SRian conflict over velocity addition formula

Science > Physics > SRian conflict over velocity addition formula

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Mike"
Date:	16 Sep 2006 09:29:50 AM
Object:	SRian conflict over velocity addition formula

Mike wrote:
You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
velocity
addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
inertial FoR.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
PD wrote:
That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
Mike
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 09:41:33 AM

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote:

You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
velocity
addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
inertial FoR.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247

PD wrote:

That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce

Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:

There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e

Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.

I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.

Mike

Imbecile,
The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
transforms.
.

User: "penguinista"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	18 Sep 2006 12:03:11 AM

wrote:
....

The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
transforms.

To elaborate, before velocities (or any other quantities) measured from
different reference frames may be added to produce a result meaningful
for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common reference frame.
Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial frame.
.

User: "Koobee Wublee"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	18 Sep 2006 02:38:08 AM

penguinista wrote:

This is nonsense. There is no inertial frame of reference. It is a
term invented to hide the inadequacy of Lorentz Transform. After
pooh-pooh-ing the absolute reference frame, the SRists realized things
are actually best to explain in terms of these absolute terms. Thus,
they have cleverly invented new terms each to function exactly like the
physics pre-Lorentz Transform.
** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
clearly related back to the absolute reference frame
** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
fabric, liquid, etc.
** Proper time = Absolute reference time
And there are more.

Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial frame.

Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically salvage
the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
.

User: "harry"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	19 Sep 2006 04:35:58 AM

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158565087.704952.204450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

penguinista wrote:

To put it in more diplomatic words: although technically correct, we are
facing a propaganda issue.

** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
clearly related back to the absolute reference frame

** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
fabric, liquid, etc.

** Proper time = Absolute reference time

Ehm... IMHO you are confused about Proper time. IMO, Proper time = *Local
time*.
And spacetime (more precisely, space-time) is a mathematical construct
combining three spacial dimensions with one time dimension, and thus it's
rightly said not to be not identical to anything fabric or liquid.

And there are more.

Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin, note
that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial
frame.

Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically salvage
the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.

http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
Einstein alike. Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
popular modern interpretations of it.
Harald
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	19 Sep 2006 04:55:40 AM

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1158658558_34@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|
| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1158565087.704952.204450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > penguinista wrote:
| >
| >> To elaborate, before velocities (or any other quantities) measured from
| >> different reference frames may be added to produce a result meaningful
| >> for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common reference
| >> frame.
| >
| > This is nonsense. There is no inertial frame of reference. It is a
| > term invented to hide the inadequacy of Lorentz Transform. After
| > pooh-pooh-ing the absolute reference frame, the SRists realized things
| > are actually best to explain in terms of these absolute terms. Thus,
| > they have cleverly invented new terms each to function exactly like the
| > physics pre-Lorentz Transform.
|
| To put it in more diplomatic words: although technically correct, we are
| facing a propaganda issue.
|
| > ** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
| > clearly related back to the absolute reference frame
| >
| > ** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
| > manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
| > fabric, liquid, etc.
| >
| > ** Proper time = Absolute reference time
|
| Ehm... IMHO you are confused about Proper time. IMO, Proper time = *Local
| time*.
| And spacetime (more precisely, space-time) is a mathematical construct
| combining three spacial dimensions with one time dimension, and thus it's
| rightly said not to be not identical to anything fabric or liquid.
|
| > And there are more.
| >
| >> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin,
note
| >> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial
| >> frame.
| >
| > Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically salvage
| > the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
| > ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
| >
| >
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
|
| Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
| Einstein alike.
IDIOT LIAR.
| Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| popular modern interpretations of it.
SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
Morons like you drool at the mouth with your religious belief
in it, mathematicians spit on it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
.

User: "harry"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	20 Sep 2006 04:03:42 AM

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:w8PPg.118$PD.47@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

[oops there was one "not" too many - removed]

| > And there are more.
| >
| >> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin,
note
| >> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any inertial
| >> frame.
| >
| > Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically
salvage
| > the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of the
| > ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
| >
| >
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
|
| Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
| Einstein alike.

