Re: HOCUS POCUS


<mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158485745.002660.9140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If [X] I'll recognize the validity of the relativistic addition of
velocities.

I snipped the statement you wrote in X as I believe this
sentence is incorrect no matter what X is.

There is nothing that would make you recognize the validity
of the relativistic addition of velocities, including doing
the experiment with your own two hands. Certainly not
a verbal argument from any person. You have already
decided what you believe, and that kind of blind faith is not
easily shaken.

- Randy

You "believe" that my statement
"If you can, taking into account the cosmic expansion, algebraically
deduce from the velocily 0.94 c of galaxy B observed from Earth,
that Planet X is moving away from Earth at 0.7 c, I'll recognize
the validity of the relativistic addition of velocities."
is incorrect.

Yes, I believe that is incorrect.

But at any rate, cosmic expansion is not part of SR, so what
you're asking for is an SR explanation of a purely GR phenomenon.

If the velocitties of 0.7c you are talking about are supposed to
be the Hubble velocities, then 0.94c is NOT what Earth would
observe for Galaxy B. I think it's a more complex calculation.
It's not the same phenomenon that gives rise to the velocity
addition formula in SR. There's a different velocity composition
formula.

No doubt you'll claim this as a victory. But that's not a surprise.

As I said, there is no statement or argument which could make
you change your mind. That's why I believe any sentence containing
"... I'll recognize the validity of the relativistic..." is incorrect
when uttered by you.

- Randy

I my scenario, I didn't leave you in uncertainty about the cause
of the velocity of the galaxies:

"Let's consider a planet inhabited by advanced ET's, situated at
x billions light-years from the Earth. Their physicists, from the
redshift of the Earth galaxy A and the Hubble constant, calculate that
the Earth is moving away from them at -0.7 c. Opposite the Earth,
they observe another galaxy B, whose velocity relative to them is
+0.7c.
They conclude, in accordance with the cosmic expansion, that such
galaxy has a velocity 1.4 c relative to the Earth.
[...] "

That's why they invented the inflation hypothesis. In this hypothesis they
said that it is not the galaxies that are doing the expansion. It is the
space between them that is expansding. In real life no observer can see any
object has a relative velocity greater than c. The reason is that the signal
from the object is being transmitted by the ether at a max speed of c.
An observer can see two objects have a closing speed of under 2c but that's
not the speed they measure using thier own clock and rod.

Ken Seto

In your message of Sep 13 2006, you applied SR:

"On Earth, galaxy B is OBSERVED to be moving
away at 0.94c. Earth scientists easily calculate that
the two points are separating at 1.4c from the point
of view of Planet X. They also can see galaxy C
receding at 0.7c (i.e., separating from Planet X
at 1.4c IN THE EARTH FRAME). They can easily
calculate that IN PLANET X FRAME, the observers on
Planet X would see Galaxy C receding at 0.94 c.
Planet X sends a message confirming that the
redshift of Galaxy C is consistent with a relative
velocity of 0.94c."

Now, as you are cornered, you are contradicting yourself:

"If the velocitties of 0.7c you are talking about are supposed to
be the Hubble velocities, then 0.94c is NOT what Earth would
observe for Galaxy B. I think it's a more complex calculation."

I am sorry to notice once again, that SRists are not honest.
Be frank, recognize that SR in incompatible with the physical
reality.

Marcel Luttgens



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... deduce from the velocily 0.94 c of galaxy B observed from Earth, ... It's not the same phenomenon that gives rise to the velocity ... "Let's consider a planet inhabited by advanced ET's, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... > to do something with the velocity. ... What are those points, if not, for instance, the Earth and a galaxy? ... >> moves at v wrt the Earth, does not the Earth moves at the same ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... "If you can, taking into account the cosmic expansion, algebraically ... deduce from the velocily 0.94 c of galaxy B observed from Earth, ... It's not the same phenomenon that gives rise to the velocity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... x billions light-years from the Earth. ... they observe another galaxy B, whose velocity relative to them is ... galaxy has a velocity 1.4 c relative to the Earth. ... The relationship between observability and redshift is not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... velocity between E1 and E2? ... does their relative velocity V depend on their velocity wrt the device ... they observe another galaxy B, whose velocity relative to them is ... impossible to observe a galaxy moving away at 1.4 c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading