# Waves And Relative Velocity

relativity

80 replies to this topic

### #69 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3000 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 05:05 PM

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.

Coming from the person who uses statements like, ''relative positions or even velocities '' while thinking $v = \frac{x}{t}$ is a relativistic formula. There is no way to give counter-arguments to someone who is basically clueless on the details, which is why I am no longer going to contribute to the thread. Good bye.

### #70 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 945 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 07:02 PM

Like I said, no one has a right to an opinion they can't back up. Thanks for your contribution though.

### #71 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1410 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 11:39 PM

Alright before I went to sleep I think I figured this problem out, the solution is the below equation for combined velocity gamma functions. So we were all wrong if this is way that Combined velocities are actually computed.

It is a relativistic formula for combined velocities from that wiki link that suggests that this is the way for the addition of multiple gamma factors which there are two gamma factors representing the two velocities. This solves to something entirely different than we have been working with. So, lets compute the velocities of .99987C for u and v and the sub equations from their gamma factors. γuγv = ‭62.019382957305391692497466590136‬ making γ'‭3846.4038367655436064882678912615‬ , This seems like the correct gamma factor for the velocities combined which the combined velocities Vuv = ‭0.9999999662043928355739608355692‬C upon impact or relative to each other.

So, it is definitely not 2C nor whatever you said ralfcis, it is interesting what can be found out using the proper formula which I didn't use until this morning.

Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 May 2019 - 12:30 AM.

### #72 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 945 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 06:08 AM

Whatever I said? You can't go back a few posts? I see you're the same as everyone else on here. All you know about relativity is what you google on wiki which to me says you know absolutely nothing.

Edited by ralfcis, 28 May 2019 - 06:17 AM.

### #73 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3000 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 08:52 AM

Whatever I said? You can't go back a few posts? I see you're the same as everyone else on here. All you know about relativity is what you google on wiki which to me says you know absolutely nothing.

No! Back off from the poster who gives the right formula. If it had not been for me coming in the other day, neither of you would have known the formula, the problem here is you don't like facts being asserted. The other poster at least, has the dignity to bring forward equations which I have magnanimously brought to the table. Your problem is, is that you are holding to an idea which is clearly wrong. At least every budding wanna-bee scientist gets things wrong... let your thread die where it belongs,

### #74 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 945 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 09:53 AM

Look I don't have a formula fetish like you and Victor. All I asked Victor to do was plug .9997c + .9997c and see if his formula got .99999995 c as I said he would get. If you want me to expose you my formula its

w= (u+v)/(1+uv) where w is the combined velocity of u and v approaching each other.

It's not as long as your formula but it will do the job although you two probably won't get off on it.

PS. Victor has no idea his formula is for combining Y's. I don't think he understands the difference between Y and v and obviously neither do you.

Edited by ralfcis, 28 May 2019 - 10:00 AM.

### #75 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1410 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 09:56 AM

Look I don't have a formula fetish like you and Victor. All I asked Victor to do was plug .9997c + .9997c and see if his formula got .99999995 c as I said he would get. If you want me to expose you my formula its

w= (u+v)/(1+uv) where w is the combined velocity of u and v

It's not as long as your formula but it will do the job although you probably won't get off on it.

Good then that is proof your formula works, if truly the relativistic formula with a proof in the wiki has the same solution as yours, you are not wrong then, if w = Vuv continue to write formulas that work then you arrogant piece of work, don't you think we all have formula that work or equal other formula that are in mainstream physics. I know that me and dubbel do being the Einstein Tensor, but I am still happy for you that you have a special relativity equation that works. Next, time apply your formula to the problem at hand and show that it is equal to the mainstream physics equation and you won't get this lecture. You wasted all our time with this little demonstration then.

Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 May 2019 - 10:07 AM.

### #76 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 945 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 10:04 AM

Ok well you guys have fun with your Einstein tensors.

### #77 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3000 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 04:59 PM

Then do us all a favor, go to a forum which will allow vacuous statements on physics, without relying on the empircal evidence, because you are actually really starting to piss me off. If you don't like the facts of relativity, I will vote this entire thread be removed to hypothesis subforum before anyone's feelings get hurt.

Look I don't have a formula fetish like you and Victor.

### #78 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 945 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 05:06 PM

Ok 006, if that is indeed your IQ, since when did I deny any facts of relativity. Maybe you should get hooked on phonics before  you get onto more equations and increase your literacy. As if you have any power here. Did you not read why you got kicked off the other forum. Since you have no use to me I'll just put you on ignore laughing stock.

### #79 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3000 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 07:38 PM

Ok 006, if that is indeed your IQ, since when did I deny any facts of relativity.

Errr. when you said the additional velocities of c + c = 2c. Thought by the time you have told this now, it may have sunk in. You are more than pissing me off, you are a certified troll now in my eyes.

### #80 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1060 posts

Posted 29 May 2019 - 02:15 AM

I have no power here?

If I gave the moderators a chance to save me over you, who do you think will prevail?

That was worth dropping in for; thanks for the laugh of the day!

### #81 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1060 posts

Posted 29 May 2019 - 02:22 AM

Look I don't have a formula fetish like you and Victor. All I asked Victor to do was plug .9997c + .9997c and see if his formula got .99999995 c as I said he would get. If you want me to expose you my formula its

w= (u+v)/(1+uv) where w is the combined velocity of u and v approaching each other.

It's not as long as your formula but it will do the job although you two probably won't get off on it.

PS. Victor has no idea his formula is for combining Y's. I don't think he understands the difference between Y and v and obviously neither do you.

Yes, the relativistic velocity addition formula that you posted, is the correct one for adding velocities where either one, or the sum approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In fact, it is the correct formula for adding any two velocities lying along the same straight line, regardless of whether they are in the relativistic range or not. It is just that slow velocities can be summed according to Galilean relativity, u = v + u’ and the resulting approximate answer obtained is close enough for most applications.

The equation that Victor presented in post #71 is an esoteric one; used to combine the gamma factors for combined relativistic velocities where there is a rotation involved. As the Wiki page explains this is related to the phenomenon of Thomas precession” and so is only tangentially related to the question raised in this thread about relativistic velocity addition. Posting it here is just a smokescreen, in my opinion.

Well, its back to sea for me