# Res Ipsa Loquitor-- Disproved:The Impossiblity of absolute motion detection.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Oct 23, 2004.

1. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Oersol,

I pick stars in distant galaxies in a general spherical (3 dimensional topology) ergo the error in velocity is going to be physically insigificant. At least I was able to determine the individual contribution of velocity of two inertial frames who had determined their relative velocity. I don't know if you are aware of this but what I just did is a prohibited bit of SR heresy, hell its bigger than heresy. I suggest you ask around your SR industry pals and see just what the significance is.

If the industry is triue to pedictable form they are going to bury this puppy alive. However, they, meaning you aren't aware of the fangs on my "superdog" are you?

geistkiesel

3. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Thank you again,

When A' sees Va ' p Vb = 0, he see Va' at 2000 wrt to A. I guess I was assuming what appeared "obvious" to me at the time I wrote the sentence where it seemed like I was saying when Vb = V = 0 that Va - Vb = 2000, clearly I was referring to Va' - Vb hade decreased 2000 untis. The frames do measue rel;ative motion, but remember the two instances of zeo vlocity betweeem AE shopiwingh units

Now we must remember that A' started out from A with a relative velocity of zero and it was only when he suibtracted 2000 units from the 9000 units relative velocity wrt B which he started with it only trequired him to subtract 2000 units from the 9000 measured units wirt to B to arrive at zero velocity wrt to B.

Therefore the only conclusion available to A' is to conclude that the measured velocity wrt A is made up of velocity contributions of:

7000 units fromn A and
2000 units from B.

And I say it again: That A', from the mesurement of relative velocity wrt to A, (actually here an absolute velocity,Va' - Va = 0), to a relative velocity of Va' - Vb = 0, starting from a relative velocity of Va' - Vb = 9000 unts, originally (again the Va' - Vb = 0 is absolute, is it not?), Va' measured an increase in 2000 units from the original Va' - Va = 0, measurement to arrive at a relative velocity of, Va' - Va = 9000 units, which, by the way, occured simultaneously (how approproiate, nyet?) the same instant the relative velocity, Va' - Vb = 0 was measured.

A' was never moving at a 9000 units measured relative velocity wrt to A until the instant A' measured Va' - Vb = 0

A' said, "I increased that zero velocity Va' - Va until I was at rest wrt B at which time I arrived at another measured relative velocty wrt A = 9000 units, but I had only to add (add negative velocity to the positve A velocity) 2000 units of relative velocity to reach that 9000 unit relative velocity. Therefore, my original absolute contribution to the 9000 unit relative velocity of B and A to reach the measured reloative 9000 units again from the B perspective, means , A contributed 7000 unuits and B ciontributed 2000 units to achieve he 9000 unt relative velocty, which we see at this juncture is conceptually and semantically mythological."

Now Yuriy, you know and I know that SR prohibits the kind of measurements and determination of absolute velocity between two inertial frames of reference. One source I have in front of me states unambiguously that:

It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system through free space.

Here is what I want you to do Yuriy: Go to the link I have discovered (below) and review the physics there that exposes the myth much more elegantly and professionally than I have been able to do here in this trivial stumbling bumbling exercise that you suopervised. Yuriy, the link will be a revelation as there is the key to the concetual fallacy of a a major scientific error in theoretical construction, for your pleasure and advantage to uncover.

You. Yuriy, I am much more than merely confident, will be able to discover that glaring error with speed and dispatch much more efficientl;y than any other researcher that has contributed to the threads on this forum that led to the exposure of that fatal mistake that has corrupted our singular and collective thinking for generations,

We are aLL counting on you Yuriy and we all step aside from your path, as you seek your goal:And who would deny a man those things that take from the path but a bit of the lonileiness?
Your mission will be completed the instant you find the key sentence that has been strangling the laws of physics for a hundred years with the silliness surrounding Mother Nature's neck involving the measurement of the speed of light with respect to various inertial frames.

Yuriy, I expect, we expect, you to provide us with a brief report that will not require more than what will fit within the four corners of a single single piece of paper.

The Myth: Seminal Begining of Rrelative Velocity

5. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Sorry, my friend,
the link, you have provided does not contain words "unaccelerated" and/or "translatory", at all.
So, you have to provide the exact citation, otherwise we will spend our time once again discussing ... your fantasies or one more false accusation a-la MacM.

7. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
You are still ignoring the point that the whole thing is insignificant. Please, explain what makes this 'absolute'.

8. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
If for no other reason, I defined it to be absolute, the same way the one defined it before me. This has to be he third opr fourth time I told you.

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
You have to learn to be patient with Persol. He doesn't think. He learns, if he does, by rote exercise.

10. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
If it is defined as you, and is relative to something else, then it isn't absolute. It is just your prefered reference frame... but that doesn't make it absolute.

11. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
O.K. Yuriy, you win again. By the way do they have things like "senses of humor" in Petrograd or wherever you're from?

"Handbook of Astronautical Engineering" Heinz Herman Koelle, Ed., Vol. 1 Page 11-2, McGraw Gill, H.G. L. Krause
******************************************************
The postulate of relativity. It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system through free space.
******************************************************
(I think Dr. Koelle may have been on Dr. Werner Von Braun's staff befoe and after Peenmunde.)

I don't remember us discussing "my fantasies". You haven't been conspiring with my enemies and secretly feeding me 'evil drugs' have you? That's a joke Y.

I actually have two brief questions.
1) Do you see any need for editing this last series of posts for clarification or removing ambiguities, terminologt clarirification, whatever? I "assume" not otherwise you would have informed me.

Or said another way, is my probe scheme for measuring the "absolute" motion of the A and B ship clearly descrbed? Persol seems to think that the system that determines the individual contribution of the A and B frame relative velocity is no big deal, or is "insignificant". He is more difficult to talk to than yourself, sometimes.

2) I am awre of the implicartions of the postulate quoted above. The other potulate mention in the Handbook is,
*******************************************************
The postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light. The velocity of light in free space is the same for all observers, independent of the relative velocity of the source of light and the observer.*******************************************************

Here is the operative sentence, by the way, to which I atempted to direct your attention;

"Your mission will be completed the instant you find the key sentence that has been strangling the laws of physics for a hundred years with the silliness surrounding Mother Nature's neck involving the measurement of the speed of light with respect to various inertial frames."

Yuriy, the only reason I post what I do is for someone to either, 1a. point out specific and well defined flaws, or b. incompleteness in the model pesented, or that it is given a "thumbs up", all of this not unlike the'"peer review" process.

Now if you are focused on any aspect of these functions I would appreciate whatever comments you may have to share about the matter. I understand the word "fantasies" and for you to so label my effort is not informing me of anything I was not already privy to. Its a form of a tautology to me, do you understand?

And lastly your mention of the "spin" post of mine, I am expecting your input there also, after all you did bring it up. James R has been strangely silent lately.

Pestroika!

Geistkiesel

12. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear geistkiesel,
As you should noticed, I did not finish our discussion about you three body’s test of SRT.
Do you know why? I was confused. Very confused. Because you did not pay attention to my central critics of the whole your “construction”. And it is the following.
As I told you in configuration
……………………………………………………………………Axis X --->
................................|_____|--->A
<---|_____| A' ......................... <---|____|B

there is no chance for A’ to see speed of A equal to 2000, if speeds of A’ and B are equal and A and B were approaching to each other with relative velocity 9000 before A’ was launched. It is your pure fantasy that at some values of Va and Vb we can have situation that I rejected right above as impossible. No, we can not have picture you put in the base of whole your anti-SRT logistic. So, we already dealt with your fantasy at least once…
I can not explain why you do not pay attention on that my critic of all your “approach” to the problem of absence (or existence) of “absolute velocity”. Because it appears that whole your "probe scheme for measuring the "absolute" motion" is based upon ... your fantasy. Sorry...
2. Will you go to the even the best dentist in country to cure your liver? Of course, not. So, if you want to study SRT do not go to the even the best engineer. Look for a good theoretist of SRT.
3. Your "spin" posts are in anather thread, so, if I will be there again I will try to think about it.

13. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Mr. Persol, Here is a problem for you. You are in a space ship in deep depp space and suddenly your efeence frame spotter tells you that he has picked up an uniodentified vehicle moving 11000 units of relative motion wih respect to your prame A. You imediately name the unidenified vehicle B. Now you are on a military mission where the fate of your sola systems depends on the decisions you make. You open a top secret intelligence file and are informed that if you ever detect a relative velocity of 11000 units wih another vehicle where the other vehilce contributes 7000 units of velocity and your ship contributes 4000 units of belocity to the total of 11000 untis of relative velcity you are supposed to nuke the bastard as an identified enemy of the USSA, United Solar System Administration. If your frame contributes 7000 units and the unidentified ship, B contributes 4000 units you are to do nothing.

If you merely guess the absolute velocity contribution of the A and B frames separately, whether you are correct or not, or and if you are mistaken in measuriong the the absolute contribution of the A and B frame separately to the total relative velocity of Va - Vb = 11000 units you are immediately "spaced", i.e. ejected into the void of the vacuum without benefit of any protective gear.

How do you determine correctly the absolute contribution of velocity of A and B separately to the total relative velocity of A and B?

Its no big deal, right?

14. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear Persol,
Let me answer. waite a little and you will find out why i am askin for this favour...

15. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Your scenario is total bull. If you were trying to protect the planet, using your ship as a reference would be stupid. Using some false 'absolute' reference frame of distant stars is even worse. You'd want to use the Earth as your reference.

If however they were attacking you... you'd want to use the ship as a reference.

Your 'absolute motion' frame doesn't help at all in this situation, and makes it worse because the accuracy of detecting motion relative to distant stars will suffer.

16. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear geistkiesel,
What you are doing right now in professional media is forbidden method. Do you know why?
Because of I already gave you the exact answer on this question. And if Persol will answer you in right way, somebody or me will have a right to call him a plagiarism. We do not know, did Persol see my answer or not. If he did not and will answer you rightly it could be counted as a plagiarist.
So, let me repeat my answer.
1. Let we, in Lab reference frame (Lab) see body A moving with velocity Va=+7000 and body B moving with velosity Vb= - 4000, then they are approaching to each other with speed

V = (Va - Vb)/(1- Va*Vb/c^2) = 11000/(1+28000000/c^2)……………….(1)

It is the value that body A will see approaching body B, and body B will see approaching body A.
2. If some probe will have velocity equal as body A (or body B, it is not important) in the same moment, this probe will see another body approaching with speed V.
3. Now you decide what is answer on your question, because of nobody, except you, understands what means set of words “contributes a velocity….”.

17. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Well the following should define the term for you. But then as you have already concluded hee is some error in the system befoe you are familiar with the dynamics what credible unxcerstanding can we indfer in anything you say or conclude about th esystem? I give you no credibility.The figue may be of limited value, but it does show that as we mesure the Va' - Vb = Va'b relative velocity as decreasing , that the V'a + Va = Va'a is increasing and from the data we can determine the slope of the velocity transformtaion from relative to absolute and therefore determine the relative absolute velocity contributions of each frame A and B..

Sequence of events in space as reference frames A and B detect and measure their relative velocity of 9000 units is seen below:

A releases a velocity probe A' , initiallyat rest with respect to A and with the same measured relative velocity with respec to B , or Va' - Vb = Va'b = 9000 units.

A' is constantly monitoring the decrease in relative velocity with respect to B as well as the increase in relative velocity with respect to A, or Va + Va' = Va'a = - Va'b.

There will comes an instant when Va' - Vb = 0, which A' then notes the relative velocty Va' - Va = Va'a > 0 units which, not surprising , is the same as the decease in relatve velocity with respect to B when Va'b = 0.

A' then makes the simple calculation that 9000 units of relative velocity measured by both A and B as they first detected each other, which hasn't varied since thus:

"I subtracted 2000 (this is an arbitrary number for this hypotheical problem) units from B which was simulltaneously added to the relative velocity with respect to A, and from which I started out with an absolute velocity of zero with respect to A, there fore, I conclude that the subtraction of motion in the -X direction from the total 9000 relative velocity guarantees that,
A is contributing 7000 units in the +X direction, while
B is contributing 2000 units in the -X direction, which is consistent with the measured and invariant total relative velocity.of 9000.

In other words we know that Va- Vb = 9000 iunits initially, but we don't know what either term is "absolutely". However, as we are making constant measurements of Va'b ito deternine the projected Vb = 0 point which is targeted by A' we can substitue immediately such that Va + Va'b = 9000 until va'b = 0 at which point Va is determined absolutely. Initially, were Va'a = 0 and Vab = 9000.

We may substitute from the get go, Va'a + Vab = 9000 and as Va'b is the negative of Va'a we may substitute immediately to arrive at Va'b + Vab = 9000. or Vab = 9000 - Va'b to mainatin a running count of the curve that is determining the absolute Va velocity, as Va'b -> 0, which when determined , measured, gives us he absolute Vb.

The simplest way to see the logic of this is consider first that there is more information in the A' measuement than mere relative velocity, because now the relative contributions can be determined from the relative velocity of "9000 units". Likewise, the rate of decrease of Va'b can be determined which would not necessitate acually completeing the measurement until the actual Va'b =0 point is arrved at. The figure above is reperesntative of what is occuring, which isn't all that complex a mental exercise if you know what I mean.

A' begins a series of accelrations followed by time spans of uniform velocity in the -X dirction where A assumed to be moving in the +X direction.
opposite to the considered direction of motion of B where the initial relative velocity of Vab is deemined by mesurement.And as i am thinking about it know all one needs is a proper light measuring device and the mesurements can be conducted while Va' is accelerating.

It should not pass unoticed that this mesurement actually determining absolute velocity contributuins of A anad B is an anethema and heretical to SR, but it is a trivial process. Finally, I urge those following this exercise to ask yourself just how must integrity we can assign to a special relativity model used to evaluate and judge this syste

m developed here when special relativity axiomatically denies us the physical possibility of doing what was jusgt accomplished.

Geistkiesel

18. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear Geistkiesel,
1. Unfortunately I can not see pictures in your post: it requires to be a member of some MSN program, which I am not.
2. Thanks for eliminating any 2000 and 7000 “contributed” velocities: now your thoughts become more clear and understandable.
3. But, before we come to conclusion, you need to clarify one more notation you are using constantly and which is absolutely unclear for me: what you mean writing Va- Vb or Va + Va'b, or Va'a + Vab , or Va'b + Vab , or 9000 - Va'b? Do you still think that velocities are added and/or subtracted as an usual vectors in the Vectors Algebra? Did Einstein’s rule of addition of velocities teach you nothing?
4. And what sense has Va + Va'b if Va is a velocity of A in Lab and Va'b is a velocity of A’ in B?
5. Instead of spending time to put in post your declarations pro or contra of SRT,please, be accurate at this time in your response: I really tired to fix your mistakes at posting… And believe me: if there is something new in your reasearch, I will be the first one who will say "People, we really have here something new!".

19. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
]

One thing about my terminology e"contribution of velocity" and similar verbage. I understand that what I did here is not possible to accompluxsh. as linmited by SR yjeory, Therefore, there isn't any 'acceptable' syntax and language in the SR literature to follow as a guide. This is why I felt free to use such words as "velocity contribution" in describing those velocities of A and B separately that when summed together to 9000 units that was or is the 'relative' velocity.

