashing me for it. IMO its the staple of the desperate man who has to resort to insults.

MacM
12-11-04, 08:42 PM
At what point did i say that a particle can exceed its propelling force?

I think you have a reading problem.

BTW, if you dont have something nice to say, dont say anything at all.

BTW: When you don't have anything constructive to say don't be saying bullsit.

Stop saying that particles propel themselves. They dont. Objects dont propel themselves either. I dont care if its a rocket or a particle accelerator. In your rocket example you dont take into account fuel consumption. For an object with an "engine" on it it requires some kind of fuel to burn in order to go. Once it runs out of fuel, well u know.

I'm not a professional physicist but I suspect having mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering that I have more physics than a "Line Ramp Serviceman".

I note you are fairly new here and will excuse you this once but don't be trying to talk down to others or you will catch it back. Otherwise WELCOME.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 08:42 PM
Originally Posted by MacM
"Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.”

1. The simple application of the energy and momentum laws to the following problem (typical for any beginning course of classic physics ih schools):
A car with mass m1 and speed Vo collides with rested car with mass m2. What speed these cars will have after collision, if impact is absolutely elastic one?
The solution of this problem, as any good student knows, is:

V1 = Vo (m1-m2)/(m1+m2) and V2 = Vo 2m1/(m1 + m2)

Therefore, if m1 = 101m2/99 the rested car will gain velocity 101 mph when Vo = 1oo mph.
That's the magic of momentum, Persol wrote to MacM about...
2. How anybody can even read some critics of SRT, if he does not know the basics of the classic mechanics?!

MacM
12-11-04, 09:02 PM
Actually, it can. That's the magic of momentum.

Don't be stuipid. Nobody is talking about an 18 wheeler hitting a VW. We are proposing two identical cars one pushing the other. If you have nothing to contribute then butt out.

nero
12-11-04, 09:03 PM
>> Like: Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds... ? >>

LOL, like 'massed weak minds' have the balance in democratic power, BUT have often encountered violent opposition from STRONG minds..... wonder why ????

and guess who wins in the short term....the fools

Sheep go to heaven, Goats go to unjustified HELL.....
LOL....love the prevailing sophist logic, of you insane statement.

>> V1 = Vo (m1-m2)/(m1+m2) and V2 = Vo 2m1/(m1 + m2)

, since light has no mass, it is only a wave disturbance in the background zero point field, your simplistic equations get into difficulties when there really is no 'mass' only energy inclines.

All the theories to date fail to understand the electrodynamic nature of reality (QM is a good start in the right direction..... and GR is left in the cold)

you figure.

MacM
12-11-04, 09:04 PM
Originally Posted by MacM
"Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.”

1. The simple application of the energy and momentum laws to the following problem (typical for any beginning course of classic physics ih schools):
A car with mass m1 and speed Vo collides with rested car with mass m2. What speed these cars will have after collision, if impact is absolutely elastic one?
The solution of this problem, as any good student knows, is:

V1 = Vo (m1-m2)/(m1+m2) and V2 = Vo 2m1/(m1 + m2)

Therefore, if m1 = 101m2/99 the rested car will gain velocity 101 mph when Vo = 1oo mph.
That's the magic of momentum, Persol wrote to MacM about...
2. How anybody can even read some critics of SRT, if he does not know the basics of the classic mechanics?!

Let me just repeat "FOOL". "Push" does not equate to "Impact" or "Impulse". Learn english. BTW learn some manners while you are at it. Rather than repeat myself read Here

MacM
12-11-04, 09:16 PM
Dear MacM,

Hi. Hows it going? Anyway, im not trying to be superior to u in any way. Its just that those are the arguments that i see fit to use in these numerous debates. Im just a sophomore in college right now and im only 19. I have no credentials whereas you have probably a laundy list of things to be proud of. My only vice with you is that you are putting words in my mouth and then bashing me for it. IMO its the staple of the desperate man who has to resort to insults.

And you don't believe you were putting words in my mouth?

Stop saying that particles propel themselves. They dont. Objects dont propel themselves either. I dont care if its a rocket or a particle accelerator. In your rocket example you dont take into account fuel consumption. For an object with an "engine" on it it requires some kind of fuel to burn in order to go. Once it runs out of fuel, well u know.

Just where do you see me claim particles propel themselves or that rockets don't burn fuel?

As far as insults, I certainly took your post as an insult. I am far from desperate, I am quite comfortable.

Anyway best of luck in college.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 09:28 PM
Now everything goes by familiar circle: "push without impact", or "either push or impact" and so on, and so on. Now (after exact formulas were posted) cars became "identical cars" even not noticing that then whole statement becomes a trivial one and whole analogy with acceleration of particles due to EM field becomes lost... and so on, and so on...
This show of stupidity will never end ... by its creator. There has to act an external force...

Yuriy
12-11-04, 09:32 PM
nero,
please, at least read my posts carefully...
"since light has no mass, it is only a wave disturbance in the background zero point field, your simplistic equations get into difficulties when there really is no 'mass' only energy inclines."

Formulas were specifically addressed to problem of collision (push or equally impact) of two cars.

geistkiesel
12-11-04, 10:01 PM
C is the same in all reference frames. V is not. Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?
Prove that "C i sthe same in all reference frames.". This is a physics forum.

geistkiesel
12-11-04, 10:05 PM
jcph27:
"Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?"
MacM:
"Because there is no direct evidence, test data or obversation of it."
Says who? MacM or somebody else?
There is a way for you to conduct yourself Yuriy, and the way you have just expressed is not it. Why ask a question as an answer? If you have expermental results indicating support of your thesis then present it. All you have the talent for, apparently, is incoherent babbling.

geistkiesel
12-11-04, 10:10 PM
Yes, v=c as a limit is an unsupported view of yours. Einstein says v could never be c.

Do I read you correcly? Einstein's view, or opinion is physical fact and MacM's statements aren't on a equivalent level? I suppose you are sggesting the general consensus" theroy of physical truth or reality. I suppose further, that one must be a member of a qualified voting bloc, correct? Does the American Physical Society, for instance, conduct elections demonstrating the latest scientific "statndard"?

geistkiesel
12-11-04, 10:12 PM
So, we have one more thread with MacM's critics of SRT...
Do you have anything interesting to say or to do Yuriy, anything at all?

geistkiesel
12-11-04, 10:16 PM
If you want a relavistic answer to why c is the upper limit look at the term
(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) that appears well almost everywhere in relativity. Besides, a photons mass is 0, so logically only it can be the fastest particle in the universe. Any force other than 0 will instantly accelerate it to max v. Thats why f=ma doesnt work with a photon.
What doesn't work with a phioton is your inability to paint outside the numbers. You read in book somewhere, or someone told you in a lecture that the model you ("wee") are using properly describes the limitations on the dynamics of Mother Nature's whims.

What is your problem anyway, mental sloth, laziness?

MacM
12-11-04, 10:28 PM
Now everything goes by familiar circle: "push without impact", or "either push or impact" and so on, and so on. Now (after exact formulas were posted) cars became "identical cars" even not noticing that then whole statement becomes a trivial one and whole analogy with acceleration of particles due to EM field becomes lost... and so on, and so on...
This show of stupidity will never end ... by its creator. There has to act an external force...

The only thing familiar is your bullshit distortions. Grow up.

MacM
12-11-04, 10:57 PM
nero,
please, at least read my posts carefully...
"since light has no mass, it is only a wave disturbance in the background zero point field, your simplistic equations get into difficulties when there really is no 'mass' only energy inclines."

Formulas were specifically addressed to problem of collision (push or equally impact) of two cars.

And problems of collision were not at issue. Typical response when you have nothing technical to rebut with, make up your own arguement and claim the other person doesn't understand. The one that doesn't understand is the one making up new problems and not answering the ones posed.

Yuriy
12-11-04, 11:41 PM
MacM:"You pathetic lame brain... Energy is always conserved. But energy expended and not accelerating the particle is a decrease in efficiency. The energy input into the particle acclerator is just going around in a circle but not creating any further push. It is still there.
Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.

The particle will never exceed the finite speed of the propelling force, I don't care how much power you dump into your damned accelerator and that has nothing to do with mass increase of the particle."

Being caught for tail, You as always started spreading the direct lies:

1. It was about collision and only collision.
2. You call guy "lame brain" and "fool" only because he noticed nonsense in your posts
3. But it was You who issued such a purl of logic as "the finite speed of the propelling force"
4. It is You who trying to hide under semantics of "push" and "impact" his own ignorance of a simple collision's physics or hoping that nobody will notice that you did not mention any "identity" of cars in your stupid analogy...
So, nothing changed: you never learn, you never understand, you never accept the truth...

MacM
12-11-04, 11:44 PM
If you want a relavistic answer to why c is the upper limit look at the term
(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) that appears well almost everywhere in relativity. Besides, a photons mass is 0, so logically only it can be the fastest particle in the universe. Any force other than 0 will instantly accelerate it to max v. Thats why f=ma doesnt work with a photon.

This thread in fact is about how that term where 1/term is called gamma, was derived using (c+v) and (c-v).
Did you miss that point?

Yuriy
12-11-04, 11:53 PM
geistkeisel,

"What is your problem anyway, mental sloth, laziness?"

For now I saw only the one "mental sloth" in our Forum. Why you are trying to make us sure that you are the second one?

And stop calling people the names, stop abuse people.

MacM
12-12-04, 12:09 AM
MacM:"You pathetic lame brain... Energy is always conserved. But energy expended and not accelerating the particle is a decrease in efficiency. The energy input into the particle acclerator is just going around in a circle but not creating any further push. It is still there.
Wake up fool a car capable of only going 100 Mph can't push another car 101 Mph.

The particle will never exceed the finite speed of the propelling force, I don't care how much power you dump into your damned accelerator and that has nothing to do with mass increase of the particle."

Being caught for tail, You as always started spreading the direct lies:

1. It was about collision and only collision.

You have a serious problem. A car pushing another car has nothing to do with impact. Particle accelerators have nothing to do with impact.

2. You call guy "lame brain" and "fool" only because he noticed nonsense in your posts

I call them like I see them. Particularily when they have caught no such nonsense but choose to lak nonsense instead.

3. But it was You who issued such a purl of logic as "the finite speed of the propelling force"

AND??? When the propelling force has a finite speed it is intuative obvious (for some at least) that the object being propelled will never exceed the propelling (driving - not impacting) force velocity, regardless of the amount of jpower put into it. That phenomena has nothing what-so-ever to do with the mass of the propelled object.

4. It is You who trying to hide under semantics of "push" and "impact" his own ignorance of a simple collision's physics or hoping that nobody will notice that you did not mention any "identity" of cars in your stupid analogy...
So, nothing changed: you never learn, you never understand, you never accept the truth...

The only thing stupid is persons trying to be obtuse and argue cases not related to the presentation. You saw no mention of momentum, impulse or impact. I said clearly a car pushing another car. Go play with yourself.

geistkiesel
12-12-04, 01:21 AM
You have touched on the physics issue and don't even realize it.

1 - By what assumption can you conclude that a property (finite velocity limit) of EM waves applies to mass.?

2 - F = ma asserts a velocity limit assuming a relavistically increasing mass due to velocity becomes the limiting factor. There is no sound arguement for the concept of relavistic mass increase.

All such evidence is based on particle acceleration by a stationary propelling source where there becomes a relative velocity between the source and the accelerated particle. That is it is no surprise that one cannot cause the particle to achieve a velocity greater than the finite velocity of the propulsion force.

3 - Now theoretically assume the particle is a minature rocket where there is no relative velocity between the thrusting source and the load mass. The thrust does not dimenish nor does the mass load increase. Where now is your limit?

4 - It is quite likely that the concept of relativistic mass is actually the misinterpretation of an illusion of decreased energy transfer between the propelling source and the reactive load.

MacM, I agree that 'velocity' is miss used as a limiting physical parameter on the speed of matter. Accelerating mass in one direction from the moving frame induces a velocity creating force in the opposie direction. If this SRT limitation is perceived as limiting the velocity of mass, then we ain't gonna get there from here. Modernly the max designed speeds of rockets are much less than the SOL.

A partiicle velocity at or near the SOL expresses no phsical limitations, (other than physical saftey considerations) to either,1) a particile exceeding the SOL, nor 2) to the specific impulse forces of light being effective at V >> c.
Unconventional acceleration modes not directly related to the energy exchange process of the fields can be easily exploited. e.g. Achieve a frame velocity ~ C then systematically decouplie self-regulating, self-controlled angular momentum storage sytems along the path of the desired trajectory.

Assume the mass energy is composed of two, at least, modes of velocity 1) The linear motion through time space and 2), the vibration of the particle as increases in energy absorption. This process becomes less efficient in processing energy exchanges where the amount used for velocity increases declines as more and more energy is used just to get the stuff on board, stored and then used for velocity inctreases.

Velocity, as SR wants us to believe, is everything, when uniform and no velocity affects can be felt by objects on the moving frame. Nothing observed can be related to huge changes in matter that are velocity related, supposedly. Velocity "slows processes down" yet acceleration activy, the forces of interaction, are considered, relatively speaking. insignificant events in the totality of it all.

What else is there to measure than acceleraion? SRT attempts to enslave the enquiring mind by denying the reality to one unambiguous activity of nature. That which is "measurably detected", I mean acceleration, is nothing, velocity id all.

Experiment: Take a 100,000 horse powered train engine moving on a railroad track at 88 feet/second. Suspend a ping pong ball on a light string at a height at the middle of the face plate of the oncoming traing.

The ping pong balll and face plate, driven by 100,000 horse power diesel engines at 88 feet/sec meet at some sionce in time. Answer the following regarding the plate/ball motion immdeiately after contact.

Will the ping pong ball move move :
in the direction of the train or
with no change in motion or,
opposite to the direction of the train?
and will the ping pong ball move:
faster or,
the same or,
slower or,
other than the face plate of the train?

Tiger hits a golf ball 300 yards, Barry bashes a baseball with a bat, a rocket ship launches from earth. Q:Were the physical recoil effects in each instance perturbed to,
a greater or, the same or, a lesser extent than,
the club, the bat or the earth?

Geistkiesel

MacM
12-12-04, 01:43 AM
MacM, I agree that 'velocity' is miss used as a limiting physical parameter on the speed of matter. Accelerating mass in one direction from the moving frame induces a velocity creating force in the opposie direction. If this SRT limitation is perceived as limiting the velocity of mass, then we ain't gonna get there from here. Modernly the max designed speeds of rockets are much less than the SOL.

Certainly. I would not assert that pragmatically one is going to achieve v = c or FTL using a rocket. But this is a theoretical arguement against a theoretical limit.

A partiicle velocity at or near the SOL expresses no phsical limitations, (other than physical saftey considerations) to either,1) a particile exceeding the SOL, nor 2) to the specific impulse forces of light being effective at V >> c.

There are many things that will preclude (or at least limit our ability) to reach relavistic speeds in space. The few atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter at light speed for any macroscopic object would create tremendous resistance and hazard but we are addressing the theoretical only here.

Unconventional acceleration modes not directly related to the energy exchange process of the fields can be easily exploited. e.g. Achieve a frame velocity ~ C then systematically decouplie self-regulating, self-controlled angular momentum storage sytems along the path of the desired trajectory.

I have not been as concerned with trying to design a system to achieve FTL as I am to expose the falicy of the theoretical limit.

Assume the mass energy is composed of two, at least, modes of velocity 1) The linear motion through time space and 2), the vibration of the particle as increases in energy absorption. This process becomes less efficient in processing energy exchanges where the amount used for velocity increases declines as more and more energy is used just to get the stuff on board, stored and then used for velocity inctreases.

This sound simular to what I claim. Energy applied relavistically begins to become stored in space and does not apply the same accelerating force. If theoretically traveling at v = c then a propelling EM source creates no further push. Effieicncy hasdropped to zero.

Velocity, as SR wants us to believe, is everything, when uniform and no velocity affects can be felt by objects on the moving frame. Nothing observed can be related to huge changes in matter that are velocity related, supposedly. Velocity "slows processes down" yet acceleration activy, the forces of interaction, are considered, relatively speaking. insignificant events in the totality of it all.

I think I agree. I'm not real clear on some of our comments.

What else is there to measure than acceleraion? SRT attempts to enslave the enquiring mind by denying the reality to one unambiguous activity of nature. That which is "measurably detected", I mean acceleration, is nothing, velocity id all.

I don't quite follow you here nor of the points of your example that followed.

jsph27
12-12-04, 02:15 AM
Dear MacM,

Which proves nothing regarding the issue of ability of a self propelled object having a velocity limit.

There, you said particles propel themselves. I mentioned fuel consumption becuase you didnt. Rather than simply pointing your finger back at me why dont you try and defend my accusations that you are putting words in my mouth.

jsph27
12-12-04, 02:16 AM
Do you have anything interesting to say or to do Yuriy, anything at all?

Generally it is not in ones best interest to contradict themself.

MacM
12-12-04, 02:26 AM
jsph27,

I have no particular interest to continue this "You said" so this will be my last response to this.

Dear MacM,

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Which proves nothing regarding the issue of ability of a self propelled object having a velocity limit. ”

jsph27:"There, you said particles propel themselves. I mentioned fuel consumption becuase you didnt. Rather than simply pointing your finger back at me why dont you try and defend my accusations that you are putting words in my mouth. "

One could I suppose consider an "Object" a particle but that is completely out of context of what I was saying. You are distorting the discussion and the main points by maintaining that arguement. Most especially when I continued to cite a rocket as an example.

You seem to be reaching for an arguemnt. You aren't going to get one. You are either trolling or have misinterpreted my post.

jsph27
12-12-04, 02:38 AM
Dear MacM

ok, thats fine with me. I suppose this will be my last response to this as well.
An object shares all the same properties as a particle. They are interchangeable. One doesnt need to "consider" anything.
I am not maintaining an argument, i replied to your post.
If you are going to use an example, use one that is correct. Or least stop modifying it every time someone points out that something is wrong with it.

MacM
12-12-04, 09:11 AM
Dear MacM

ok, thats fine with me. I suppose this will be my last response to this as well.
An object shares all the same properties as a particle. They are interchangeable. One doesnt need to "consider" anything.
I am not maintaining an argument, i replied to your post.
If you are going to use an example, use one that is correct. Or least stop modifying it every time someone points out that something is wrong with it.

My opology for getting you off to a rough start but there is indeed a differance in "Clarifying" an issue for someone that is looking for cracks to exploit and in "Modifying" the example.

I accept part of the responsibility only in that I expect people to be more pragmatic and able to discuss things in logical generalities.