IDIOT LIAR.

- It was taught by Einstein: I have his book that teaches it and also states
that it teaches it.
- It was taught by Lorentz: have his book that teaches it and also states
that it teaches it.
Thus it's true.
Now who is a idiot?

| Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| popular modern interpretations of it.

SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.

Popular interpretations. Read again...
Harald
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	20 Sep 2006 07:55:15 AM

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1158743022_18@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:w8PPg.118$PD.47@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
| > news:1158658558_34@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| > |
| > | "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:1158565087.704952.204450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > | > penguinista wrote:
| > | >
| > | >> To elaborate, before velocities (or any other quantities) measured
| > from
| > | >> different reference frames may be added to produce a result
| > meaningful
| > | >> for an inertial frame, they must be transformed to a common
reference
| > | >> frame.
| > | >
| > | > This is nonsense. There is no inertial frame of reference. It is a
| > | > term invented to hide the inadequacy of Lorentz Transform. After
| > | > pooh-pooh-ing the absolute reference frame, the SRists realized
things
| > | > are actually best to explain in terms of these absolute terms.
Thus,
| > | > they have cleverly invented new terms each to function exactly like
| > the
| > | > physics pre-Lorentz Transform.
| > |
| > | To put it in more diplomatic words: although technically correct, we
are
| > | facing a propaganda issue.
| > |
| > | > ** Inertial frames of reference = Frames of references that can be
| > | > clearly related back to the absolute reference frame
| > | >
| > | > ** Spacetime = The Aether where spacetime consists of foliating
| > | > manifolds in which a manifold is whatever you wish it to be except
| > | > fabric, liquid, etc.
| > | >
| > | > ** Proper time = Absolute reference time
| > |
| > | Ehm... IMHO you are confused about Proper time. IMO, Proper time =
| > *Local
| > | time*.
| > | And spacetime (more precisely, space-time) is a mathematical construct
| > | combining three spacial dimensions with one time dimension, and thus
| > it's
| > | rightly said not to be identical to anything fabric or liquid.
|
| [oops there was one "not" too many - removed]
|
| > | > And there are more.
| > | >
| > | >> Before someone tries a gotcha with the twin paradox traveling twin,
| > note
| > | >> that the traveling twins net experience doesn't apply to any
inertial
| > | >> frame.
| > | >
| > | > Check out the following link. The author tried to pathetically
| > salvage
| > | > the damage done by Lorentz Transform in which SR is merely one of
the
| > | > ubiquitous interpretations to the mathematics of this transform.
| > | >
| > | >
| >
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
| > |
| > | Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz and
| > | Einstein alike.
| >
| >
| > IDIOT LIAR.
|
| - It was taught by Einstein: I have his book that teaches it and also
states
| that it teaches it.
| - It was taught by Lorentz: have his book that teaches it and also states
| that it teaches it.
|
| Thus it's true.
| Now who is a idiot?
I'm referring to * "SR" is not an interpretation *.
IDIOT LIAR!
|
| > | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| > | popular modern interpretations of it.
| >
| >
| > SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
|
| Popular interpretations. Read again...
See what I mean..
*"SR" is not an interpretation* + *Popular interpretations.* = Fuckhead.
.

User: "harry"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	20 Sep 2006 08:41:33 AM

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:TSaQg.619$1h3.490@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1158743022_18@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...

SNIP

So do I - or are you so idiot to think that they had the same
interpretation?

|
| > | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| > | popular modern interpretations of it.
| >
| >
| > SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
|
| Popular interpretations. Read again...

See what I mean..
*"SR" is not an interpretation* + *Popular interpretations.* = Fuckhead.

