Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 228 of 228

Thread: Relative v > c

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    So why did you deny it at first? Why do you post things that you know not to be true?
    This is false and a comparison of apples and oranges.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    I am not using a third observer. There is a launch frame but I do not use it for calculations.
    But I did, and when I did so, you objected.

    Now, please answer the questions which you have been asked. Why not start with explaining why you believe that light cannot bounce back and forwards between to particles who an observer will see as having a speed of separation of over 1c.

    Your refusal to deal with questions is in breach of the rules, your answering them is not optional if you wish to post here.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    This is false and a comparison of apples and oranges.
    Please stop avoiding the questions which you are required to answer.

    Your infantile games are not amusing, and you'd do yourself a favour if you dropped them, and fulfilled your obligations.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    This means it is impossible to add or subtract to its speed in the vacuum of space. Therefore, if light is emitted by a relativistic particle and at the same time from the earth frame at the same time and position and direction, the two light beams would be coincident for all time t.
    That says nothing different to the standard SR claim that the speed of light is independent of the source, so I'll ask again, what do you mean by saying that it is absolute?

    You are implying that you mean something different from the standard view that all observers will measure the speed of light to be c relative to their own frame.

    So, please, what is it that differs in your "absolute speed" assertion?

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    So why not include it? You know that omiting it allows you to conflate frames, and allows you to confuse who is seeing what.

    If you were able to stop obfuscating like this, and still prove something, then you would do so.

    Please, grow up, do what you need to do to prove your point, or retract your stupid claims. If you can't do it in the required way, you have nothing.

    This is not true.

    I depend on setting up these frame characteristics with the acceleration equations of SR.

    This way I can depend on the 0.99c for each A and B and know these velocities are true.

    So, I circumvent a third observer which you claim I need. I do not.

    If I were sitting in rocket A for example, my eyes would tell me I am not moving, but the acceleration equations which are a reliable calculation of v tell me my actual speed is 0.99c though I cannot feel it.

    Now, it is true the "earth frame" has some underlying motion that is unknown. It is estimated to be around 18.55 miles per second in the direction of the orbit around the sun. Obviously, the milky way is doing something, but this number is close.

    Either way, the earth launch frame is moving very little when compared to 0.99c such that I can think of it as uniform motion with a very small error condition built into it ie around 9.96X10-5c

    For this reason, I do not need to attach a third frame to operate on this problem.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    But I did, and when I did so, you objected.

    Now, please answer the questions which you have been asked. Why not start with explaining why you believe that light cannot bounce back and forwards between to particles who an observer will see as having a speed of separation of over 1c.

    Your refusal to deal with questions is in breach of the rules, your answering them is not optional if you wish to post here.
    I do not know how many times I need to say I am not using a third frame.

    Find it in this post please.

    http://www.bautforum.com/1611268-post201.html

    I am being extremely specific. I am only using two frames.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    abcdefg, I've shown you, using your own definitions, that you are using a third [collection of] observer[s]. As you've been told by others on page 1. Or are we now going to require your special definition of the verb "use"? And "observer"?
    I am not using a third frame for calculations period. Here are the calculations using light as a metric for distance. There are only two frames in use.

    http://www.bautforum.com/1611268-post201.html

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    You are applying the equations correctly.
    Yes I know I'm applying the equations correctly AND I know you are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Somebody gave you equations you you just applied them.
    Yes, I'd like to thank my high school physics teacher from 1986, Mr Perry.

    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    You did not consider sending light signals back and forth to see the result.
    What does "sending" light signals back and forth matter?
    It doesn't matter how "long" the test takes to do. It will come up with the same measurement for velocity. IE I would send 2 light pulses from one rocket to the other. I would measure the time difference between the first pulses round trip and the 2 pulses round trip. I can then compare that to the time difference between when I released the first and second pulse and work out the relative velocity of the object the 2 light pulses bounced off of.

    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    These equations do not work when light is emitted from A to B and back again.
    Maybe not in your bizzaro universe but the universe the rest of us live in doing this measurement is pretty easy. In fact I don't even need to use 2 light pulses. I can use 1 pulse and measure the dopler shift of the light returning back to determine the speed of the object.
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    This post shows a total relative v > c.
    no your posts only show a lack of understanding special relativity, a tendancy to switch frames of reference without regards to the implications of those frames and a clear ability to mix values from different frames up to produce a bogus result.


  9. #219
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    Unfortunately, he's now retreated again to a position that no-one can understand. I suspect that he'll launch a new and more convoluted idea from there soon.

    His latest assertion, that light speed is absolute, needs to be defined, as so far as I can see, it means nothing. Relative speed is easy to talk about, it means how fast something moves past something else, or how fast an observer sees something.

    What does absolute speed mean, though? Does he mean that there exists a preferred frame, in which light is always c, and that frames moving relative t that see something different? Does he mean that it is always c relative to the source, or something different?

    If something different, what?

    Of course he will not answer this in any clear way. The best we'll get is some trite response such as "not relative to anything, absolute", as he knows full well that if he were to define his terms and his observers, then disproving his foolishness is just the work of a few lines of text.

    I've never seen another proponent argue in such bad faith, which is really saying something.
    You can type whatever you want.

    Since I came here I said the speed of light is a constant in space regardless of the opinion of the frame.

    Perhaps we are not communicating and your interpretation is such that you believe my position on matters is changing, but I can assure you it is not.

    Furthermore, out of the ATM's I've seen since I got here, I have supplied more math proof and math than all combined.

    Since logic and math is the "real" language of physics, I suggest you communicate with me on those terms and that will clear up any misconceptions.

    In math, it is right or it is wrong.

    For example, you keep accusing me of using a 3rd observer and being dishonest. Yet, you will not find any evidence of a 3rd observer in the math calculations except to supply a launch frame and that is basically it.

    The launch frame has almost nothing to do with the entire problem and is not used on calculating the distance metric for light travel between AS and B which is the point of this thread.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Yes, but the launch frame is incidental and for bookeeping only.
    But this is the ONLY frame in the scenario that will see the ships seperating at a speed of 1.98c which doesn't mean that light from one of those ships would have to travel at >c to reach the other. Once the light is released from one of the ships toward the other it will catch up to the other ship because the speed of the other ship is <c from any other point in space/time

    You honestly don't think that if I'm traveling at .99c to the right and shoot a laser to the left that it will only travel at .1c to the left do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    The real action is these rockets going in opposite directions at .99c with light sent to each.

    I used the launch frame only to establish the individual acceleration equations to each A and B.

    This way I can establish a known distance at the instant the burn stops and establish the v's of A and B in a predictable fashion.

    Once this is achieved, light signals can be sent back and forth to prove the total relative v is > c.
    The only way it v > c is in your bizzaro world where you don't understand the equations to use.

  11. #221
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,444
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Some discussion is necessary. Please note. One cannot blindly claim you may approach 0.99c. In particular, if the original launch frame had been proceeding along the positive x-axis at .5c already, then rocket B could not attain .99c relative to the launch frame.
    .5c with respect to what? Hey look! A fourth frame!
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Since logic and math is the "real" language of physics, I suggest you communicate with me on those terms and that will clear up any misconceptions.

    In math, it is right or it is wrong.
    Taken at face value, those statements are correct. However, equations devoid of context can mislead. Equations presented in an inappropriate context will mislead. And if the reader insists on changing the context, then no communication will have occurred. So your prescription is not guaranteed to succeed. Indeed from the other exchanges in which you've participated, it's clear that it's largely futile. That's why my working hypothesis continues to be that you are the Samuel Beckett of physics.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Ship A and Ship B are traveling towards point C from opposite direction.

    Ship A and B measure point C approaching at .99c

    Ship A and B measure each other approaching at 0.99994949750012625624968435937579c

    Ship A and B pass each other at point c

    After 10 seconds, in their local frame, Ship A shoots a 450nm laser Ship B.

    abcdefg, given the above scenario please answer the following

    1. How long does ship A think the round trip for the light takes, ie Ship A's frame of reference.

    2. What is the frequency of the light when it returns to ship A?

    3. What is the frequency of the light when it hits ship B, according to Ship B.

    4. If there is a stationary observer at Point C what frequency would they see the laser light as?

    5. How does any of these answers contradict with what SR says? IE How do any of these answers show a v > c?

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,541
    Here is a velocity addition formula:
    v(1,2)=[v(1)+v(2)] / [1+v(1)v(2)/c^2]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

    A third observer sees that distance between the two objects increases with a velocity 2c but an observer on the object sees it increases with 1c.

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Ok. Done.

    These are two images of the same situation, I changed their velocities relative to the Earth to be .5c in order to fit things on the page when I use the standard scale for length that makes c=1.

    Note that neither rocket is accelerating at any point after t=0 as that only serves to utterly confuse things, they did their acceleration some time in the past and they coordinated it so they pass the earth simultaneously.
    Note that simultaneity actually applies in this special case. As the distance is 0, observers on both rockets and on the Earth all agree that the rockets passed each other at the same time they both passed the earth, this defines t=0 for each of the three observers.

    The people in the rockets are shining flashes at precise previously agreed on intervals counted by clocks they each calibrated to an atomic clock they themselves built to the same specifications, and they have agreed that the flashes will shift frequency after receiving the first flash from the other rocket.

