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

When I say Va - Vb = Vab this is the relative velicity of the A a]nd B system;

Va' - Vb = Va'b is the relative veloity of the A' anb B system for which we seek a zero final answer which allows us to reduce the total relative velocity number to arrive at the result at ehich time the contribution of the A frame velocity to the total relative velocity,which is simply the defintioin of absolte veocity of the isidvidual system frame components.

Do not bristle at "absolte velocity", nor take offence at "contributed velocity" as these terms are both anehema to the postulated structure of SR.

Yuriy, I cannot consiider for any reason that you could t understanad completely the significance of an inertial system having its relative motion expressed in terms of the measured velocity of the individiual sysrtem inertial components such as the A and B absolute velocities. Velocitiies with respect to what you may ask? The answer: Velocity With respect to the inertial component trajectories them selves, not with respect to each other. This would put us back into the SR hole we just climbed out of. There is no such thing as absolute velocity zero? Prove it using something else than by SR which by this time is simply toast, There may technnological obstructions of locating the trajectory track or coordinate line but that is an engneering problem one that would be enormously pleasurable and satisfying to solve.Any attempt to demand some abstract or even real point on theoretical bases is to leap recklessly and irresponsibly int the abyss of an inite regression that could only be averted by the insertion of erzats and arbitrary mathematical contrivances].

To adopt the trajectory of the frame is to adopt a straight line through space until acted upon by an external force. What else do you need for an inertial frqame, thisn isn the se]f definition of an inertial frame, If there are any objections based on a incosistences assiged in the Galilean structure vis a viks naxwell's equations will just have to be reolved bu pencil and paper and a supply of erasures

To blatantly impose this coordinate structure absent the courtesy of an explanation in terms of experimental results would be a form of insulting heresy, Heresy, now,by itself iself is, contrary to some popular opinions ,just like the baby bear's porridge, not too hot bot too cold, but just right.

Yuriy you rescue SR only by burying it in practiced confusion. The mesuremnent system I have been spreading for some months now is by your activityh a recognition]] of its worth and value. This is so because you cannot rescue SR by invoking the postulate that it is impossoible to detect or measure the unaccelerated translatory motion of an inertiak system in free space because we both know now it is a trivial exercise to measure the contributions of the system;'s inertial velocity components.

Yuriy,
you would not have suffered all the recent slings and arrows of outrageous forces in your sea of troubles unless yiu had observed the demise of an erstwhile lkimiting special realtivity theaohy when excised from your thought

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

when falling on your mental .sword of physical law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

READERS:

Since I had tried to contribute to this thread and was summarily absued, slandered, etc., by at least three members, Paul T, Persol and Yuriy, I draw your attention to the following, since they goto the issue which has been rasied and is being wrongfully challenged.

Those three members have been placed on "Ignore" and I will no longer directly respond to their BS.

[thread=42491]GPSs and Relativity[/thread]
[post=716567]Here[/post]
[post=716690]Here[/post]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM,
I should have said it sooner: Contribute to the thread, you still don't have to respond to them. They are leaving me alone.The first:

1. They NASA, uses SR in 'the correction parameters for clock adjustments and however, regarding timiing functions the ones NASA uses aren't SR not from SR theory
2. . from SR theory no but from a prefered frame of reference, that SR theory says, NO NO, No such frame of reference that NASA chose a preferred frame and fixed by what? by what the selecting the preferred frame and use the planet earth to refer thr GPS thang, as a
3. "quasi" perfect frame of reference. and do not use reltivity algorhyms to blame
   How many time do we have to hear drawn from the scabbards of SR litanies, "GPS is proof of SR".
   
4. With this information I'd banish you too MacM, if I was an SR theorist and my second choice upon failure to brush aside "the GPS Special Relativity Claim of SR Propaganda Assault" and the harmful and drug busting proof of". "consistency wth SR. or", "supports the SR theory" ,or "NASA even uses SR in GPS . ". . " (which is interesting because NASA hasn't denied the GPS/SRRel connection),
5. and we've all heard it so much the ones NASA has actually working the engineering and scientific parameters of GPS system,with its pinpoint accuracy from satellites facilities on earth choosing preferred frames and ignoring SR theory for corrections of orbit enavigation errors
6. NASA knows that the Special Relativity industry says that NASA's GPS uses Special Relativity in the orbiting Satellite correctibn dynamics while knowing this is a lie, and [&]we know that NASA does not use SR in its time correction dynamics, and
7. we know NASA knows the SR industry is lying around earth 2, this thread has said what the folks that are doing it, the choice of a preferred frame is favored over the relativity theory and earth is equivalent to a preferred frame, l said, the earth frame doesn't accelerate but rail way trains do. Relative motion with respect to the planet and the train is only seen when the liddle tiny one goes choo choo heading over the high mouintain range. Its the liddle train that could, it specially said "its the Special relativity that should be dead," and NASA, the one that can stop the lie appears to be the major player in the crime , but WHY?.[/COLOR] r
8. Bang Bang ,
9. Not quite the way it is, say some in the industry, the SRT industry has to know that their job is maintaining a constant stream of fraudulent scientific claims designed for public consumption where the lie is the belief in relativity by Offical NASA fiat and of corse,"iF NASA SAYS IT 'S TRUE, TAKE IT TO THE BANK BEFORE NASA screws you too.
10. .proof of relativity and knowing the converse that their claim be true, From official government liars, I can understand hiding murder and theft and treason, but hiding theoretical fraud, even participating in the fraud, as a co-sonspirator, the leading co-conspirator, the main perpetrator of the criminal act.
11. . it seems spiritually quiet on the front 0f the specific nature of of tthe bond, seems an intimate bond tho why all the concentration his theoretical fraud..
    
12. [thread=42491]Where do they get the people to sit around and support SR so religeously? NASA has tons of em. It seems spiritual almost, certainly they are, for sure, joined at the hip in the PHoax, hoax of course, they'r joined at the phip in the hox, in the hoax, joined in th'oax.[*] 'Dissane's lak: axe meno qwezn tameeanull, teh yaa anolyzz AKAGPS and Relativity shoved right up the country's ass..[/thread]
13. 
    
14. Next alternative second on cown the line [post=716867]:Here Here A MacJob:,there a MacJob they're hiring you know, and they train ya. 2. Its no big thang, not that big a deal, relatively speaking,no big one here,[/post]
15. Scientific fraud, seen any scientific fraud cops hangin around lately? Nope, all the fraud cops'r chasin dope or burnin rope.

[*] And second here is what you see the words of a wise debunker. Not a lot of SR , or science, but a lot of sniggling.I wonder why they would even care to respond. hey
they just draw attention to your arguments and their sniggling. You are way out front in this one MacM.

• How can you believe in NASA for anythin,g if they would maintain a huge lie hiding theoretical inanities and silliness? Hiding the truth that relativity theory is not a theory, but it is a monstrous lie, i t is a lie, but why do they post these unruly malfucntiobnslie about special relativity, theoretically stuckj up the the Queen's royal enlarging ass, Does the Queem cry out in pain? No just call first next time.Data or experimental results: Why lie about SR?

[*][post=716690]Here, tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favor
she must wear a liar's hat, tell her tell her and tell her again and make her laugh at that![/post]
[urhttp://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=716567#post716567[/url]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[

Yuriy,
After much consideration and serious thought I have concluded that the current progress of my research of relative motion of inertial reference frames is complete for my purposes having found no theoretical, or natural physical barriers to detecting or measuring absolute velocity. Opinions and theoretical structure claiming the opposite do take up arms in the public relations war against, when they, the special relativity theorists for one, find themselves adrift in a sea of troubles who by opposing the main ‘or’ ‘and’, brakes the legs of the observed dissidents, they de feet them. Theoretical claims, not limited to those applied as postulational-forces, in an experimental environment enlightens by experimental results of the reality to the converse of the dynamics presented will be avoided with equivalent axiomatic certitude. Unambiguous experimental results are hierarchically imlied of as of greater significance than axiomatic mathematically contrived theory.

The subject postulate under consideration is:
Is:

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

The velocity postulate stated above is found to be unambiguously deceptive and shall be summarily ignored.

There are three inertial reference frames A, A’ and B whose relative motions are for A - > =+x, B -> -x directions where the notation Va + Vb = Vab is the relative velocity of the A and B frame with respect to each other at t = 0.

Va + Vb = Vab = j, where j, Va and Vb are constant for all t.
Va’ = Va for t < 0.
Va’ + Va = Va’a = k for t >= 0 and Va’ ¹ Va.
Va’ – Vb = Va’b = l for t >= 0.

At t = 0, the A’ inertial reference frame accelerates in the -x direction as,

dA’/dt = d (Va’a)/dt = dk/dt a constant > 0 for t < 1 and k = constant for t = 1 and dk/dt = 0 we take dk/dt in the –x direction.


The total change of relative motion Va’a in this time span is

Va’a (t = 0) – Va’b(t = 1) the relative motion loss along the – x axis as Va’b(t= 0) – Va’b(t = 1) = K(a’)

When d (K (a’))/dt = 0, the time the relative velocity Va’b = a constant and for this measured value to be constant then for an accelerating frame in the system, A’, the relative velocity change with respect to another inertial frame can only be a constant when Va ‘ = Vb, at which instant of time all significant relative parameters have been recorded and the instant the A’ has reached the exact velocity f the B frame of reference.

Va = Vab – Vb, where Vb inferred from total relative velocity loss of Va’b, when Va’ = Vb.

Therefore if Va’ changed by 3500 units (as an arbitrary measured value for example) since being at rest with respect to Va at t = 0, the Va - 3500 = 10000 and Va = 6500.
QED. The relative velocities are measured, the absolute velocities are calculated all derived from the relative velocity.

Geistkiesel.

 

geistkiesel

You talk as if NASA is the only sapce agency in the universe, Thats seriously bad.

 

One doesn't normally engag in casual discussions regarding the subject matter you introduced. No RTT I am not surprised, after all we have 'NASA' on my home planet also,

 

Where did I indicate such things about NASA? If it is from my previous post I don't get it,

BTW, RTT don;t you have a comment on my "absolute velocity measuring protoco? Answe'r a question for me if you please,

1. Two inertial frames A and B amoving elative to each othernd A are in a closing trajectory of relative mtion of 10000 units. 0cost o10000 secnfs Mrelative motion of 1ooooinertial with relative velocity of 1000 unuits,
   
2. A fundamental attribute of special relativity theory is denying the measrement of absolute motion both on theoretucal and planet earth's measured flowing loficvallbodi us itcobcen thanHaving understood SSR to the extent it is impossible to detect or measure unaccelerated translatory motion of a system in free space.
   
3. Hyothetically, of course, What is the effective relevence, or significance of the effect of the postulate if there are unambiguous processes that measures the absolute velociy defined by the postulate as physically impossible?

Geistkiesel

 

Geistkiesel

 

If I confessed to the NAZA charges, whatever they are, and I am totally ignorant of any of the details, of which I know absolutely nothing can geistkiesel 's statement "I did iit!" also run to his theory being deemed convicted because the G theory is guilty? or deemed proved guilty?"too? Or did the statement" a confession of a theory exhibiting pathological leanings for if it seemingly appears that the theory is being held accountable as a theorem found guilty, probably before its time and, and the theorem appears to have confessed in latin:" Res Ipsa Loquitor", does that theory now have the right to get another attorney if he doesn't wanrtto spend a lot of money on this?

