Doppler Effect Of Gravitational Field

[Vmedvil2]

Victor, baby, the formula was in your Wiki link. Please don't compliment me any more on my progress through relativity as you clearly have no grasp of even your own wiki articles. It's embarrassing for me to be promoted by people who know nothing. I'll just give you and the rest of the effort impaired and intellectually challenged on here the formula:

 

w = sqrt (u²+v²+2uv cos@ - (vu sin@/c)²) / (1+vu cos@/c²)

 

@= 90 degrees so cos@=0 and sin@=1

 

u=v=.9c

 

answer w=.9817c which is the relativistically combined u=v=.9c leaving at right angles from earth.

 

See that answer is less than .9945c as it should be.

 

You had absolutely no clue Victor yet you lack the integrity to admit it. Do you feel embarrassed?

You cheated you actually looked it up..... haha, I saw that formula however I was trying it a different way. Ralfcis would you do anything to prove someone wrong?

Edited March 18, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Stop lying Victor. Your different way was not even close. It didn't even make the slightest bit of sense. You didn't even know an angle was required. Of course I had to look it up, it was on the link you gave me. Do you think I know everything. The difference is I don't pretend to. I'll bet you still have no clue how to use the formula. Can you even convert it into normal form? Do you know what the normal form is?

Edited March 18, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

Stop lying Victor. Your different way was not even close. It didn't even make the slightest bit of sense. You didn't even know an angle was required. Of course I had to look it up, it was on the link you gave me. Do you think I know everything. The difference is I don't pretend to. I'll bet you still have no clue how to use the formula. Can you even convert it into normal form? Do you know what the normal form is?

Didn't you find it in the link I sent you...

[ralfcis]

I said that, what's your point? Can you convert the formula into parallel form or not?

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

I said that, what's your point? Can you convert the formula into parallel form or not?

Honestly, I don't know, that formula should have worked, probably not without much algebra, I imagine it was originally derived from it tho.

[TonyYuan2020]

How Janus came to answer this contradictory result. Special relativity is a mathematical game. :shocked:

 

w is the velocity of B relative to the A ===> w=0.8C
Given "u" the velocity of A relative to the earth, "w" the velocity of spaceship B relative to A, you should find "v" the velocity of B relative to the earth.

Fifth scene:
Earth.....................................A---->u=0.2C............................B---->w=0.8C
What is the velocity v of B relative to the earth?

w = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) = (0.2C - v)/(1-0.2C*v/C^2) = 0.8C
0.2-v=(1-0.2v)*0.8
0.84v = -0.6
v = -0.714C, the velocity v of B relative to the earth is -0.714C, velocity direction is opposite to A. v and u are in the different direction.

But A sees B moving away at 0.8C, what happened?
You can see different u and different w, v can get different directions, which is very interesting.

For another example:
Earth.....................................A---->u=0.2C............................B---->w=0.1C
if u=0.2C,w=0.1C
w = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) = (0.2C - v)/(1-0.2C*v/C^2) = 0.1C
0.2-v=(1-0.2v)*0.1
0.98v = 0.1
v = 0.102C, v and u are in the same direction.

u,v,w are defined in the formula gave by Janus.
u is A to earth
v is B to earth
w is B to A

[TonyYuan2020]

------->velocity positive direction

 

Earth ……………………………….A…………………………………….B

……………………………………u=0.2C………………….....…......…..v

u is the velocity of A relative to the Earth

v is the velocity of B relative to the Earth

x is the velocity of Earth relative to B

w is the velocity of B relative to the A

 

w = (u+x)/(1+u*x/C^2)
if u = 0.2C, put it into the formula. w = (0.2+x)/(1+0.2x) ==>w = (1+5x)/(5+x)===>x=(5w-1)/(5-w)
so if x>0, then (5w-1>0 and 5-w>0) or (5w-1<0 and 5-w<0), simplify this inequality (w>0.2 and w<5) or (w<0.2 and w>5, it is not correct). So we get:
if 0.2<w<1, then x>0.
if w<0.2 or w>1(it is not correct), then x<0.
Finally, we can get:
....if 0.2C<w<1C, then x>0, v<0; this mean u and v have the contrary velocity direction.
....if -1C<w<0.2C, then x<0, v>0; this mean u and v have the same velocity direction.
It is so interesting, the value of w will determine the direction of v.

 

Conclusion:

It's interesting that the w determines the the direction of v.

......  Digital game. 

Edited March 19, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[exchemist]

The whole story is in it. You can see it from the back. I've basically demonstrated that special relativity is a mathematical game.

If I'm wrong, please point it out for me.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-story-about-special-relativity-who-can-explain-it%EF%BC%9F.162954/

 

w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) is key

You have done no such thing.

 

Janus has produced both numerical answers and written explanations of his derivation, for all five of the scenarios you submitted. What that shows is that SR is a self-consistent model that works, at least in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing.

