Measuring intrinsic, or absolute speeds, of inertial frames in deep space.

[geistkiesel]

Here is a method of determining the intrinsic, or absolute velocity of one or more inertial frames moving in deep space. As the reader can see a single, or multiple, inertial frames are able to measure their absolute velocities, which,to the best of my information, is contrary to the postulates of SRT.

 

The methods is unique, meaning only one measured value will ever be determined for a defined inertial system. This effectively eliminates any "background drift velocity" that may have otherwise escaped detection.

 

 

From the above Va = (j - k)/2. For a measured relative velocity of 720 units and a measured k = 240 units, Va = (720 -240)/2 = 240 units where Vb then is 480 units. The fact that we assumed Vb > Va is not a loss of generality.

Geistkiesel :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

Uh, are you claiming you could algebraically detect absolute velocity? If this were so, you must have noticed something that has escaped the top minds since the early 16 hundreds.

 

It is a rather "Strange Claim", to say the least...

[Erasmus00]

You are using the nonrelativistic addition of velocities. This formula does not work at relativistic speeds, and is only really an approximation.

-Will

[UncleAl]

1) Velocity is distance/time

 

2) A relativistic universe has four distinct distances: luminosity (inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper motion. No two of them need agree to maintain consistency.

 

3) Clocks can only be compared by being local. Given two or more reference frames, the clock that traverses the most space accumulates the least time.

 

4) 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

 

5) The universe is not Euclidean, Galilean, or Newtonian.

 

6) You have no yardstick, you have no time piece, and you have no geometry in which to put them. *** *** *******, ********, ********** *****.

[geistkiesel]

Uh, are you claiming you could algebaically detect absolute velocity? If this were so, you must have noticed something that has escaped the top minds since the early 16 hundreds.

 

It is a rather "Strange Claim", to say the least...

Qfwfq, What is your point?

Geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

You are using the nonrelativistic addition of velocities. This formula does not work at relativistic speeds, and is only really an approximation.

-Will

Erasmus00, I don't see your statement that the method is an approximation. I see it as "exact". Could you explain this please?

 

As to the relativistic addition of velocities just assume the expressions include the necessary physics and are stated in general terms. In other words the expression Va + Vb = Vab is by defintion only a statement that the relative velocity of the A and B frames, Vab, includes "real" intrinsic velocities of the frames of reference, which is really just a single frame initially. Remember, the B and C frames are mere "instruments" wrt the A frame and were launched from the A frame. So, if we assume the velocity measurments were in fact "relativistic" (though the expressions do not include the requisite gamma expressions etc) then what of the fact that an absolute velocity determination has been achieved? Would this not require some scrutiny of the postulates that prohibit such measurements as a matter of physical law? Isn't the prohibition fundamental to SRT?

 

I thank you for your taking the time to review the post and I must congratulate you for at least understanding the scheme and following the logic stream (others have confessedc confusion which i think was feigned for whatever reason). However, you having stated that the scheme would work only at nonrelativistic speeds haven't you agreed that measuring the absolute velocity of inertial frames, singularly or collectively, is practically possible, at less than relativistic speeds?

 

As I understand the statement that absolute velocity cannot be measured is not confined to relativistic speeds, but includes the whole velocity spectrum of moving inertial frames. If the scheme is practical, as you seems to indicate ( I am not holding you to my interpretation of your post here, but this is how I read your statement) at any velocity level, what is the effect now on the postulate prohibiting what has just been proved as a contradiction to the postulate?

Geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

1) Velocity is distance/time

 

2) A relativistic universe has four distinct distances: luminosity (inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper motion. No two of them need agree to maintain consistency.

 

3) Clocks can only be compared by being local. Given two or more reference frames, the clock that traverses the most space accumulates the least time.

 

4) 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

 

5) The universe is not Euclidean, Galilean, or Newtonian.

 

6) You have no yardstick, you have no time piece, and you have no geometry in which to put them. You are crudely, terribly, ignorantly wrong.

Uncle Al,

Remember, i am only mewsuring a change in speed of one frame of reference wrt the uniform motion of two other frames. When the C frame begins moving in the direction of the B frame and measures the relative speed wrt B and C as C increases its speed. At some point the C and the B frame are measured moving with the same relative velocity. As the AB measuring process is occuring, the C frame is also measuring the relative velocity changes in the CA frame. When C determines that Vc = Vb,the current change in Vac is determined as the difference in speed of the A and the B frames. This is all.

 

Your six objections above do not apply directly or indirectly as you have stated them. Taking your objections at a package you seem to deny the very possibility of two inertial frames measuring their mutual relative velocity.

 

Whatever the B velocity is after moving from the A inertial frame, C is able to determine the realtive motion between the C and the B frame. C is also able to measure the relative velocity changes between C and the A frame of reference. Whatever Mr. Jackson says about the matter, the theoretical basis for your objections does not negate the abilitity of the various frames of reference from making realtive velocity measurements. So to reflect your message back to your perspective, what is terribly ignorant from your perspective is the law of physics from my perspective.

 

Are you able to point to any particlular measurment as described and find fault, or must the readers here apply your theoretical objections themselves? I have made no assumptions on the realtive speeds of the frames or the distances traveled, though apparently you have done so at least in your objections.

 

And of course every item in your six objections assumes that all frames of reference will measure the relative velocity of frame and photon as c, correct? Further, you assume that there is no possibile way that an absolute zero velocity can be measurably achieved, correct again? ;)

Geistkiesel

[Erasmus00]

I must confess confusion as to what your scheme is actually implying. I was pointint out one of the flaws is that you have used an inexact addition of velocities. And as to another claim you have made, no absolute velocity measurement has been made.

 

Also, in your derivation(I'm using your addition of velocities), if Vbc=0, Vac=Vab, and j=k. As such, Va always is equal to 0, and you've accomplished nothing.

-Will

[geistkiesel]

Uh, are you claiming you could algebaically detect absolute velocity? If this were so, you must have noticed something that has escaped the top minds since the early 16 hundreds.

 

It is a rather "Strange Claim", to say the least...

Qfwfq,It is strange to me that the human mind can be so manipulated that it took 400 + years to undo the silliness that escaped, what you refer to as the, "top minds". I suspect that instead of being exposed to the process in this forum and had you read the post in some refereed article in Phys Rev Letts, or on Nova or from a proclamation from teh Pope you would have been "amazed".

 

Here is another one for you:

 

Two photons are emitted from the midpoint of clock-reflectors L and R in opposite directions toward L and R. From the emission point the lights move independently of the physical source of the light, as well as with constant motion and isotropically (straight-line trajectories). The emission point is defined by the motion of the light as invariant in space, meaning the defined point of emission does not move in space. Once emitted the point of emission becomes an abstraction and impervious to any physical events occurring anywhere.

 

If the frame containing L, R and the physical device emitting the photons is moving in the L-to-R direction the light will be recorded first at L then R, then at the invarinat point P (by the light that moved toward L after reflecting back and after moving a total distance of 2ct, where the frame has moved a total distance 2vt), then, and simultrtaneously so, at the physical midpoint that has moved since the lights were emitted.

 

BTW, the light arrive back at the physical midpoint simultaneously whether the frame is moving or at rest wrt the embankment. Only if the frame is at rest will the lights arrive at L and R simultaneously. Adios 'loss of simultaneity' is what I observed.

 

This point is defined, not by theory, rather it is defined by the motion of the light for some duration of time greater than zero, existing effectively eternally. Disruption or absorption of the light beams that define the point does not affect the location of the point once it is established. The point merely becomes "difficult" to locate again, or if the motion of the light is perturbed briefly (like a quick deflection of the direction of one or both of the lights) we simply have another such point produced. However, as the invariant point is defined by the motion of light, invariant points in space can be manufactured with trivial ease as required, or desired.