G

 

This thread is res ipsa loquitor and a conclusion to the companion thread answering the James R claim that absolute motion cannot be detected or measured. This thread is presented as a separate thread in order to increase exposure to any missing the development of this proof who may wish to offer any rebuttal to this or the previous thread.

Three inertial reference frames A, A’ and B whose relative motions are for A assumed moving - > =+x, and B assumed moving -> -x directions are described by the notation :

Va + Vb = Vab

Va and Vb are the absolute velocities of the A and B frames respectively and Vab the measured relative velocity of the A and B frames of reference with respect to each other. At this point Va and Vb are undefined. This is the notation that is will be used throughout this post..

Va + Vb = Vab = j, where j, Va and Vb are constant for all t.

Va’ = Va for t < 0 or Va'a = 0 for t< 0..

The starting condition for a relative velocity probe A' initially at rest inside the host A frame is,

Va’ + Va = Va’a = k
for t >= 0 and Va’ = - Va with A’ accelerating rate wrt A and B frames in the -x direction are the same..

Va’ – Vb = Va’b = l for t >= 0.
As A’ accelerated with respect to A and B ar the same rate the same Va = -Va relation holds here as does Va’ = -Vb when A’ accelerates in the –x direction with respect to the moving B frame of reference.

At t = 0
Va’ = Va = 0 =Va’a .

Va’b = Vab = Va’ + Vb = 10000 units.

For all t > 0 the A’ frame of reference acceleration is dk/dt = K , |K| > 0. with respect to the A and B frames simultaneously,

As the A’ frame is constantly measuring the instantaneous relative velocity of the A’B and the A’A frame the instant Va'b = 0 is the instant the dk/dt ->0, t = 1..

For the A’A system the Va’a at t = 0 was 0. At t = 1 the Va’a relative velocity is the current relative velocity Va’a, or said another way
Va + Va’ = Va’a = current measured relative velocity. Similarly, at t = 0 the Vab = 10000 units.
And at t = 1, when dk/dt = 0 or when the relative motion measured between A’ and B was zero, when Va’ + Vb = Va’b = 0 or Va’ = -Vb,

Now, the A frame navigator makes the following observations.

1. the A’ frame has just reached a relative velocity with respect to A and with respect to B.
2. The acceleration rate of A’ frame is identical with respect to A and B separately.
   • The measured Va’b at t = 1 is the relative velocity gained during dt = t1 – t0 = 3500 (for instance), which is
   • the negative of the Va’a measured relative velocity, or
   • that amount of absolute B frame velocity that must be added to the Va frame absolute velocity in order to justify the assumption that
   • the B frame is at absolute rest relative to the A frame as determined by the measured relative velocity of the AB inertial frame system, we see:
   .
   
3. Vab = Va + Vb = 10000.
   Va = 10000 – Vb.
   Va = 10000 – 3500.
   Va = 6500.
   The absolute velocity contributions to the measured relative velocity of the AB reference frame system then is
   Va = 6500 units.
   Vb = 3500 units.
4. The postulate reflecting the impossibility of detecting or measuring unaccelerated translatory motion of a system in free space in any conceivable way is contradicted, hence
5. the fundamental postulates defining reference frame equivalency subject to the disproved postulate are discarded forthwith.
6. QED.

Geistkiesel

 

geistkiesel . U r beautifull

But I am not a physicst , I am a retired medical student, But then I am Raw Think Tank and I cant tolarate any wrongs in science. When an amature can see things and professionals ignore it then that is a measure of Rationalists evolution over humans.

Sorry , I cant help U mathematically. I am all about Logic.

 

JamesR,
this is a case when you have to close thread immediately: we have the same issue discassed in another thread already.
You should not allow the multiplication of the same discussions keeping Forum's first page full of the same issues: new mambers and visitors will get wrong picture about Forum.

 

But Yuriy U smartass JamesR never said about the fact that a speeding objects clock slows down compared to the stationary one. U all psycophisists have been hiding like a mouse from this fact now for too long , shame on U. But I am not gona rest before ruining U people.

 

You can reply to this thread if you want.

You haven't been responding to the other thread that had reached its natural ending. Get used to it Y. What is your facination anyway? The concept is so simple, so very simple, what are all your formulae going to do for you now? Try to de feet the thread on leg breaking procedural grounds? I referenced the other thread for "here" ease to access. This way the reader can start with a minimum of extraneous fluff and look at the problem as originally stated and before distractions blurred the image by focus onto nonsensible SR formulae.

Actually, Yuriy, this all was a secret taught to me by a kangaroo, and an average kangaroo at that. James R whose named is referenced as the author of the subject 'impossibility statement' and was merely reflecting the basic positulate of SR theory, so in this respect the "James R" of this forum is for the purpose of this thread a substitue alias for an anonymous author.


Geistkiesel

 

It is all about the logic and partially about the physics.

You measure the relative velocity between A and B inertial frames and are told the absolute velocity of each is not detectable, but the relative velocity is detectable. This is almost like saying any combination of velocity can be used as long as the total is the measured relative velocity. Think of the reasoning: On can use assumed values for the system motions but not a measured one. We can make up relative velocities but are denied access theoreticall, by axiom when everybody knows here was some acceleration of the systems that got the absolute velocities to where the relative velocity is the sum of the individual units. The attempt to mystify is similar to the "confessed mystery" of quantun mechanics.

Well, it is clear, absolute velocity measurement means SR is skuttled, discarded, impotent of no practical use, a lie even.

Thank you for the post.

Geistkieselt

 

If you ever find a way to measure an absolute velocity, then you'd be correct.

Currently you are not.

 

You can't determine an absolute velocity using relativity. If you think you can, then you messed up the math somewhere.

Very quickly:

is wrong. It should be Va-Vb=Vab

Is wrong. Va'=dVa/dt which does not equal Va... regardless of what MacM has tried to tell you in the past.

Your math isn't even consistent here.
What is the value of Vb? Why do you use two different values?
How is Vb determined? It appears to be relaitive to your starting position, which may not be at rest.
Show the exact calculation you are using to compute Vb.

 

If you are serious about what you wrote then you are completely ignorant of SR and the postulates that supposedly justify the theory. You come of as just another dissident snot.

A relative velocity detector, inertial frame A' is at rest wrt inertial frame A which is in motion relative to an inertial frame B. The relative velocity between A and B is known Va + Vb = Vab. A' accelerates in the -X direction parallel to B and antiparallel to A moving in the +X direction, when the relative velocity Va'b = 0, all relative measurements are concluded with the relative velocity difference between t = 0 twhen Va'B = Vab, and at T= 1 when Va'b = 0 the relative velocities have been measured and the absolute velocities have been detected and measured therefrom. Neat isn't it?

What is your contribution to the subject matter?

Your post Persol is a meaningless piece of scientific nothing, like are all of your posts. I have found a method to measure absolute velocity in a number of ways actually, and as you well know, as your trivial meddling in other posts on this subject indicate.

Actually I am quite satisified, proud, at ease with a creative effiort, smug even (though silently), at the construction of my thread indicating the straight forward method of accessing the relative velocity data to then measure the contributions of absolute velocity that defines the relative velocity. This is something that is mine and you can't destroy it persol.

You seem envious and all too willing to put other people's effort down so your own worthless self-worth get elevated. You and your gang of propagandists gang up on MacM, who can defend himself adewquately without my help. It just seems strange how you folks put so much energy into cutting down MacM. Serious buisnes the SR Industry, isn't i?

By your immaturity you will always be angry at someone, there will always be someone to smear, right?

Geistkiesel

 

Just to keep the record straight. MacM has not had nay contribution to the above formula dispute. Persol likes to interject my name at each opportunity if it can be implied somehow negative. But unfortunately it is for the overwhelmingly most part sure fabrication on his part.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=714543#post714543