| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Suriv" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2005 09:03:35 AM |
| Object: |
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity" |
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
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). (As incredible as it may
seem,
the writer has received a communication from an individual who asserts that
a
Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined by dividing the
Lorentz
Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for Time
even
though velocity is defined as length divided by time! I suspect that this
individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining the
intellectual
status quo. If he is a physicist he is in the wrong line of work, I
understand
that Walmart is hiring.)
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
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/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: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity" |
02 Sep 2005 11:00:10 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Suriv
<suriv@isp.com>
wrote
on Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:03:35 -0400
<a0d89$43185bc0$d8080e58$28712@DIALUPUSA.NET>:
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
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).
[rest snipped]
If you're going to criticize a coordinate transformation from one
observer's reference frame to another observer's reference frame,
the least you can do is get the transformation right.
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)
And of course the transformation is invertible; the proof is left
to the interested reader who knows some math (which leaves out
certain individuals -- you know who you are :-P ):
x_O = (x_A + v * t_A) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_O = (t_A + v * x_A/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
If one takes c -> +oo one gets the Galilean transformation:
x_A = x_O - v * t_O
t_A = t_O
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity" |
02 Sep 2005 10:11:09 AM |
|
|
Suriv wrote:
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
[snip 180 lines of ignorant crap]
Idiot.
Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed,
the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any
inertial observer cannot exceed
(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives
u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
<http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm>
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>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.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.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/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
<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: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity" |
02 Sep 2005 09:50:51 AM |
|
|
Suriv wrote:
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
