Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:02:19 +1000
"JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5li7svF8fu4gU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:13f69otsh4h046@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2@xxxxxxx> wrote in messageYes, it is.
news:5lfdq6F80iapU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No .. its not
"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:13f3hjam48l0218@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's completely nonsense."Chrisd5000rouge" <christian.duez@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:1190239831.214123.110060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Two spacecrafts running at opposite directions at 0.8c each, the
lorenz transformation says that their relative speed perception is u=
(0.8c+0.8c)/(1+(0.8c*0.8c/c²))= 0.975c.
It not a "perception" .. it IS their relative speed (ie the speed of
the
second spaceship in the iFoR of the first). SR doesn't talk about
optical
illusions :)
No .. SR is not about perceptions and illusions. It is about what is real
and measured.
Yes, it is.Of course it's a perception,No .. its not
No .. it is not about perception .. it is about reality. It doesn't rely on
anyone seeing things .. nor about optical illusions
So, what makes that reality different then your?since the problem starts saying:It is
Two spacecrafts running at opposite directions at 0.8c each.
Why cannot the reality be that of two spacecrafts running at
opposite directions at 0.8c each?
It is the same reality in different frames of reference .. all are real.
And why not the previous one?We build two spacecrafts, we place then back-to-back,They do
and we fire them with a program that guarantees that in
a given time and a given distance, both will be running
at 0.8c.
So we know what the reality is.In the stationary frame of reference .. yes
The value 0.975c is only a perception, not the reality.No .. it is reality
Who said the previous one was not reality. It is all reality. Each as
equally real as the other.
OK.Nevertheless, we can imagine that each spacecraft has aThat is not absolute speed
pilote and that pilote wants to compute how much time will
it take to receive signals from the other spacecraft.
Each pilot, of each spacecraft can compute its absolute
speed relative to the distant fixed stars.
Make it the speed relative to the fixed stars.
Stars fixed relative to what? You do realise the the entire unvierse is
expanding .. everything is in motion relative to something else.
No it is not.Now, each pilotNo .. it has nothing to do with light signals. .the other space craft
wants to know where the other spacecraft is (what distance).
Both spacecrafts send light signals to each other.
Each pilot measures the redshift of those signals and
come up to the conclusion that such redshift indicates
a relative speed of 0.975c
REALLY IS travelling at 0.975c
Yes .. it is
That's a relative speed, so there are as many speeds
as you like.
That's right. And they are all just as real as each other
In one and only one of many realities.Since each pilot knows its absolute speed from theYes .. and in reality the other craft is travelling at 0.975c in the
fixed stars to be 0.8c, it will be able to compute the
other spacecraft speed "x" to be that:
(x+0.8c)/(1+(x*0.8c/c²))= 0.975c.
So, that x = 0.8c.
Knowing its speed and the others speed, each pilot
can predict where in "reality" the other spacecraft is.
first spaaceship's iFoR
No .. one reality .. just different frames of reference
Sortof, yes.That's what SR is all about - RELATIVITY.SR is not about perception .. you seem to think that SR is just an
Not the reality.
optical illusion.
Then you are wrong .. sortof.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: JM Albuquerque
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- References:
- lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: Chrisd5000rouge
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: JM Albuquerque
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: JM Albuquerque
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- From: JM Albuquerque
- lorenz transformation and spped of light
- Prev by Date: Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- Next by Date: Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- Previous by thread: Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- Next by thread: Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|