Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) This is A-wal's answer, which presupposes that the velocity addition formula, as applied by one object, dictates the speed of other objects. The speed of A and C are dictated by the speed they're moving at relative to each other, the formula allows you to work out would this speed would be, .75c roughly. He says this notwithstanding that he had already accepted the starting premise that both A and C measure their relative speed to be .9c, not .75c. He "answers" the question by violating the premises he had previously started with, and by otherwise changing the accepted facts, willy-nilly, as needed. He still fails, but I won't even get into that. Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 I even made diagrams in paint to show you. I wish I hadn't bothered now though but they're done so I might as well post them. I never got a coherent explanation for this confusing situation. Does anyone have one? We have two objects, A and C. Let's look at this from A's perspective. He sees C moving away from him at .9c. And, of course, C will also see A receding from him at .9c, because that's their relative velocity, right? Now then, let's say that A notices object B, which is between him and C. He sees B as going in the same direction as C, except that B is receding from him at the rate of only .45c. What will B see? He will see A receding from him at .45c, right? He has to, because that's how A sees him. That's their relative velocity. He will also see C receding from him at the rate of .45c, but in the opposite direction, right?Scenario 1 in B's frame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 I can't upload anything else, there must be an overall limit, ****sake! Scenario 1 in A's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->C .45c .45c Scenario 1 in C's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>C-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->A .45c .45c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 Scenario 2 in B's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A<--------------------------------------B----------------------------------->C .45c .45c Scenario 2 in A's frame: .75c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->C .45c .3c Scenario 2 in C's frame: .75c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>C-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->A .45c .3c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 I can't upload anything else, there must be an overall limit, ****sake! Scenario 1 in A's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->C .45c .45c Scenario 1 in C's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>C-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->A .45c .45c OK, A-wal. I'm with you on your diagram so far, I think. What else ya got. And what's your source, got a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Scenario 2 in B's frame: .9c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A<--------------------------------------B----------------------------------->C .45c .45c Scenario 2 in A's frame: .75c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>A-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->C .45c .3c Scenario 2 in C's frame: .75c------------------------------------------------------------------------------>C-------------------------------------->B----------------------------------->A .45c .3c Now what "A's" frame sees has suddenly changed. The measured speed between B and C, from his frame, was, in your first post, .45c. Now it's .3c. How did that happen? Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 I notice that in your "scenario 2," whatever that is, B's observations have NOT changed, but A's and C's have. So frame B is the preferred frame, which has the right answer, while the others are wrong, that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 Because scenario 1 and scenario 2 are two entirely different situations with different relative velocities and have nothing to do with one another. This is so frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 This is A-wal's answer, which presupposes that the velocity addition formula, as applied by one object, dictates the speed of other objects.If you give the velocity between and two pairs of the three objects then obviously you can work out the velocity between the third pair, just as you would be able to without the velocity addition formula. He says this notwithstanding that he had already accepted the starting premise that both A and C measure their relative speed to be .9c, not .75c. He "answers" the question by violating the premises he had previously started with, and by otherwise changing the accepted facts, willy-nilly, as needed. He still fails, but I won't even get into that.You really are are a fkcing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 Because scenario 1 and scenario 2 are two entirely different situations with different relative velocities and have nothing to do with one another. This is so frustrating. If they have nothing to do with each other, then why are you presenting them together? Let's just stick with one scenario, the one I posed, and not just start changing everything, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 I notice that in your "scenario 2," whatever that is, B's observations have NOT changed, but A's and C's have. So frame B is the preferred frame, which has the right answer, while the others are wrong, that it?None of their observations have changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 If they have nothing to do with each other, then why are you presenting them together? Let's just stick with one scenario, the one I posed, and not just start changing everything, OK?Arhhh! You fukcing moron! I'm using both of the ones you used to show that you can't use one to disprove the other because they're entirely different! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Arhhh! You fukcing moron! I'm using both of the ones you used to show that you can't use one to disprove the other because they're entirely different! Hahahahaha. You make no sense whatsoever. You're not using the one's I used at all. I just now noticed the additions you made you a prior post. I'm not looking at it now, but as I recall it seems to indicate that B will somehow see A and C as travelling at the rate of 1.25c with respect to each other! How the hell did THAT suddenly happen? It also shows B as seeing C travel at the rate of .8c relative to himself. Where in the hell did you come up with those figures? Certainly not from my hypothetical, or anything I said in it. Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Moron, look! In order for the speed of light to remain constant under time dilation (heavier particles than red-shifted photons) it has to speed up (quantum entanglement). In order for it to remain constant under time contraction (red-shifted photons in light-years worth of vacuum radiation/photon ether) the velocity has to slow down (galaxies flying apart). Time contraction is the reverse of time dilation. Shorter length slows time, longer length speeds up time. Slow-motion speeds up the speed up the speed of light, fast-motion slows down the speed of light. Capisce? I'm mostly Irish (Half Scottish on my paternal Italian side, half Red Rob McGregor on my French maternal side) but a lil' Sicilian (North Italian). Edited June 27, 2018 by Super Polymath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Moron, look! In order for the speed of light to remain constant under time dilation (heavier particles than red-shifted photons) it has to speed up (quantum entanglement). In order for it to remain constant under time contraction (red-shifted photons in light-years worth of vacuum radiation/photon ether) the velocity has to slow down (galaxies flying apart). I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything being discussed here, Polly. Nor do I understand it. You say that for the speed of light to "remain constant" it has to speed up (or slow down in your other scenario). How does it "remain constant" if it changes speeds? You qualify it all by saying "under time dilation," but I'm not sure where that comes in. I take you to be saying that there can be, and sometimes is, a difference between what we "measure" a thing to be and what it really is. I agree with that 100%, and have made the point often (to deaf ears). Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 Hahahahaha. You make no sense whatsoever. You're not using the one's I used at all. I just now noticed the additions you made you a prior post. I'm not looking at it now, but as I recall it seems to indicate that B will somehow see A and C as travelling at the rate of 1.25c with respect to each other! How the hell did THAT suddenly happen? It also shows B as seeing C travel at the rate of .8c relative to himself. Where in the hell did you come up with those figures? Certainly not from my hypothetical, or anything I said in it.You used two examples, one with a relative velocity between A and C of .9c with a velocity of .45c between one of those two and a B object in between them, meaning the velocity between the other one and B would be .8c, that's scenario 1. The other example was of A and C both moving at 4.5c relative to B so A and C are moving at .9c relative to each other IN B'S FRAME, making it a completely different scenario. In this one the velocity between A and C in their own frames is 7.5c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Poly you're taking over! You don't get a say, you're doing it! Good luck. Edited June 27, 2018 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts