SciForums.com > Science > Physics & Math > Velocity Addition Formula (VAF) PDA View Full Version : Velocity Addition Formula (VAF) Post ReplyCreate New Thread MacM07-22-05, 01:57 AMIn addition to the reciprocity and simultaneity failures of Special Relativity I thought I would add a bit in food for thought regarding the Velocity Addition Formula. Given the case: Rest distance = 200 units. 1 - A<-----------(100 units) ---------------------->B = 0.866c The relavistic affects are based on a gamma = 2.000. Meaning that time (clocks) tick at half the rate they did at rest and distance is cut in half. 2 - A<-----~82 units-------------C------~82 units--------->B ; where AC = -0.577c and BC = +0.577c; and = 164 units AB according to the VAF = 0.866c and equals 100 units. 3 - The problem is that relativists like you to see only one aspect of their theory at a time. (1 above) A<--------------------------------------->B = 100 units @ 0.866c. (2 above)..................A<-------------->B = 164 units @ 0.866c. Both of course are 0.866c. Further in case 2 the actual situation is not so simple. You cannot disregard that A still sees C as moving at 0.577c which means that A only sees B moving away from C at 0.289c. Distance from AC is therefore 0.8167 the rest distance (or time) and the affects at 0.289c is 0.9573. A<---------~82 units--------------C---------~96 units------------->B = 178 units. But the distance AB is less than A sees for A to C + C to B. A<---------------100 units---------------->B Now if I must travel less distance (0.5) and my clock ticks slower (0.5), then that would mean during the trip my clock would accumulate 0.25 as much time. Data would suggest that the reality is that clocks tick slower due to actual velocity in a universal view and not a relavistic view but that spatial dimension does not contract. Hmmmm. UnderWhelmed07-22-05, 07:00 AMI assume that someone is going to ask what frame these measurements are in...so you might as well answer that. *patiently awaits James R* Rosnet07-22-05, 09:32 AMYou're trying to show or at least entertain the possibilty that there is an absolute frame, since we can see that the time measurements done by an observer in only one frame come out as the right onee ultimately. But this is because you have already given a quality of absolutism to one frame, by the action of making the other two frames stop with respect to this particular frame. I agree that from the POV of the other frames, the frame which stops is the first one, but this is an invalid argument, because at no point in time does the first frame accelerate.
Perhaps you should read up a bit on Proper Time, and try to understand this concept. MacM07-22-05, 10:41 PMYou're trying to show or at least entertain the possibilty that there is an absolute frame, since we can see that the time measurements done by an observer in only one frame come out as the right onee ultimately. But this is because you have already given a quality of absolutism to one frame, by the action of making the other two frames stop with respect to this particular frame. I agree that from the POV of the other frames, the frame which stops is the first one, but this is an invalid argument, because at no point in time does the first frame accelerate.