So you didn't read it again... *Popular interpretations of SRT* + *SRT is an
interpretation* = Messed up brain
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	20 Sep 2006 09:33:15 AM

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1158759693_56@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:TSaQg.619$1h3.490@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
| > news:1158743022_18@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| SNIP
| > | > |
| > | > | Again, "SR" is not an interpretation as it was taught by Lorentz
and
| > | > | Einstein alike.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > IDIOT LIAR.
| > |
| > | - It was taught by Einstein: I have his book that teaches it and also
| > | states that it teaches it.
| > | - It was taught by Lorentz: have his book that teaches it and also
| > states
| > | that it teaches it.
| > |
| > | Thus it's true.
| > | Now who is a idiot?
| >
| > I'm referring to * "SR" is not an interpretation *.
| > IDIOT LIAR!
|
| So do I - or are you so idiot to think that they had the same
| interpretation?
|
| > |
| > | > | Many textbooks on SR however (but not all), *do* provide
| > | > | popular modern interpretations of it.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > SR isn't popular, SR is for arguing over.
| > |
| > | Popular interpretations. Read again...
| >
| > See what I mean..
| > *"SR" is not an interpretation* + *Popular interpretations.* =
Fuckhead.
|
| So you didn't read it again... *Popular interpretations of SRT* + *SRT is
an
| interpretation* = Messed up brain
Fuckheads think trains move by peristalsis.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
.

User: ""
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	18 Sep 2006 08:32:05 AM

Koobee Wublee wrote:
<snipped>
Wacko, wacko
.

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 10:07:01 AM

wrote:

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote:

You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
velocity
addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
inertial FoR.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247

PD wrote:

That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce

Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:

There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e

Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.

I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.

Mike

Imbecile,

The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
transforms.

Your statement above shows that you are the imbecile moron.
Mike
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 10:33:02 AM

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1158419220.996851.141830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
|

wrote:
| > Mike wrote:
| > > Mike wrote:
| > >
| > > You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| > > formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| > > velocity
| > > addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| > > inertial FoR.
| > >
| > >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| > >
| > > PD wrote:
| > >
| > > That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| > > time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| > > observations from two different reference frames are common.
| > >
| > >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| > >
| > > Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| > >
| > > There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| > > relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| > > purely philosophical.
| > >
| > >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| > >
| > >
| > > Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| > > universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| > >
| > > I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| > >
| > > Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
|
| Your statement above shows that you are the imbecile moron.
|
| Mike
Rambo is on the rampage, I see.
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 12:00:28 PM

In sci.physics.relativity,

>
wrote
on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
<1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote:

You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
velocity
addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
inertial FoR.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247

PD wrote:

That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
observations from two different reference frames are common.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce

Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:

There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e

Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.

I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.

Mike

Imbecile,

The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
transforms.

Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
O A-> B->
We want to compute v_OB = u.
As usual Lorentz stipulates:
x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x_B = (x_A - w*t_A) / sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
t_B = (t_A - w*x_A/c^2) / sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
Obviously, we can substitute:
x_B = ( (x_O - v*t_O)/sqrt(1-v^2) - w*(t_O - v*x_O/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) )/sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)
= ( (x_O - v*t_O) - w*(t_O - v*x_O/c^2) ) / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2))
= ( (1 + vw/c^2)*(x_O) - (v + w)*t_O)/ (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2))
= (x_O - ( (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)) *t_O) / (( sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2) )/(1+vw/c^2))
That denominator looks a bit messy.
D = ( sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*sqrt(1-w^2/c^2) ) / (1+vw/c^2)
Let's take a wild guess. Recall that (a-b)*(a+b) = a^2-b^2, so:
D' = sqrt(1 - ((v+w)/(1+vw/c^2))^2/c^2)
= sqrt(1 - ((v/c+w/c)/(1+vw/c^2)))*sqrt(1 + ((v/c+w/c)/(1+vw/c^2)))
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1+vw/c^2) - (v/c+w/c) ) * sqrt( (1+vw/c^2) + (v/c+w/c) )
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1-v/c) * (1-w/c) ) * sqrt( (1+v/c) * (1 + w/c) )
Since 0<v/c<1 and 0<w/c<1, it's perfectly safe to shuffle, and
= (1/(1+vw/c^2)) * sqrt( (1-v/c) * (1+v/c) ) * sqrt( (1-w/c) * (1 + w/c) )
= D