 

Consider any two wave fronts of spherically expanding EM radiation located in space. The midpoint of the line defining the

midpoint

of the shortest distance (always decreasing) between the expanding wave fronts (points on the expanding spheres is also invariant in space. Just look at the night sky, pick your two favorite stars and make a mental note locating the midpoint of those stars. Next count all the stars you are able to see and draw "least distance" lines connecting all the stars to each other and voila, an effective infinite number of spatially invariant points in space, waiting patiently there for your use for whatever purpose you care to utilize those invariant points.

 

Motions of the sources of the expanding spheres have no affect on the the location of the points on the surface of the spheres, correct? The light moves iondependently of the source of the light. If for some reason an observer may "see" things differently, this does not affect the midpoint locations in space, correct? It may affect what an observer thinks, or considers, or perceives, or even what the observer measures, but then the measurment mould not occur without the constraints of some theoretical thread that is used as a template to construct or assemble the measurment process, correct? For instance we will never see a measurement protocol designed by an SRTist that is void in SRT constraints, even for speculative or scientific reasons, correct?

 

Me thinks Mr. Einstein, et al (including Qfwfq) have made an error or two in postulational analysis summarized in the popular SRT; but alas, you aren't convinced and you never will be until you see this post, or one like it, on Nova, or in PRL, both of which having probabilities of occurring that are vanishingly small. But this is your problem, not mine.

 

BTW, 'bueno suerte' on your 'Moderator' position you are so close to realizing.

 

Geistkiesel ;)

[geistkiesel]

I must confess confusion as to what your scheme is actually implying. I was pointint out one of the flaws is that you have used an inexact addition of velocities. And as to another claim you have made, no absolute velocity measurement has been made.

 

Also, in your derivation(I'm using your addition of velocities), if Vbc=0, Vac=Vab, and j=k. As such, Va always is equal to 0, and you've accomplished nothing.

-Will

You must keep the reference frames separated mentally. Here, Vab is constant once the B frame has stopped accelerating. When the C frame begins moving away from the A frame a relative velocity Vac is produced that is varying until Vc = Vb. Here in the Vc=Vb expression Vc is measured wrt A assumed at rest wrt C. So when Vc=Vb (Vc = Vb in the Vcb system only tells us that Vc = Vb and does not contain the information of what the Vb velocity is. In the Vac= Vc system we see that Vc is the difference in speed of A wrt ;) this the same as Vac = Vb as A is assumed at rest. Va in the AC system is identical to Vac.

Sorry about that overly lengthy ( ) statement!.

 

I intuit you are having trouble with relative velocity terminology, which coming from a histiory of SRT this is no wonder.The concepts presented here are perhaps anethema to SRT, certainly they appear admittedly antithetical.

 

If we have two space ships meeting randomly in space where neither knows of any accelration history of the other then only relative mesauremnts are if any use in calculating any motion effects. But what if these two space ships were launched at the same time from an earth platform, or launched such that each had a history of the other's acceleration and hence velocity history. If these ships, D and F, were then moving oppositiely from each other, D moving with 100 untis and F with 250 units then their combined relative velocity woulf be 350 units. In this case, because the observers on both ships were aware of the motion history of the other, the F observer would know that, of the realtive velocity measurment, 100 unts is attributed to D and 250 to his own F. These velocities all measured wrt Ve, the earth, would be known. As I just stated the condition D and F observers would know the other's 'absolute' velocity without measuring that velocity. However, if D sends a probe, G, in the direction of F where G increases its velocity until Vg matches the Vf we have the same situation as in my original post.

 

The poitn I am making here is that by using the inertial frames as I have done there is information of motion extracted from the ABC system that would not otherwise have been available if all concerned stopped analyzing the situation from the point of view of SRT. SRT says one cannot produce the data that I described. If that is your bible, then so be it. But Erasmus00, you aren't going to tell us that when C movies toward B that C is unable to match the B velocity are you? Are you going to assert unequivaically that analysis of relative motion using relative velocities Vab, Vac and Vcb, all of which are different reference frame systems, but related reference frames, cannot be analyzed to extract hidden data? If you do make the claim I would think you would need more than echoing SRT from off the shelf, you would have to prove this from basic fundamental levels. This is just an opinion. I am not asserting you must do this before we progress, but i see no other way for proof of the contrary to be produced, other than fundamentally.

 

I defy anyone to find, as a flaw, any other velocities than those measured using the system shown in my post. What does the speed of light have to do with anything here, other than it being constant, which is necessary to measure the relative motion between the frames?

 

Is there something flawed when C assumes the A frame of reference at rest when measuring the change in velocity of C up to the instant that C measuires its Vcb, relative velocity, equal to zero? Or when Vc = Vb. In other words when the observer on C measures Vcb = 0, or Vc=Vb and then measures Vac, with A assumed at rest does not the Vac=Vc in the Vac system? And is not this Vac the speed that if added to A would produce Va = Vb? Answer, yes.

 

We know Va + Vb = Vab a constant as once established Va and Vb do not vary their velocity. So Vab = j, an eternal constant (for this problem). Now we have just determined that B is moving faster than A by the amount measured in the Vac system, say k, when Vc = Vb in the Vcb system. So we know that wrt to A and B that B is moving faster than A by the amount k, or Vb = Va + k. the only value we know at this point is k,(and of course j) which remember, reflects a

change in velocity

. So in the expression Va + Vb = j we substitute Va + k for Vb and obtain Va + Va + k = j , where Va = (j - k)/2. j is a relative velocity of A and B reference frames moving oppositely. k is the change in velocity A must add in order to be moving the same speed as B. I don't see any probelm with this analysis other than it appears contradictory to SRT, but then I don't see SRT included anywhere in the structure of the problem.

 

The assumption I have made here is that in the Va + Vb expression the two terms mean only that the A and B frame are moving with some

real

velocity. If SRT says that these velocities cannot be measured and that we can only measure the relative motions of A and B then SRT is grossly in error.

 

The Va and Vb are not quantum mechanical like wispy probabilities, they are real! If they are real they can be measured. The diagram in the opening post indicates that what ever velocity is increased in the Vac system the Vbc system decreases in a like amount. Differentiate the Vab expression and what do you conclude? The change in velocity of the A an B frame are the negative of each other when Va + Vb sum to a constant value. This doesn't say that Va and Vb need to be constant only that their sum is maintained as a constant. Another departure from the 'silliness' of SRT that confines itself to 'uniform motion'. And what a tragedy this has been for the past 100 years in the history of science.

Thank you again Erasmus00 for your cogent responses.

Geistkiesel

[Qfwfq]

Uncle Al, again I tip you off for using less than kind expressions when disagreeing with another poster. After a bit of delay, I was now able to chop it out.

[Qfwfq]

Qfwfq, What is your point?

My point was that there is a "Strnge Claims" Forum and, if we can't find convincing support for your singular claim, it will be moved.

 

Qfwfq,It is strange to me that the human mind can be so manipulated that it took 400 + years to undo the silliness that escaped, what you refer to as the, "top minds".

Which silliness?

 

I suspect that instead of being exposed to the process in this forum and had you read the post in some refereed article in Phys Rev Letts, or on Nova or from a proclamation from teh Pope you would have been "amazed".

I would be amazed, yes, especially if Physics Reviews were to publish something like this. They certainly wouldn't unless you are able to support it convincingly.

 

Me thinks Mr. Einstein, et al (including Qfwfq) have made an error or two in postulational analysis summarized in the popular SRT;

Which errors? Did Galileo's genius lie in the capability of persuading everybody of something wrong?

 

But this is your problem, not mine.

BTW, 'bueno suerte' on your 'Moderator' position you are so close to realizing.

Thanks. The first action I took, now that I can, was editing the post above by UA. I would like to ask you to also keep cool.

[UncleAl]

Uncle Al, again I tip you off for using less than kind expressions when disagreeing with another poster. After a bit of delay, I was now able to chop it out.

The OP is astoundingly ********. If you value his input over that of physics', woe unto you and your civilization. Science does not have rights. Science is not diversity, tolerance, equal opportunity, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, compassion, social advocacy, equitable, multicultural... or any other truth and morality defined by convenience of the moment.

 

Science is self-consistent and empirically validated or falsified. The OP is an empirical *****. Be careful when you wish - you might get it.

[C1ay]

The OP is astoundingly ignorant. If you value his input over that of physics', woe unto you and your civilization. Science does not have rights. Science is not diversity, tolerance, equal opportunity, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, compassion, social advocacy, equitable, multicultural... or any other truth and morality defined by convenience of the moment.

 

Science is self-consistent and empirically validated or falsified. The OP is an empirical idiot. Be careful when you wish - you might get it.

And name calling is scientific evidence of what?

[geistkiesel]

My point was that there is a "Strnge Claims" Forum and, if we can't find convincing support for your singular claim, it will be moved.

Qfwfq, Take a look at the details of what is occuring as described in the post. There are basically three measurements taken each by two frames of reference, totalling six:

1. the relative motion wrt Th A and B frames.
2. The relative motion wrt he B and C frames.
3. The total change in realtive motion wrt the A and C frames.

 

Now where is the "strange claim" here?

The first measures the Vab (the relative motion of A wrt ;) , which once established, remains constant. The second is used to determine how much faster is the B fame moving than the A frame. C increases speed until Vc = Vb, nothing strange here. The relative velocity change of C wrt to A with A assumed at rest wrt C.This is the change in speed that C increased when finally matching the Vb speed.

 

Anything strange yet? Once the C frame has found a velocity that matches the B frame speed from Vcb = 0 (or when Vc=Vb), then the measured Vac is determined as that increase in speed that was needed to determine how much faster is B moving than A.

 

Vab = j, a constant remember? Vb = Va + k, where k = Vac, the measured change in relative motion of C wrt A. From Va + Vb = Vab we get Va + Va + k = j and Va = (j - k)/2.

 

Maybe what you consider strange is that there aren't any SRT postulates involved that are violated, though admittedly yhe final conclusion does contradict the postulate that absolute motioncannot be measured.. The problem isn't a problem in SRT, fundamentally. There are SRT implications, but as I said that is your problem not mine. I do not mean this disrespectfully, I am just sharing an observation.

Whiich silliness?

The siliness that states the relative motion wrt frame and photon will always measure c on all inertial reference frames. This effectively negates the concept of moving frames. Another, when two inertial frames have a measured relative motion that when an observer on a train, for instance, assumes her motion is at rest wrt the station, i.e. the surface of the planet earth, and that it is the station moving is silly. This is especially so when we recognize that it is

the acceleration of the train that manufactures all of the velocity, or motion

, measured as relativve motion; further, the observer assuming his inertial frame is at rest assumes a physically impossible physical condition to achieve. Mentally one can conjur up racing unicorns, which BTW are more possible than stationary trains that have accelerated observing moving train stations rushing pat; the observer can justifiaqbly assume he is moving and the station is at rest, but this wouldn't give a result recognizable as SRT.

I would be amazed, yes, especially if Physics Reviews were to publish something like this. They certainly wouldn't unless you are able to support it convincingly.

What more do you need?

Which errors? Did Galileo's genius lie in the capability of persuading everybody of something wrong?

what specifically are you referring to re Gallileo?

Thanks. The first action I took, now that I can, was editing the post above by UA. I would like to ask you to also keep cool.

My nickname is "Luke" as in 'Cool Hand', OK? Thanks for the response Q.

 

Geistkiesel

[bumab]

Simple algebra isnt' going to work...

 

You can't use simple vector addition with reference frames, you've got to use the L. transformation equations.

[geistkiesel]

The OP is astoundingly ignorant. If you value his input over that of physics', woe unto you and your civilization. Science does not have rights. Science is not diversity, tolerance, equal opportunity, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, compassion, social advocacy, equitable, multicultural... or any other truth and morality defined by convenience of the moment.

 

Science is self-consistent and empirically validated or falsified. The OP is an empirical idiot. Be careful when you wish - you might get it.

Than you Uncle Al for your input here.

Geistkiesel