Derivation of the Velocity Addition Formula Violates it's own premis.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

C is the same in all reference frames. V is not. Why do u say c being a limit is an unsupported view?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

So, we have one more thread with MacM's critics of SRT...

 

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 is a lie.

- Warren

 

Nice, short and simple.

 

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?

 

Another Relativits denial post without any merit content. hmmmm.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Also unresponsive and false.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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

Are preserved.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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 "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" 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.

 

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.