    The images show displacement along the x axis, time moving down the y axis
    Red is the timeline of Rocket 1, Green of Earth and Blue of Rocket 2.
    The magenta lines are light emitted by the rockets before they see anything from the other, Orange is light emitted after.
    As mentioned before, scale of the x axis is set so light moves at x=y.

    Here's the first image, it shows things seen from the Earth, you'll see that the observer on the Earth can confirm that the flashes are sent by clocks that are in agreement.



    Here's the same situation seen from Rocket 1.


    Note that the world lines for the flashes from R2 are what the observer in R1 can work back to given when they were observed.
    Note that the world line for Rocket 2 was derived from the common position of R1, R2 and the Earth at t=0 and the intersection of the world line of the first sent flash and the world line back from the first received orange flash, it was not calculated from any formula.

    When I measure the relative velocity of R2 seen from R1 in the image I see it's 0.8c.

    If we use the formula previous mentioned for the addition of relative velocities, (v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2)=1/(1+0.5c*0.5c/(1c*1c))=1c/1.25=0.8c
    You'll note that the formula actually agrees with what R1 will observe.
    Incidentally, this is one way of deriving that formula as being the natural consequence of c being constant in all inertial frames.


    NB, the two images are not to the same scale except that the ratio between time and distance is the same on both, do not try to transfer measurements from one to the other.

    dgavin, please note that neither time dilation, length contraction nor relativistic mass were used in this demonstration, though it does demonstrate time dilation too, since R1 sees the flashes from R2 as being sent by a clock that is going slower even though Earth can inform both rockets that their clocks agree.

    I agree these are correct the correct applications of handling 0,5c given a three observer model.

    However, let's assume Rocket A accelerated to 0.99999999c and the person inside was sleeping during the whole thing and did not even realize he/she left the earth.

    Earth never liked A very much so earth is not watching either A and earth was responsible for preprogramming the ship to accelerate to 0,.99999999c without A knowing. Actually, earth was mad at A for presenting ATM ideas.

    Now, A wakes up after the burn and wonders what happened.
    A applies relativity and concludes he/she can accelerate in any direction to 0.99999999c.

    Is this true? Nope. Yet, SR absolutely allows it in these circumstances. SR is wrong here and will give A incorrect answers.

    Now, one may argue if the earth frame is added, then everything will be OK.

    Well, at the instant the earth and the ship were moving in the same direction as earth's orbit around the sun. This is estimated to be 18.55 miles per second. Now, again, A is limited without knowing it in the forward direction.

    More generally, the application of SR is limited by the actual underlying unknown motion of the frame but SR does not know what this is.

    So, SR is based on an error condition it has no way of determining and further cannot provide any guidance for a solution whatsoever.

    Furthermore, this light distance travel in this post refutes the above analysis.

    Light travels to far for a velocity composition argument under SR.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    But I did, and when I did so, you objected.

    Now, please answer the questions which you have been asked. Why not start with explaining why you believe that light cannot bounce back and forwards between to particles who an observer will see as having a speed of separation of over 1c.

    Your refusal to deal with questions is in breach of the rules, your answering them is not optional if you wish to post here.
    Light can bounce back and forth between any two observers in the universe regardless of speed.

    Light emits at a constant c from the frame regardless of its motion and will find any observer because that observer is traveling v < c.

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    You can type whatever you want.

    Since I came here I said the speed of light is a constant in space regardless of the opinion of the frame..
    A frame does not have an opinion.

    Can you please stick to physics, rather than metaphysics or personification of inanimate objects?

    Perhaps we are not communicating and your interpretation is such that you believe my position on matters is changing, but I can assure you it is not.
    No, as I've mentioned previously, it is at times very ambiguous, and at these times, you will generally refuse to clarify. When I tell you, for example, that you have not said which frame a measurement is in, you tell me that this does not matter, rather than just clarifying which one you were speaking about.

    You are doing it here now, too, by not explaining what you mean by the speed of light being absolute.

    I'll ask again, can you please give a clear and concise explanation of what you mean by absolute speed, and how it differs from the relativistic tenet that whatever the speed of an observer, they will always measure that the speed is c relative to them?

  18. #228
    abcdefg.
    OK so you are back to arguing the exact same points that were the OP of your previous ATM threads.
    As you have had your go at that ATM I am closing this thread.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

Similar Threads

  1. Relative comfort.
    By peteshimmon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-13, 06:53 PM
  2. my relative sent me another one..
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-21, 01:36 PM
  3. Relative Time
    By TBaker in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-15, 05:26 AM
  4. Relative
    By rambo07 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-11, 06:29 PM
  5. Relative time due to relative speed...
    By darkdev in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-14, 03:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: