Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
Lij
science forum beginner

Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:05 pm    Post subject: "The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"

"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"

It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the Lorentz
Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between reference frames having
a relative velocity. What is too often not recognized that, in so doing, it
provides the transformations for all other physical quantities! These
remaining transformations may be determined by applying the conventional
Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical equations.

Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time required to
traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity must equal the
Lorentz Transformation for Length [1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
Transformation for Time [(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz Transformation for
Velocity is therefore equal to 1/(1-V^2/C^2). (As incredible as it may seem,
the writer has received a communication from an individual who asserts that
a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined by dividing the
Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for
Time even though velocity is defined as length divided by time! I suspect
that this individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining the
intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in the wrong line of
work, I understand that Walmart is hiring.)

This transformation yields a conclusion which is in conflict with the
current understanding of Special Relativity. Present dogma asserts that the
velocity of light is the same in all velocity reference frames. If one
considers two reference frames, A and B, moving at a relativity velocity V
with respect to each other, one finds that an observer in A measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as its conventional value of C
and the velocity of light in B as having been reduced by the Lorentz
Transformation for Velocity. Similarly, an observer in B measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as C and the velocity of light
in A as having been reduced by the Lorentz Transformation for velocity.
While superficially this may seem to be a contradiction, the difficulty
vanishes when one factors in the effects of the limit on the velocity of
information transfer imposed by the velocity of light.

We are forced to accept the conclusion, however, that the velocity of
light changes as a result of a change in velocity and that this change in
velocity is concealed by a change in the size of the units of measurement
for velocity (length/time) making it appear that the velocity of light is
the same in both reference frames. In terms of unchanging units of
measurement, the velocity of light does differ between reference frames
which differ in velocity, it only appears to be unchanged when it is
measured within each reference frame. It may be stated, therefore, that
Special Relativity requires that the velocity of light be a "constant" but
cannot be constant between reference frames having a relative velocity. This
conclusion is consistent with the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory which
asserts that our velocity with respect to the Aether is indeterminate.

Relativity. Consider two velocity reference frames, for example Earth and
Mars. (See http://einsteinhoax.com/cf42.gif.) A rocket is located on Earth
and three identical clocks are in use. One clock is located on Earth, one is
located in the rocket, and the third clock is located on Mars. The observer
on Earth and the observer in the rocket report that their clocks run at the
same speed and that the clock on Mars runs slower due to the relative
velocity between the two locations. The observer on Mars reports that the
clocks on the Earth and on the rocket run slower than his clock.

After the readings have been taken, the rocket takes off and travels to
Mars and stops there. The observer on Earth notes that the speed of the
clock on the rocket has slowed to the speed of the clock on Mars while the
observer on Mars notes that the speed of the clock on the rocket has
increased to match the speed of his own clock which is faster than the speed
of the clock on the Earth. The observer on the rocket does not notice a
change in the speed of his clock, but since he is familiar with Special
Relativity knows that the speed of his clock has changed as a result of his
observed change in velocity but that he cannot observe that change in the
speed of his clock. He observes that the change in velocity of his rocket
has occurred and that the speed of the clock on the Earth has appeared to
slow and the speed of the clock on Mars has appeared to increase. This
observation does not bother him or the other observers since all are
familiar with Special Relativity.

Consider what this thought experiment has shown. It has shown that not
only is it impossible to measure our velocity with respect to the Aether and
hence it is impossible to assert that the Aether does not exist, It has also
shown that Special Relativity requires that there be an absolute velocity
reference frame (i.e.- the Aether). In the Rocket Experiment all three
observers report that the speed of the clock has changed as a result of the
change in the rockets velocity. The observer on Earth asserts that the speed
of the clock on the rocket has slowed, the observer on Mars asserts that the
speed of the clock on the rocket has increased, and the observer on the
rocket asserts that the speed of his clock has changed but that he cannot
observe that change. There is one item of information that all three
observers agree on. The speed of
the clock on the rocket changed as a result of the change in the rocket's
velocity.

One event, the change in speed of the rocket, has caused the speed of
the clock on the rocket to change. Since there was only one causal event,
there can only be one result, the speed of the clock must actually increase
or decrease, it cannot do both! In order for that conclusion to be true,
there must be an absolute reference frame for velocity. The classical
Aether, which cannot be proven not to exist, must exist!

Two objections have been raised to this argument. The first is that it
involves acceleration and Special relativity does not include the effect of
acceleration. This argument is meaningless since no acceleration occurred
when observations were being made. The second argument involves the speed of
communication between the Earth and Mars. This is a foolish argument since
the observations were all made prior to the start and after the finish of
the experiment. The observers could have communicated by pony express
without affecting the conclusions. NOT ONLY DID SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOT
ELIMINATE THE CLASSICAL AETHER, IT REQUIRES THAT THE CLASSICAL AETHER EXIST!

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:35 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Relativity 0 Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:10 am Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Research 1 Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:52 am M.C. Escher logarithmic image transformation Mark Spahn Recreational 1 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:35 am Speed vs velocity. brian a m stuckless Electromagnetics 1 Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:30 pm question with velocity. mina_world Math 3 Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:27 pm

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters