Waves And Relative Velocity

[Vmedvil2]

In any case, one of those formulas will yield the correct answer just find the proper one for your situation, ralfcis and GAHD I give up on trying to figure out which of you are right. I was of the opinion earlier today that I understood this but now I am not so sure. Now I am of the opinion neither of you and that I don't remember/know the answer to this problem.

Edited May 27, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Yes because you don't, neither of us do. That actually makes sense only on this forum.

[Dubbelosix]

Ok... fu-ck it. There is no observer absolutist dependency. Even if two people are flying apart at the velocity of the speed of light, the speed of light does not get ''added'' like c+c =2c. That isn't how it works. The relative velocity of each object is moving at the speed of light, you could call it an apparent distance relative to moving observers that may appear like they are moving faster than light.

 

The issue here, seems like a three-body problem of physics. If there was a stationary observer between the two rockets moving close to the speed of light in opposite directions, will not the stationary observer still experience the ships moving at near the speed of light?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[ralfcis]

I thought the level of relativity knowledge was low here but not this low. There's actually a recurring debate on how relative velocities are added? And then Victor's just pulling out any irrelevant math with "equations we've all forgotten" to prove his point? Wow, I should just put everyone on ignore here.

Edited May 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe everyone should put you on ignore?

 

If you are going to be an ***-hole, no one is going to listen. You are quick to criticize people for not answering your questions, but I gave a valid reason why the speed of light will be measured from a third observer. These ''third systems'' are known the three-body problems, which until this day I admit, are not properly assessed in relativity. That does not make what I said however, bunk.

 

You do realize, a third observer, even in prospects a simple position in space between two objects moving away from each other, would still measure the speeds as satisfying that found in relativity?

[Dubbelosix]

The issue I think here, is that people are treating space as nothing... Einstein was able to define a physical meaning to points in spacetime.

Before Minkowski's idea shot off, Einstein's theory was still basic in how they were interpreted and Machian relativity almost vanished from the minds of physicists altogether; though, not many know, but Einstein was heavily influenced by the idea's of Mach, one of the founding fathers of relativity. Actually Machian theory was more truer in the general relativistic sense Einstein intended his theory than the four-dimensional case proposed by his teacher Minkowski.

To be relativistic, you need to talk about each point in space; but points in space are not really physical, only interactions are. But you are able to return back a physical meaning to points in space by including their worldlines.

 

That could help clear up some of the misunderstandings of how two observers flying apart at the speed of light, does not really equal c + c =2c. Only in the very special circumstances in which space can drag material objects faster than light in relativity, there is no reason in a local sense why the speed of light is violated in anyway. Secondly, the velocity addition formula for relativity is not ad hoc, but well-understood... even before Einstein's work.

[ralfcis]

If you are going to be an ***-hole, no one is going to listen.

 

Well that's obviously not true, look at the numbers tuning in. Being an ******* gets people to grow some balls and make a stand as you finally did. No one has a right to an opinion they can't defend. Posting irrelevant formulae and wiki articles is not a defence, being able to explain their relevance to a specific topic is. Extremely few here seem able to do that.

 

You are quick to criticize people for not answering your questions, but I gave a valid reason why the speed of light will be measured from a third observer.

 

What does the 1st part of the sentence have to do with the second part. Did you ask a question i didn't answer? No. In fact if you could read with comprehension I was saying c+c=2c is a 3rd party perspective so I didn't say it was bunk, I said Victor's entire fraud poser argument was bunk.

 

Your last sentence is obvious. Guess what? Relativity is about relative velocities. So yeah, a guy between 2 rockets speeding off at c would have a relative velocity of c to each rocket. Duh. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

A hoard of crackpots trying to learn from your mistakes, is not incentive to think you are right.

 

If you are going to be an ***-hole, no one is going to listen.

 

Well that's obviously not true, look at the numbers tuning in.

[ralfcis]

I don't know who my audience is because no one is learning anything from me. So mistakes? Point one out just like GAHD or Victor tried to. Make my day.

[Dubbelosix]

What is there to learn, unless your mistaken delusions are anything to go by? A lot of people on the internet follow posts like yours, not because they understand it, but because it is easier to follow and even then, most of them are looking for your own mistakes and getting a kick out of it.

 

My advice? Go learn some physics, properly learn it without spouting your half-baked idea's on why an established theory should be wrong. An even better revelation would be when you admit you are.

[ralfcis]

I guess the balls were temporary.

[Dubbelosix]

I guess the balls were temporary.

 

huh? What's that supposed to mean?

[exchemist]

I guess the balls were temporary.

On the contrary, it seems to be permanent........ so long as you remain on this forum.....

[Dubbelosix]

On the contrary, it seems to be permanent........ so long as you remain on this forum.....

 

Like you, or me?

 

Don't be too sure that the moderators here do not hold up a standard. I have complained about a few people, from basic trolling and even stalking. And something must have been said because these people were dealt with.

 

Also in the future, do not use medical labels to accomplish some kind of gladiator battle here for just your amusement. I told you before, you won't be exempt from bullying or your sly comments about people and their own medical conditions.

[ralfcis]

They don't hold up a standard that's why I'm still here and kicked off so many other forums, like you. I don't troll or stalk anyone, I put them on ignore. That's what allows me to carry on with my cheery disposition.

[Dubbelosix]

They don't hold up a standard that's why I'm still here and kicked off so many other forums, like you. I don't troll or stalk anyone, I put them on ignore. That's what allows me to carry on with my cheery disposition.

 

Very well, but don't believe for one moment, you have in anyway found a contradiction in relativity, the questions you ask now, have been well-covered even before Einstein.

[ralfcis]

If everything is so well established it should be easy for anyone to come up with a well established specific counter-argument to anything I say. Yet the answers are always go read about physics. So like I said, grow some balls and make my day on any specific point you disagree with. I'm pretty sure you can't articulate an argument because you're not quite sure of your interpretation just like you hesitated on backing the relativistic velocity combo law.