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

>> 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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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 [post=730632]Here[/post]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

 

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.

 

Prove that "C i sthe same in all reference frames.". This is a physics forum.

 

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.

 

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"?

 

Do you have anything interesting to say or to do Yuriy, anything at all?

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

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

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.

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.

 

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.

1. 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?
2. and will the ping pong ball move:
   • faster or,
   • the same or,
   • slower or,
   • other than the face plate of the train?
3. 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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

Dear MacM,

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.

 

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