"Emor" <emor@isp.com> wrote in message
news:d15cb$434d0a20$d8080ed0$2497@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
You could have posted your question in the relativity group.
SNIP
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].
Right - for the *same* subject under consideration. The above are *not* the
LT, and the resulting "lenght" and "time" equations are for that case *not*
the above.
The Lorentz Transformation
for Velocity is therefore equal to 1/(1-V^2/C^2).
That's therefore erroneous. But don't worry, it's a typical beginners
mistake. :-)
(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!
He could have formulated it more accurately, but maybe in fact he did.
I leave it here; if you like to understand it, read first an introductory
textbook, and if it's still not clear, post your question in
sci.physics.relativity
Harald
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.
.
