| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2005 09:05:08 AM |
| Object: |
The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity |
The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the Lorentz
Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between reference frames having
a relative velocity. What is too often not recognized that, in so doing, it
provides the transformations for all other physical quantities! These
remaining transformations may be determined by applying the conventional
Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical equations.
Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time required to
traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity must equal the
Lorentz Transformation for Length [1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
Transformation for Time [(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz Transformation for
Velocity is therefore equal to 1/(1-V^2/C^2).
This transformation yields a conclusion which is in conflict with the
current understanding of Special Relativity. Present dogma asserts that the
velocity of light is the same in all velocity reference frames. If one
considers two reference frames, A and B, moving at a relativity velocity V
with respect to each other, one finds that an observer in A measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as its conventional value of C
and the velocity of light in B as having been reduced by the Lorentz
Transformation for Velocity. Similarly, an observer in B measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as C and the velocity of light
in A as having been reduced by the Lorentz Transformation for velocity.
While superficially this may seem to be a contradiction, the difficulty
vanishes when one factors in the effects of the limit on the velocity of
information transfer imposed by the velocity of light.
We are forced to accept the conclusion, however, that the velocity of
light changes as a result of a change in velocity and that this change in
velocity is concealed by a change in the size of the units of measurement
for velocity (length/time) making it appear that the velocity of light is
the same in both reference frames. In terms of unchanging units of
measurement, the velocity of light does differ between reference frames
which differ in velocity, it only appears to be unchanged when it is
measured within each reference frame. It may be stated, therefore, that
Special Relativity requires that the velocity of light be a "constant" but
cannot be constant between reference frames having a relative velocity. This
conclusion is consistent with the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory which
asserts that our velocity with respect to the Aether is indeterminate.
However, one may derive more information from Special Relativity.
Consider two velocity reference frames, for example Earth and Mars. A rocket
is located on Earth and three identical clocks are in use. One clock is
locate on Earth, one is located in the rocket, and the third clock is
located on Mars. The observer on Earth and the observer in the rocket report
that their clocks run at the same speed and that the clock on Mars runs
slower due to the relative velocity between the two locations. The observer
on Mars reports that the clocks on the Earth and on the rocket run slower
than his clock.
After the readings have been taken, the rocket takes off and travels to
Mars and stops there. The observer on Earth notes that the speed of the
clock on the rocket has slowed to the speed of the clock on Mars while the
observer on Mars notes that the speed of the clock on the rocket has
increased to match the speed of his own clock which is faster than the speed
of the clock on the Earth. The observer on the rocket does not notice a
change in the speed of his clock, but since he is familiar with Special
Relativity knows that the speed of his clock has changed as a result of his
observed change in velocity but that he cannot observe that change in the
speed of his clock. He observes that the change in velocity of his rocket
has occurred and that the speed of the clock on the Earth has appeared to
slow and the speed of the clock on Mars has appeared to increase. This
observation does not bother him or the other observers since all are
familiar with Special Relativity.
Consider what this thought experiment has shown. It has shown that not
only is it impossible to measure our velocity with respect to the Aether and
hence it is impossible to assert that the Aether does not exist, It has also
shown that Special Relativity requires that there be an absolute velocity
reference frame (i.e.- the Aether). In the Rocket Experiment all three
observers report that the speed of the clock has changed as a result of the
change in the rockets velocity. The observer on Earth asserts that the speed
of the clock on the rocket has slowed, the observer on Mars asserts that the
speed of the clock on the rocket has increased, and the observer on the
rocket asserts that the speed of his clock has changed but that he cannot
observe that change. There is one item of information that all three
observers agree on. The speed of the clock on the rocket changed as a result
of the change in the rocket's velocity.
One event, the change in speed of the rocket, has caused the speed of
the clock on the rocket to change. Since there was only one causal event,
there can only be one result, the speed of the clock must actually increase
or decrease, it cannot do both! In order for that conclusion to be true,
there must be an absolute reference frame for velocity. The classical
Aether, which cannot be proven not to exist, must exist!
Two objections have been raised to this argument. The first is that it
involves acceleration
and Special relativity does not include the effect of acceleration. This
argument is meaningless since no acceleration occurred when observations
were being made. The second argument involves the speed of communication
between the Earth and Mars. This is a foolish argument since the
observations were all made prior to the start and after the finish of the
experiment. The observers could have communicated by pony express without
affecting the conclusions. NOY ONLY DID SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOT ELIMINATE THE
CLASSICAL AETHER, IT REQUIRES THAT THE CLASSICAL AETHER EXIST!
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity |
01 Apr 2005 03:16:13 PM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity
[snip 130 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity |
01 Apr 2005 01:00:03 PM |
|
|
sci.physics.relativity added; followups redirected thereto.
In sci.physics, Einsteinhoax
<einsteinhoax@isp.com>
wrote
on Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:08 -0500
<59b11$424d632d$d8080e2a$12257@DIALUPUSA.NET>:
The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions
from mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
It is recognized that Special Relativity provides
the Lorentz Transformations for Length and Time and Mass
between reference frames having a relative velocity. What
is too often not recognized that, in so doing, it provides
the transformations for all other physical quantities! These
remaining transformations may be determined by applying the
conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
equations.
Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the
time required to traverse that length, the Lorentz
Transformation for Velocity must equal the Lorentz
Transformation for Length [1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5] divided by the
Lorentz Transformation for Time [(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5]. The
Lorentz Transformation for Velocity is therefore equal
to 1/(1-V^2/C^2).
Wrong wrong wrong. Oh, BTW, wrong.
The transformation *twists* space and time, as opposed to
merely shortening or lengthening either. The transformation
is correctly expressed
(x_A, t_A) = (g * (x_O - v * t_O), g * (t_O - v * x_O / c^2))
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The naive might think this
lengthens moving rods.
However, a funny thing happens on the way to the endpoint.
O lays out two points (0,t_O) and (d,t_O') -- we assume they
last for an indefinite period. (Because of the space-time twist
we use two variables t_O and t_O'.) A sees these points as
(-g * v * t_O, t_A) and (g * (d - v * t_O'), t_A')
where t_A = t_O * g and t_A' = (t_O' - v*d/c^2) * g.
A logical method for A to measure is to simply take the
time at which A crosses the marks, which means
-g * v * t_O = 0 or t = 0
and
g * (d - v * t_O) = 0 or t = d/v.
However, t is in *O's* coordinate-space, making it useless for A;
what A has is
t_A' - t_A = (d/v - v*d/c^2) * g
= (d/v) * (1 - v^2/c^2) * g
= (d/v) / g.
Proceed very carefully with the Lorentz, as it will change a division
to a multiplication. It's not magic, really, but it seems like
such, but it's obvious that (1 - v^2/c^2) = 1/g^2; therefore
(1 - v^2/c^2) * g = g/g^2 = 1/g.
For his part O can measure A's velocity correctly, if he proceeds
carefully enough and compensates for the delay in light travel
from the remote endpoint.
If we calculate x_A = (d - v * t_O) * g, we find t_O = v/d -- an
excellent start, and in fact all we need once O subtracts d/c
seconds from his raw observation of A crossing his second hashmark.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity |
02 Apr 2005 01:00:02 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.]
In sci.physics, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote
on Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:00:03 GMT
<f4f0i2-mgl.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>:
sci.physics.relativity added; followups redirected thereto.
In sci.physics, Einsteinhoax
<einsteinhoax@isp.com>
wrote
on Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:05:08 -0500
<59b11$424d632d$d8080e2a$12257@DIALUPUSA.NET>:
The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity
[snippage for brevity]
A logical method for A to measure is to simply take the
time at which A crosses the marks, which means
-g * v * t_O = 0 or t = 0
and
g * (d - v * t_O) = 0 or t = d/v.
Urgh. Change the t to t_O. Bad editing. Bad bad editing.
I'd sack the editor but then he'd be out of a job... :-)
Apologies for any confusion.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