 

Falling back on the assertion that SR is a "game" is ridiculous, considering the wealth of observational evidence that corroborates it - and which cannot be accounted for by classical mechanics. I drew one famous example (the muons)  to your attention, but you just dismissed it as being a boring old issue. However that does not make it any the less true - and you have simply refused to address it. 

 

It very much looks to me as if you cannot let go of your idee fixe that relativity must be wrong because you, personally, have not understood it. That is the hallmark of the crank, I'm afraid.  I really do encourage you to try to understand what Janus has explained to you. People that dismiss theories without understanding them first are not doing science. 

[TonyYuan2020]

You have done no such thing.

 

Janus has produced both numerical answers and written explanations of his derivation, for all five of the scenarios you submitted. What that shows is that SR is a self-consistent model that works, at least in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing.

 

Falling back on the assertion that SR is a "game" is ridiculous, considering the wealth of observational evidence that corroborates it - and which cannot be accounted for by classical mechanics. I drew one famous example (the muons)  to your attention, but you just dismissed it as being a boring old issue. However that does not make it any the less true - and you have simply refused to address it. 

 

It very much looks to me as if you cannot let go of your idee fixe that relativity must be wrong because you, personally, have not understood it. That is the hallmark of the crank, I'm afraid.  I really do encourage you to try to understand what Janus has explained to you. People that dismiss theories without understanding them first are not doing science. 

Please read it carefully. (post #93 #94). Janus teach me much. I just came to interesting conclusions with his formula.@exchemist

 

------->velocity positive direction

Earth ……………………………….A…………………………………….B

……………………………………u=0.2C………………….....…......…..v

u is the velocity of A relative to the Earth

v is the velocity of B relative to the Earth

x is the velocity of Earth relative to B

w is the velocity of B relative to the A

 

w = (u+x)/(1+u*x/C^2)

if u = 0.2C, put it into the formula. w = (0.2+x)/(1+0.2x) ==>w = (1+5x)/(5+x)===>x=(5w-1)/(5-w)

so if x>0, then (5w-1>0 and 5-w>0) or (5w-1<0 and 5-w<0), simplify this inequality (w>0.2 and w<5) or (w<0.2 and w>5, it is not correct). So we get:

if 0.2<w<1, then x>0.

if w<0.2 or w>1(it is not correct), then x<0.

Finally, we can get:

....if 0.2C<w<1C, then x>0, v<0; this mean u and v have the contrary velocity direction.

....if -1C<w<0.2C, then x<0, v>0; this mean u and v have the same velocity direction.

It is so interesting, the value of w will determine the direction of v.

 

Conclusion:

It's interesting that the w determines the the direction of v.

......   Digital game.  

Edited March 19, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[exchemist]

Please read it carefully. (post #93 #94). Janus teach me much. I just came to interesting conclusions with his formula.@exchemist

 

------->velocity positive direction

Earth ……………………………….A…………………………………….B

……………………………………u=0.2C………………….....…......…..v

u is the velocity of A relative to the Earth

v is the velocity of B relative to the Earth

x is the velocity of Earth relative to B

w is the velocity of B relative to the A

 

w = (u+x)/(1+u*x/C^2)

if u = 0.2C, put it into the formula. w = (0.2+x)/(1+0.2x) ==>w = (1+5x)/(5+x)===>x=(5w-1)/(5-w)

so if x>0, then (5w-1>0 and 5-w>0) or (5w-1<0 and 5-w<0), simplify this inequality (w>0.2 and w<5) or (w<0.2 and w>5, it is not correct). So we get:

if 0.2<w<1, then x>0.

if w<0.2 or w>1(it is not correct), then x<0.

Finally, we can get:

....if 0.2C<w<1C, then x>0, v<0; this mean u and v have the contrary velocity direction.

....if -1C<w<0.2C, then x<0, v>0; this mean u and v have the same velocity direction.

It is so interesting, the value of w will determine the direction of v.

 

Conclusion:

It's interesting that the w determines the the direction of v.

......   Digital game.  

When you can show me how to account for the lifetime of cosmic ray muons without making use of SR, I'll take an interest. Maybe. Because what interests me is physical science, i.e. making models to account for what we observe in nature.

 

But I'm not joining you in your "digital game" swamp of artificial scenarios, misunderstandings and arithmetical errors. You see, I don't believe you are trying to understand. On the contrary, you are looking for excuses to NOT understand, in order to keep your idee fixe alive. Why would I bother to help you do that?  

[TonyYuan2020]

When you can show me how to account for the lifetime of cosmic ray muons without making use of SR, I'll take an interest. Maybe. Because what interests me is physical science, i.e. making models to account for what we observe in nature.

 

But I'm not joining you in your "digital game" swamp of artificial scenarios, misunderstandings and arithmetical errors. You see, I don't believe you are trying to understand. On the contrary, you are looking for excuses to NOT understand, in order to keep your idee fixe alive. Why would I bother to help you do that?  