The substitution for t_B is similar and left as an exercise.
Ergo, u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) is the SR relativistic addition formula.
Of course, this isn't proof of SR in general. There *is* no proof of
SR in general, although there's fairly convincing evidence from a
number of experiments.
--
#191,

Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 12:22:01 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity,

| <

>
| wrote
| on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Mike wrote:
| >> Mike wrote:
| >>
| >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> velocity
| >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| >> inertial FoR.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>
| >> PD wrote:
| >>
| >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>
| >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>
| >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| >> purely philosophical.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>
| >>
| >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>
| >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
| >>
| >> Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
| >
|
| Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
|
| O A-> B->
|
| We want to compute v_OB = u.
|
| As usual Lorentz stipulates:
|
| x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 01:15:06 PM

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity,

| <

>
| wrote
| on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Mike wrote:
| >> Mike wrote:
| >>
| >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> velocity
| >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| >> inertial FoR.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>
| >> PD wrote:
| >>
| >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>
| >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>
| >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| >> purely philosophical.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>
| >>
| >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>
| >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
| >>
| >> Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
| >
|
| Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
|
| O A-> B->
|
| We want to compute v_OB = u.
|
| As usual Lorentz stipulates:
|
| x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...

x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?

xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?

xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.

Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles

Imbecile.
Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 02:01:21 PM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| > news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | In sci.physics.relativity,

| > | <

>
| > | wrote
| > | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| > | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| > | >
| > | > Mike wrote:
| > | >> Mike wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| > | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| > | >> velocity
| > | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance
in
| > | >> inertial FoR.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| > | >>
| > | >> PD wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all
the
| > | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| > | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| > | >>
| > | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| > | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so,
is
| > | >> purely philosophical.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| > | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| > | >>
| > | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| > | >>
| > | >> Mike
| > | >
| > | > Imbecile,
| > | >
| > | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > | > transforms.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| > | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| > |
| > | O A-> B->
| > |
| > | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| > |
| > | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| > |
| > | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >
| > Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| >
| > x = 100 LY
| > t = 200 Y,
| > hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| >
| > xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| >
| > xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| >
| > Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| > Androcles
|
| Imbecile.
| Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| Thanks.
|
| Dirk Vdm
Half of 16+4 is 16, the other half is 4.
Hahahaha! Fucking local village dog tord, I know more about the cuckoo
misformations than you ever will!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 02:00:00 PM

| > | <

>
| > | wrote
| > | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| > | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| > | >
| > | > Mike wrote:
| > | >> Mike wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| > | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| > | >> velocity
| > | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance
in
| > | >> inertial FoR.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| > | >>
| > | >> PD wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all
the
| > | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| > | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| > | >>
| > | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| > | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so,
is
| > | >> purely philosophical.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| > | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| > | >>
| > | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| > | >>
| > | >> Mike
| > | >
| > | > Imbecile,
| > | >
| > | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > | > transforms.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| > | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| > |
| > | O A-> B->
| > |
| > | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| > |
| > | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| > |
| > | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >
| > Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| >
| > x = 100 LY
| > t = 200 Y,
| > hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| >
| > xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| >
| > xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| >
| > Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| > Androcles
|
| Imbecile.
| Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| Thanks.
|
| Dirk Vdm
Hahahaha! Fucking local village dog tord, I know more about the cuckoo
misformations than you ever will!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 03:00:08 PM

In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
<KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity,

| <

>
| wrote
| on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Mike wrote:
| >> Mike wrote:
| >>
| >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> velocity
| >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| >> inertial FoR.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>
| >> PD wrote:
| >>
| >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>
| >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>
| >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| >> purely philosophical.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>
| >>
| >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>
| >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
| >>
| >> Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
| >
|
| Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
|
| O A-> B->
|
| We want to compute v_OB = u.
|
| As usual Lorentz stipulates:
|
| x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...

x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?

xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?

xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.

Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles

Imbecile.
Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
Thanks.

He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
"Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
Of course, it's not the Lorentz. :-)

Dirk Vdm

--
#191,

Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 04:27:13 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:f5vtt3-it1.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel
| <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| wrote
| on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
| <KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
| >
| > "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>
| >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| >> news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >> | In sci.physics.relativity,

| >> | <

>
| >> | wrote
| >> | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| >> | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >> | >
| >> | > Mike wrote:
| >> | >> Mike wrote:
| >> | >>
| >> | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> | >> velocity
| >> | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance
in
| >> | >> inertial FoR.
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >> | >>
| >> | >> PD wrote:
| >> | >>
| >> | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all
the
| >> | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >> | >>
| >> | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >> | >>
| >> | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so,
is
| >> | >> purely philosophical.
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >> | >>
| >> | >>
| >> | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> Mike
| >> | >
| >> | > Imbecile,
| >> | >
| >> | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| >> | > transforms.
| >> | >
| >> |
| >> | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| >> | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| >> |
| >> | O A-> B->
| >> |
| >> | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| >> |
| >> | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| >> |
| >> | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >> | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>
| >> Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| >>
| >> x = 100 LY
| >> t = 200 Y,
| >> hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| >>
| >> xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| >>
| >> xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| >>
| >> Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| >> Androcles
| >
| > Imbecile.
| > Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| > Thanks.
|
| He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
| "Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
| to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
| figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
You already did. I'm doing nothing wrong here :-)
PUH-LEEZE do not explain it to Dork!
ROFL!
Androcles.
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 04:01:05 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:f5vtt3-it1.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
<KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity,

| <

>
| wrote
| on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Mike wrote:
| >> Mike wrote:
| >>
| >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> velocity
| >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| >> inertial FoR.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>
| >> PD wrote:
| >>
| >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>
| >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>
| >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| >> purely philosophical.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>
| >>
| >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>
| >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
| >>
| >> Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
| >
|
| Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
|
| O A-> B->
|
| We want to compute v_OB = u.
|
| As usual Lorentz stipulates:
|
| x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...

x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?

xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?

xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.

Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles

Imbecile.
Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
Thanks.

Hush now ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 06:03:58 PM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:lCZOg.80042$vC3.1235006@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:f5vtt3-it1.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel
| > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| > wrote
| > on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
| > <KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
| >>
| >> "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>>
| >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| >>> news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >>> | In sci.physics.relativity,

| >>> | <

>
| >>> | wrote
| >>> | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| >>> | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >>> | >
| >>> | > Mike wrote:
| >>> | >> Mike wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >>> | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >>> | >> velocity
| >>> | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c
invariance in
| >>> | >> inertial FoR.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> PD wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all
the
| >>> | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >>> | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over
the
| >>> | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so,
is
| >>> | >> purely philosophical.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a
block
| >>> | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Mike
| >>> | >
| >>> | > Imbecile,
| >>> | >
| >>> | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| >>> | > transforms.
| >>> | >
| >>> |
| >>> | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| >>> | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| >>> |
| >>> | O A-> B->
| >>> |
| >>> | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| >>> |
| >>> | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| >>> |
| >>> | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>> | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>>
| >>> Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| >>>
| >>> x = 100 LY
| >>> t = 200 Y,
| >>> hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| >>>
| >>> xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| >>>
| >>> xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| >>>
| >>> Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| >>> Androcles
| >>
| >> Imbecile.
| >> Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| >> Thanks.
| >
| > He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
| > "Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
| > to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
| > figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
| >
| > Of course, it's not the Lorentz. :-)
|
| Hush now ;-)
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz, it is not the Einstein.
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Lorentz, it is the Einstein.
x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
Because the Einstein is
x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
Hush!!
The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does not.
ROFL!
Androcles
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 08:00:08 PM

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:03:58 GMT
<yp%Og.5271$wg.5025@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

| >>> | <

>
| >>> | wrote
| >>> | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| >>> | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >>> | >
| >>> | > Mike wrote:
| >>> | >> Mike wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >>> | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >>> | >> velocity
| >>> | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c
invariance in
| >>> | >> inertial FoR.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> PD wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all
the
| >>> | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >>> | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over
the
| >>> | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so,
is
| >>> | >> purely philosophical.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a
block
| >>> | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus
manner.
| >>> | >>
| >>> | >> Mike
| >>> | >
| >>> | > Imbecile,
| >>> | >
| >>> | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| >>> | > transforms.
| >>> | >
| >>> |
| >>> | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| >>> | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| >>> |
| >>> | O A-> B->
| >>> |
| >>> | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| >>> |
| >>> | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| >>> |
| >>> | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>> | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>>
| >>> Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| >>>
| >>> x = 100 LY
| >>> t = 200 Y,
| >>> hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| >>>
| >>> xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| >>>
| >>> xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| >>>
| >>> Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| >>> Androcles
| >>
| >> Imbecile.
| >> Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| >> Thanks.
| >
| > He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
| > "Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
| > to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
| > figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
| >
| > Of course, it's not the Lorentz. :-)
|
| Hush now ;-)

xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz, it is not the Einstein.
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Lorentz, it is the Einstein.

Erm, the Lorentz requires *both* formulae. It is a transformation
from one coordinate system to another.

x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.

Actually,
x' = (xi+vtau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (tau+vxi/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
if I read Einstein's paper correctly.

Because the Einstein is
x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
Hush!!
The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does not.

Well of course I know. I can read. :-P

ROFL!
Androcles

--
#191,

Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 09:29:36 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:06jut3-i97.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote
| on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:03:58 GMT
| <yp%Og.5271$wg.5025@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:lCZOg.80042$vC3.1235006@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| > message news:f5vtt3-it1.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | > In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel
| > | > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| > | > wrote
| > | > on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:15:06 GMT
| > | > <KaXOg.79848$AP7.1226780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
| > | >>
| > | >> "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| > news:ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | >>>
| > | >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
in
| > message
| > | >>> news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | >>> | In sci.physics.relativity,

| > | >>> | <

>
| > | >>> | wrote
| > | >>> | on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| > | >>> | <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| > | >>> | >
| > | >>> | > Mike wrote:
| > | >>> | >> Mike wrote:
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity
addition
| > | >>> | >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL.
The
| > | >>> | >> velocity
| > | >>> | >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c
| > invariance in
| > | >>> | >> inertial FoR.
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> PD wrote:
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed
all
| > the
| > | >>> | >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and
also
| > | >>> | >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic
over
| > the
| > | >>> | >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing
so,
| > is
| > | >>> | >> purely philosophical.
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>>
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a
| > block
| > | >>> | >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a
ridiculus
| > manner.
| > | >>> | >>
| > | >>> | >> Mike
| > | >>> | >
| > | >>> | > Imbecile,
| > | >>> | >
| > | >>> | > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the
Lorentz
| > | >>> | > transforms.
| > | >>> | >
| > | >>> |
| > | >>> | Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| > | >>> | O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
| > | >>> |
| > | >>> | O A-> B->
| > | >>> |
| > | >>> | We want to compute v_OB = u.
| > | >>> |
| > | >>> | As usual Lorentz stipulates:
| > | >>> |
| > | >>> | x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | >>> | t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...
| > | >>>
| > | >>> x = 100 LY
| > | >>> t = 200 Y,
| > | >>> hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?
| > | >>>
| > | >>> xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?
| > | >>>
| > | >>> xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
| > | >>> Androcles
| > | >>
| > | >> Imbecile.
| > | >> Ghost - please don't explain what he does wrong here?
| > | >> Thanks.
| > | >
| > | > He's done nothing wrong here. This is the unknown
| > | > "Androcles Cuckoo Transform", and before I can even begin
| > | > to ascertain rightness or wrongness thereof I have to
| > | > figure out exactly what he's *doing*. :-)
| > | >
| > | > Of course, it's not the Lorentz. :-)
| > |
| > | Hush now ;-)
| >
| > xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz, it is not the Einstein.
| > tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Lorentz, it is the
Einstein.
|
| Erm, the Lorentz requires *both* formulae.
Erm, Lorentz didn't write tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), Einstein did.
| It is a transformation
| from one coordinate system to another.
Erm, time is not a coordinate. It doesn't stay fixed.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
The cuckoo misformations are H G Wells' fiction, not Einstein's.
Wells wasn't being serious, though.
|
| >
| > x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
| > t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
|
| Actually,
|
| x' = (xi+vtau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t' = (tau+vxi/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| if I read Einstein's paper correctly.
|
So as I said,
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not the Einstein, it is the Dork.
And as Tusselad has caught on,
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
so if
t' = tau * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then
t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^2
= t (1-v^2/c2)
= t - tv^2/c^2
but since the velocity of light in OUR theory plays the part of an
infinitely great velocity, t plays the part of t'.
| >
| > Because the Einstein is
| > x' = x or it may be x' = x-vt, but t' = t alVays.
| > Hush!!
| > The Ghost can figure, the Dork cannot. The Ghost knows, the Dork does
not.
|
| Well of course I know. I can read. :-P
Yes, but Dork cannot and math is not exactly Dork's forte.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fumble.htm
Division: dstupid/dm = V
Multiplication: dstupid = Vdm + infinity
Did you know he had a disagreement with a manager and got himself fired? Of
course Dork wants us to believe it was the manager's fault and he quit, but
if he was working for me I'd fire the animal in the lifespan of a muon.
Androcles, inventor of the integration constant.
|
| > ROFL!
| > Androcles
| >
|
| --
| #191,

| Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 02:00:14 PM

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:22:01 GMT
<ZoWOg.4633$wg.2302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:flmtt3-0hu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity,

| <

>
| wrote
| on 16 Sep 2006 07:41:33 -0700
| <1158417693.569350.302600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Mike wrote:
| >> Mike wrote:
| >>
| >> You cannot devise an experiment to validate the velocity addition
| >> formula [ of SR] since that would require measuring the OWSL. The
| >> velocity
| >> addition formula is a deduction from the postulate of c invariance in
| >> inertial FoR.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/d87ddd1d38a75fb7?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_48d4655a9cea8247
| >>
| >> PD wrote:
| >>
| >> That's simply not true. Relativistic kinematics is confirmed all the
| >> time in particle experiments, where those high speeds and also
| >> observations from two different reference frames are common.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_fbaf5473b95869ce
| >>
| >> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >>
| >> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| >> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| >> purely philosophical.
| >>
| >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >>
| >>
| >> Philosophical? Yes, indeed because SR is the philosophy of a block
| >> universe and GR the philosophy of black holes.
| >>
| >> I enjoy to see SRians contradict each other in such a ridiculus manner.
| >>
| >> Mike
| >
| > Imbecile,
| >
| > The SR velocity addition is a direvt consequence of the Lorentz
| > transforms.
| >
|
| Not sure how direct it is, but one can grind through it. Assume
| O, A, and B as customary, with v_OA = v and v_AB = w.
|
| O A-> B->
|
| We want to compute v_OB = u.
|
| As usual Lorentz stipulates:
|
| x_A = (x_O - v*t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Yes, but I tried it with a spreadsheet...

x = 100 LY
t = 200 Y,
hence v = x/t = 0.5c.... ok so far?

xi = (x-vt) * gamma, right?

xi = (100-0.5*200) * gamma = 0*gamma.

Is that why nobody has ever seen the cuckoo contraction?
Androcles

Correct.
--
#191,

Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: SRian conflict over velocity addition formula	16 Sep 2006 04:12:47 PM

| > | <