Can you see my logic here? I appreciate all your reviewing of the material more than you may appreciate, but as this was an exclusive and original effort, something dear to me , that I throrughly enjoyed producing, I did not recieve your angry post with much kindmess. That is all behind us I trust?
The work being my very own, I felt free to take advantage of what I had accomplished and is why I ignored your admonishment regarding "plagarism" in your previous post , and I knew that you weren't playing the same game in the same ballpark as I.

Va- Vb mean The velocity of the A frame misus the Velocity of the B frame or the relative velocity, which before the numbers 2000 for Band 7000 for A were not defined, as pe S theory.

Va + Va'b, The A frame velocity minus the relative velocity of the A' and B frame system equaling 9000 unuits,,
Va- Vb The A frame velocoty minus the B frame velocity, both originally undefined until I measured them, this the SR relative bvelociy of the A and B system..

r
Va + Va'b, The A frame velocity plus the realtive velocty of the A' and B frame velocity subtracted by A' and added to the now measured absolute A frame velocity.

o Va'a + Vab , The relative veloicity of the A'A system plus the A and B frame system relative velocity of 8000 units a constant. (notice orignially the separate velocity of A and B were not defined, to coin a phase, The sepate "contribution of the A amd B frame system when each was detwermined fornm measuremnt (until measured that which you so compalined about in my use of "contribution of velocioty).

4. And what sense has Va + Va'b if Va is a velocity of A in Lab ? good question. First hee he Lab is free space, but an acceleated proton, the A frame moing relative to an oncoming electron whose velocitgy is deermined by a third oarticle accewlrated in the misu proton direcion measured wrt the lectron ave,octy can then detemrined the ve.ocity of he each particle on the oucopme of the ensuing collision. Or in descpicalble words, the "contribution of velocty" of each can be analyzed as opposed to mesuring only the combiined or rellaive velocity of the proton and electron pair in collisim a predcted collsion. .

When the A' probe is first released into space its velocity is identical to the A velocity which is originally undefined., but I do show that the combined velocity of A and B constitute the 9000 relative velocity .

Va = 9000 - Va'b.

or the original relative velocity of the A and B system and the relative velocity of he A' and B system which eventuallt goes to zero, at which point Va is know exactly.

I did no realize that the sever whee the drawing was olaced was for "groups' which I had just set up. I will have another soon for your pusal.

Practice thee the words of yours Yuriy. Since the first day I listened to an SR lecture I was aware oif the postulate that absolutely prrohibited knowng the individual velocity of twp (or more ) frames in a sysem. This is a, if not the , Specal Relativity Postulate dfrom which I provided you the quote:

"It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system in free space" from Hnabndbook of Aronautical Engineering.
You Yuriy must be as inimarely with is postual;te as any man on the face of the planet with the blue sky.

Now, does my system measure unaccelerated translatory motion in free space? The question calls for a yes or no answer.

I find it difficult 5to ecncile that you are still wurstioniong what I have done "if there is soemthings new3 in you research" you don't know?? a t this point.?

20. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear Geistkiesel,
You are the second case in my life when I can not find common language with someone who wants my help but refuses to establish rules of expressions that would be able to help me to understand what he actually wants to say.
Your manner of speech is not allows me to understand you. To make my job easier, let me ask you the following.
1. Do not include any conclusions, philosophical comments, analogy, and references. Like these:
I understand that what I did here is not possible to accompluxsh. as linmited by SR yjeory, Therefore, there isn't any 'acceptable' syntax and language in the SR literature to follow as a guide.” I am not interested WHY you do, but I want to know WHAT you do.
Can you see my logic here? I appreciate all your reviewing of the material more than you may appreciate, but as this was an exclusive and original effort, something dear to me , that I throrughly enjoyed producing, I did not recieve your angry post with much kindmess. That is all behind us I trust?
The work being my very own, I felt free to take advantage of what I had accomplished and is why I ignored your admonishment regarding "plagarism" in your previous post , and I knew that you weren't playing the same game in the same ballpark as I.”
All such thinks you will tell me when we will finish our analysis. Now they are EXTRA for our work (which still is not done!).
I did no realize that the sever whee the drawing was olaced was for "groups' which I had just set up. I will have another soon for your pusal. Practice thee the words of yours Yuriy. Since the first day I listened to an SR lecture I was aware oif the postulate that absolutely prrohibited knowng the individual velocity of twp (or more ) frames in a sysem. This is a, if not the , Specal Relativity Postulate dfrom which I provided you the quote:"It is impossible to measure or detect unaccelerated translatory motion of a system in free space" from Hnabndbook of Aronautical Engineering.
You Yuriy must be as inimarely with is postual;te as any man on the face of the planet with the blue sky.”
Va- Vb mean The velocity of the A frame misus the Velocity of the B frame or the relative velocity, which before the numbers 2000 for Band 7000 for A were not defined, as pe S theory
.” Save such thinks for the end of our analysis, pleas: we will have a chance to close that journey telling each other about our filling that we had DURING our discussion… And please, before you post your message check out grammar – you are on Internet and a lot of peoples read it. Shame on you for so many misprints, errors, and negligence. …
2. You said: “Va- Vb mean The velocity of the A frame misus the Velocity of the B frame or the relative velocity, which before the numbers 2000 for Band 7000 for A were not defined, as pe S theory.” Please, in next time say the same underlined thought as “ Va – Vb means the velocity of body A, measured in reference frame Lab, minus the velocity of body B, measured in the same reference frame”. BTW, am I right in my interpretation of what you wanted to say in underlined words? (You see, even now I am not sure that I understood you in right way so ambiguous your language is). But I have no clue what mean the following wordswhich before the numbers 2000 for Band 7000 for A were not defined, as pe S theory”.
3. You said: “Va + Va'b, The A frame velocity minus the relative velocity of the A' and B frame system equaling 9000 unuits,Va- Vb The A frame velocoty minus the B frame velocity, both originally undefined until I measured them, this the SR relative bvelociy of the A and B system.” I have no clue what these words mean and what you are trying to state here.
4. You said: “Va + Va'b, The A frame velocity plus the realtive velocty of the A' and B frame velocity subtracted by A' and added to the now measured absolute A frame velocity. o Va'a + Vab , The relative veloicity of the A'A system plus the A and B frame system relative velocity of 8000 units a constant. (notice orignially the separate velocity of A and B were not defined, to coin a phase, The sepate "contribution of the A amd B frame system when each was detwermined fornm measuremnt (until measured that which you so compalined about in my use of "contribution of velocioty).” I have no clue what these words mean and what you are trying to state here.
5. You said: ”And what sense has Va + Va'b if Va is a velocity of A in Lab ? good question. First hee he Lab is free space, but an acceleated proton, the A frame moing relative to an oncoming electron whose velocitgy is deermined by a third oarticle accewlrated in the misu proton direcion measured wrt the lectron ave,octy can then detemrined the ve.ocity of he each particle on the oucopme of the ensuing collision. Or in descpicalble words, the "contribution of velocty" of each can be analyzed as opposed to mesuring only the combiined or rellaive velocity of the proton and electron pair in collisim a predcted collsion.”
I have no clue what these words mean and what you are trying to state here. What electrons, what photon? Why I should know about them? What they are making easier to understand in Va + Va'b?

Last edited: Feb 21, 2005
21. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
OK Yuriy, right now something has come up. Hgeistkiesel

22. ### RawThinkTankBannedBanned

Messages:
429
geistkiesel

You were interested in knowing how to find out which object is in motion and which is not in the universe. I told U that the object that is in high velocity has its clocks slowed down relative to the stationary object. But U choose to ignore that , U r a human its your choice.

Resistance is futile , persistance is not.

23. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
my problem was determining which of two frames was fastest and what the velocity is, i.e. detrmining absolute velocity. The fundamental postulate if SR says one cannot do this, I have already done this and am in the procesws of clearing Yuriy's prceptions on the mattre.

.like the wise man said RTT, resistence is futile. That is what they
told the ones in the Alamo, remember the Alamo RTT?
geistkiesel