I'm interested in focusing on your research area. After I finished the debate of Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. I think there will be results today. I've won.

I once worked in the research and development center of Motorola LTE. I believe I can give you some research energy.

Edited March 19, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[ralfcis]

"On the contrary, you are looking for excuses to NOT understand, in order to keep your idee fixe alive."

 

Yeah like all relativists who blindly believe in Einstein's theory and do not possess the intelligence to truly understand it.  The vast majority of people on physics forums are  compulsive liars, the mentally ill and total morons incapable of reason. I've only met 2.5 who weren't but I always get banned before I can mine them for true knowledge.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

"On the contrary, you are looking for excuses to NOT understand, in order to keep your idee fixe alive."

 

Yeah like all relativists who blindly believe in Einstein's theory and do not possess the intelligence to truly understand it.  The vast majority of people on physics forums are  compulsive liars, the mentally ill and total morons incapable of reason. I've only met 2.5 who weren't but I always get banned before I can mine them for true knowledge.

Honestly, I tend to stay away from physics forums as there are always cranks that are unable to understand. Come meet me in the biology arena.

Edited March 19, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

But Victor, you don't understand. Victor, you're one of the cranks. Anyway here's something I don't understand. Instead of that big formula I used to solve the problem. I looked at that thread Tony provided on the sciforums and Janus has a different way of solving it. 

 

 Third scene We will look at it from the rest frame for A where you get:
0.9c
<--Earth-----------------A
|
|
|
\/ B

Since the Earth-B pair share a 0.9c to the left velocity, this pair is time dilated by a factor of 0.436 as measured by A. This includes the vertical speed of B with respect to the Earth. That means that B vertical speed component is 0.392c (which is why I drew the Earth-B line shorter than the Earth-A line.
Now we can just do vector velocity addition to get sqrt ((0.9c)^2+ (0.392c)^2) = 0.9817c

 

 He takes the perpendicular velocity (v_B) and divides it by the horizontal velocity's gamma (Y_A) and then uses pythagoras of the velocities v_B' and v_A to get the right answer from A's perspective. So he`s saying velocity A`s (v_A) perspective of velocity B (v_B) is v_B' = v_B /Y_A (velocity dilation formula). So w²= v_A² + v_B'² I've never seen that before but it looks like a way better method than the big formula method. I'm sure Victor will be claiming that's what he meant all along but then I'll ask him to prove it in a mathematical example using his formulas.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

 

But Victor, you don't understand. Victor, you're one of the cranks. Anyway here's something I don't understand. Instead of that big formula I used to solve the problem. I looked at that thread Tony provided on the sciforums and Janus has a different way of solving it. 

 

 Third scene We will look at it from the rest frame for A where you get:

0.9c

<--Earth-----------------A

|

|

|

\/ B

 

Since the Earth-B pair share a 0.9c to the left velocity, this pair is time dilated by a factor of 0.436 as measured by A. This includes the vertical speed of B with respect to the Earth. That means that B vertical speed component is 0.392c (which is why I drew the Earth-B line shorter than the Earth-A line.

Now we can just do vector velocity addition to get sqrt ((0.9c)^2+ (0.392c)^2) = 0.9817c

 

 He takes the perpendicular velocity (v_B) and divides it by the horizontal velocity's gamma (Y_A) and then uses pythagoras of the velocities v_B' and v_A to get the right answer from A's perspective. So he`s saying velocity A`s (v_A) perspective of velocity B (v_B) is v_B' = v_B /Y_A (velocity dilation formula). So w²= v_A² + v_B'² I've never seen that before but it looks like a way better method than the big formula method. I'm sure Victor will be claiming that's what he meant all along but then I'll ask him to prove it in a mathematical example using his formulas.

 

No, I was trying to do it as d(x,y,z) coordinates from Time-space, which didn't work for some reason as that is the invariant form of relativity. 

 

x² + y² +z² = r²

or

γ_x² + γ_y² +γ_z² = γ_f² 

 

should be valid under any time-space as the time-space interval.

Edited March 19, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Ok good that's an honest answer. I've definitely learned something new, velocity dilation and velocities have perspective. I'm going to work that into my own theory which is totally based on the magic properties of Yv, not v like Einy's theory.

[Vmedvil2]

Ok good that's an honest answer. I've definitely learned something new, velocity dilation and velocities have perspective. I'm going to work that into my own theory which is totally based on the magic properties of Yv, not v like Einy's theory.

Ya, I was actually shocked that there is a anomaly in that invariant form of the equation such that it should produce the correct result, that's why I used it because it is Invariant and should "Always" give a correct answer. Maybe Einstein isn't as smart as we think if there is a double value(anomaly) between Invariant time-space and the Velocity addition formulas.

Edited March 19, 2020 by VictorMedvil