Re: Faster than Light?
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 28, 11:48 pm, Peri of Pera <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Faster than Light?
The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects
cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. However, we know from
experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket
vehicles etc) that the final velocity of objects is their starting
velocity plus their own velocity.
Actually, that "plus" turns out to be wrong from experience. It works
fine as a useful approximation at low speeds (kind of like "effective
annual interest rate" works as a useful approximation for a compound
interest account), but we know for a fact (from measurement) that the
answer given by the "plus" is slightly wrong, and it gets worse as the
speeds get higher.
What we know from equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket
vehicles, and especially from particles that decay into shards (just
like a multistage rocket) while in flight, is that the velocities
don't "plus". They do the following:
(v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2/c^2)
Again, what velocities *really* do is the above, confirmed by careful
and precise measurement.
There are two follow-ups to this:
1. You may object: "But the simple 'plus' is so much easier to
understand, even though you say it's just an approximation to the
right answer. WHY is the right answer more complex and the
approximation so simple??" At this point, I shrug and say, "Because it
is. Because nature being simpler elsewhere makes this one thing a bit
more complex." (There are other examples. Nature has lots of things
that behave like exponential functions: Ae^[-kx]. The exponential
function is complicated, but it has a simple approximation: A[1-kx].
The approximation is still just that -- an approximation -- and the
real answer is the exponential. Because it is.]
2. A little playing around with the *right* way to combine velocities,
and you'll see that there is indeed a limit. This limit isn't obvious
in the approximation, but it's much more readily apparent in the right
answer.
There is no reason to believe a
maximum applies.
A spaceship travels away from star X at a speed of 300,000km/sec (v1).
The spaceship fires off a rocket from its nose. It has a velocity of
100km/sec (v2). The speed of the rocket is now 300,100km/sec (v1+v2),
i.e. the rocket travels away from the spaceship at 100km/sec and star
X at 300,100km/sec. Special relativity however demands it can only be
300,000km/sec, the maximum velocity allowed by the theory. This is
only possible if at the moment of the firing the speed of the rocket
is reduced to zero or the speed of the space ship is reduced to
299,900km/sec or a combination of the two. SR cannot provide evidence
or even a theory to explain how the reduction is possible or occurs.
It relies on the mathematical formula obtained by Fizeau (1819-1896)
in his experiments about the propagation of light through flowing
water in 1851. The formula is v’=v+w/(1+vw/vv). AE, citing Fizeau,
proposed this formula for the addition of velocities of all physical
objects (AE, ‘Relativity: The Special and General Theory’, Chapter 13,
Methuen & Co Ltd 1920). AE claimed it paralleled his illustration of
relativity in the train example he used to prove special relativity.
It has been swallowed by science ever since.
Peter Riedt
.
- References:
- Faster than Light?
- From: Peri of Pera
- Faster than Light?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Previous by thread: Re: Faster than Light?
- Next by thread: Re: Faster than Light?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
