View Full Version : Another Paper on Velocity Composition

Rybczyk

07-16-2009, 11:13 AM

During my research into the equivalence principle involving gravitational time dilation and inertial motion time dilation I found it necessary to explore deeper into the principles of velocity composition. This in turn diverted my attention back to the subject of velocity composition involving a final aspect of it that had not been covered in my previous papers. Reluctantly I took the time to write one last paper on the subject of velocity composition so that I could get past this subject once and for all. This makes the 16th paper I have written on the subject. Four are main works available from the home page of the Millennium Relativity (http://www.mrelativity.net/) web site, and 12 including this final paper are Brief works available from the Millennium Briefs (http://www.mrelativity.net/millennium_briefs.htm) Section of the web site. This will most definitely be the last paper I ever write on this subject. Anyone who can’t get it based on this latest work will never get it in my opinion.

For those who are interested, the new paper, Velocity Composition for Dummies (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Velocity%20Composition%20for%20Dummies.htm), can be accessed directly by clicking on the link just given.

As is my normal practice, the paper was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to being published on the web site.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

07-17-2009, 02:21 PM

Joseph, I hate to see you go out publicly with what is an obvious error. Some time ago I developed Eisntein's velocity composition formula ina very succinct and direct manner. Her it is again:

Now suppose the railroad care is travelling at a velocity v along its tracks.

Question: For an observer who is stationary relative to the tracks, what is the velocity of the ball. This becomes a question because we have shown with the Lorentz transformations that time and distance in relatively moving frames are affected by that relative motion.

Mathematically, in the moving frame, the description of motion of the ball is

X' = wT'.

Remembering the Lorentz transformations,

X' = (X - vT)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

and

T' = (T - vX/c^2)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

Substituting yields

(X - vT)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 = w(T - vX/c^2)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

X - vT = wT - vwX/c^2

(1 + vw/c^2)X = (w + v)T

X = [(w + v)/(1 + vw/c^2)]T

Noting the form of the equation here it is obvious that

[(w + v)/(1 + vw/c^2)]

is the velocity V of the particle in the stationary frame, therefore,

V = [(w + v)/(1 + vw/c^2)].

I'm sure you will challenge me tofind what is wrong with your paper and will summarily dismiss whtever I say, but i'm going to say it anyway.

The problem is your equatin (5) in your new paper:

(5) xT = v1T + V2t1

v1T here is a distance measured int the stationary frame A. It is the distance frame B moves in time T as I understand your paper.

V2t1 is a distance measured in the moving frame B and would be contracted in frame A, so you cannot directly add v1T and V2t1 to get xT which is a distnace measured in Frame A. Distance in a frame cannot be directly added to distances ina relatively moving frame.

***********************

Rybczyk

07-18-2009, 05:17 AM

cinci,

Over a period of seven years I have written 16 papers on the subject of velocity and acceleration composition in which I covered the subject from every possible perspective it can be viewed from. My conclusions are supported by extensive mathematical analyses performed in advanced math programs in which the findings were analyzed and verified in every possible manner. As a matter of fact the findings on velocity composition form the basis of one of my proposals to the U.S. National Science Foundation. There is no doubt in my mind that I probably understand this aspect of relativity better than anyone else in the world right now.

Then I have to listen to someone like you present your childish example of what this aspect of relativity is all about as if I could miss something as obvious as the things you keep bringing up.

As for my equation (5) the distance V2t1 is a contracted distance. The formula for distance contraction is d = D x (SQR(c^2 – v1^2))/c where d is the contracted distance and D is the non-contracted distance.

If d = V2t1 and D = V2T where d uses the time in frame B and D uses the time in frame A, we get V2t1 = V2T x (SQR(c^2 – v1^2))/c = d and not D.

Therefore (5) xT = v1T + V2t1 is correct.

I know this is over your head, so I don’t really expect you to get it. But I don’t have time for this nonsense. Someday if you ever get past your fixation on this issue and take the time to read all of the papers I’ve written on the subject, you will find that every question you can raise has already been addressed.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

07-18-2009, 05:38 PM

cinci,

Over a period of seven years I have written 16 papers on the subject of velocity and acceleration composition in which I covered the subject from every possible perspective it can be viewed from. My conclusions are supported by extensive mathematical analyses performed in advanced math programs in which the findings were analyzed and verified in every possible manner. As a matter of fact the findings on velocity composition form the basis of one of my proposals to the U.S. National Science Foundation. There is no doubt in my mind that I probably understand this aspect of relativity better than anyone else in the world right now.

cinci: Over a period of 104 years the theory of relativity has had thousands of papers written about it and thousands of experiments performed to confirm it. These papers have been written by men who have contributed to the great advances of science throughout the 20th century. So no, you do not understand this aspect of relativity better than anyone in the world. And your conclusions are not supported by anything other than your own conclusions.

*********************

Joseph: Then I have to listen to someone like you present your childish example of what this aspect of relativity is all about as if I could miss something as obvious as the things you keep bringing up.

As for my equation (5) the distance V2t1 is a contracted distance. The formula for distance contraction is d = D x (SQR(c^2 – v1^2))/c where d is the contracted distance and D is the non-contracted distance.

cinci: V2t1 is a distance in the moving frame if your diagram is correct. So yes, it is contracted in the stationary frame, but it is not contracted in the frame where you write V2t1. xT and v1T are both distances in the stationary frame. V2t1 is distance in a moving frame. No matter how insulting you get, it is a mistake to add v1T to V2t1. Get over it, you need to fix it.

***************************

Joseph: If d = V2t1 and D = V2T where d uses the time in frame B and D uses the time in frame A, we get V2t1 = V2T x (SQR(c^2 – v1^2))/c = d and not D.

Therefore (5) xT = v1T + V2t1 is correct.

cinci: From your paper: "where V2 is the speed used in conjunction with moving frame time interval t1 and time interval t1 is related to stationary frame time interval T as defined by the time transformation formula (2) above. "

This clearly says V2 and t1 are measured in the moving frame. That means it is the uncontracted value. You have to multiply it by (1 - (v1/c)^2)^.5 before you add it to v1T. v1T is a distance measured in the stationary frame. If I have it wrong then you have the worst diagram and explanation I can imagine.

********************************

Joseph: I know this is over your head, so I don’t really expect you to get it. But I don’t have time for this nonsense. Someday if you ever get past your fixation on this issue and take the time to read all of the papers I’ve written on the subject, you will find that every question you can raise has already been addressed.

cinci: I read this one and that's enough to know you have an error. By the way, I presented what you say is a flawed analysis of the composition equation. It's only a few lines long. You cannot now nor have you ever pointed out an error in it.

***********************

Rybczyk

07-19-2009, 09:21 AM

cinci,

Let me tell you why I don’t take you serious. You’re a phony. You not only hide behind a phony name, but you apparently lack the skills of your own proclaimed profession. CAD/CAM has been around since the mid-50’s and by the early 1980s even small companies were using it for mechanical design. Yet, you who supposedly were a mechanical engineer in a major corporation involved in jet engine design seem to lack both the computer skills and the drawing skills necessary to present your arguments with appropriate illustrations to make it clear what you are trying to say.

In your most recent post you reiterated a simple problem you claim to have presented on this forum in the past. You begin by giving the mathematical description of the motion of a ball that you have not defined graphically, or even verbally, relative to the moving railroad car. This assumes the reader is familiar with the problem, or imposes upon them the necessity to find your original posting in hopes that it will give the missing information. Then, not only do you fail to define variables such as w, but you introduce the Lorentz transformations without relating them to a diagram that clearly shows how they should be interpreted. And then at the end of your presentation, you make the jump that it is obvious that the one equation is the velocity V of the particle in the stationary frame? From that you jump directly to the Special Relativity velocity composition formula.

How did we get from a ball to a particle? And what is the relevance of the particle to the ball to the railroad car to the railroad tracks? I’m actually being kind here by not pointing out all of the misspelled words that show a complete lack of attention to detail on your part.

And you want me to take you seriously?

As a matter of fact, Einstein, who was far, far, far more intelligent than you, also appeared to lack the necessary drawing skills to represent his views graphically in support of his mathematical derivations. Now let me tell you what’s wrong with that. It allows an individual to present ideas that might be false and get away with it. They put the responsibility on the reader to figure out what they have in mind. This is equivalent to imposing on others the required ability to read minds. If they show that your ideas do not hold up under close evaluation, you can simply claim that is not what you meant. What you are doing then, is imposing on them the need to complete your theory. If they get it right, you get the credit. If they get it wrong; it is their fault, not yours.

Well, I won’t play that game with you. I did do it with Einstein’s theory to show that it is wrong, and that is covered in my first paper on the subject of velocity composition. The importance of using a step by step detailed approach is that it brings out the errors in one’s theory if they exist. I do this in all of my papers only to have people like you (who are poor at mathematics and lack proficiency in computers and graphic skills) try to show I am wrong, and to try to get me to help them do that by providing the skills they lack. Well guess what? I might be stupid enough to waste my time responding to your constant attacks of my work, but I am not stupid enough to do your job for you.

If you know so much, then document it in meticulous detail with all of the mathematical steps given, all of the variables and constants defined, and all of the necessary illustrations provided to show exactly what you are talking about. Then, maybe someone will take you serious.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

07-19-2009, 03:19 PM

Joseph: cinci,

Let me tell you why I don’t take you serious. You’re a phony. You not only hide behind a phony name, but you apparently lack the skills of your own proclaimed profession. CAD/CAM has been around since the mid-50’s and by the early 1980s even small companies were using it for mechanical design. Yet, you who supposedly were a mechanical engineer in a major corporation involved in jet engine design seem to lack both the computer skills and the drawing skills necessary to present your arguments with appropriate illustrations to make it clear what you are trying to say.

cinci: Not that it's relevant to your lack of inderstanding of relativity, but you also lack understanding of design in a major engine manufacturing. Making the actual drawing for the components is done by draftsmen. My work as a designer was conceptual and analytical. I was a draftsman during my college years and such work was still being done on boards with pencil and paper well into the 1970s. The transition to CAD-CAM came long afer I was managing and no longer doing detailed work.

If you need a detailed drawing to understand two relatively moving frames, you visualization skills must really be poor. Besides, we're not discussing diagrams, we're discussing yours.

***************************

Joseph: In your most recent post you reiterated a simple problem you claim to have presented on this forum in the past.

cinci: Yes, I actually found it and copied it. You ignored it before and you're ignoring it again. Preferring instead to launch into another personal diatribe rather than face your inability to question the analysis.

*******************************

Joseph: You begin by giving the mathematical description of the motion of a ball that you have not defined graphically, or even verbally, relative to the moving railroad car.

cinci: Are you haveing touble visualizing a ball whose velocity is being measure relative to a moving railroad car? If you understood Eisntein's velocity composition, you would instantly recognize this as the problem he was solving.

************************

Joseph: This assumes the reader is familiar with the problem, or imposes upon them the necessity to find your original posting in hopes that it will give the missing information. Then, not only do you fail to define variables such as w, ..............

cinci: What part of

"Mathematically, in the moving frame, the description of motion of the ball is

X' = wT'.

can you not understand? Surely you're familiar with (distance) = (velocity) X (time).

************************

.Joseph: ..........but you introduce the Lorentz transformations without relating them to a diagram that clearly shows how they should be interpreted.

cinci: Are you saying you don't understand how the Lorentz transformations apply to this situation? Perhaps I've been giving you more credit than I should.

*********************

Joseph: And then at the end of your presentation, you make the jump that it is obvious that the one equation is the velocity V of the particle in the stationary frame?

cinci: It's obvious because that's what I'm deriving. V is the composite velocity of the velocity v of the railroad car and w in the stationary frame, the velocity of the ball. If channging the word "particle" to "ball" clears this all up for you, then feel free to change it in your copy.

*******************

Joseph: From that you jump directly to the Special Relativity velocity composition formula.

cinci: Well if "jump" means I DID THE ALGEBRA , then yes I "jumped" to the correct answer. Surely you understand that if the velocity of the ball(particle) is w = X'/T' in the frame of the railroad car then X/T would be the velocity of the ball(particle) in the stationary frame. I explained it in words and said that I'm calling that veloicty V.

If you don't like this deirvation the go to http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/100/elecmovbodeng.pdf and look at Eisntein's. His is more complicated. I was attempting a simpler one for you....not simple enough I guess.

**************************

*******************

Jospeh: How did we get from a ball to a particle? And what is the relevance of the particle to the ball to the railroad car to the railroad tracks? I’m actually being kind here by not pointing out all of the misspelled words that show a complete lack of attention to detail on your part.

cinci: You're not being kind and you apparently don't understand the detail at all. So you're going to hang your whole critique of the analysis on the fact I said "particle" instead of "ball". You are vainly trying to find anything you can to discredit the anaylsis.

**********************

Joseph: And you want me to take you seriously?

cinci: I don't care how you take me. I started this string to try to get you to refrain from publishing an obvious error under your name. If you are bound and determined to look silly in print, then be my guest. Apparently looking silly doesn't discourage you as your latest message shows.

****************************

Joseph: As a matter of fact, Einstein, who was far, far, far more intelligent than you, also appeared to lack the necessary drawing skills to represent his views graphically in support of his mathematical derivations.

cinci: You know, most of us understand them just from the word descriptions....too bad you don't. Take a look at most of the technical writing from the early 1900s. Very few pictures. If you applied about half a second of your intellect you would understand why....they didn't have computers and fancy graphical programs. Including a picture, even a drawing, in a paper was an expensive proposition requiring manufacture of a plate to print it. I doubt that Einstein, on his patent office salary, had the extra money to spend. Don't you ever think about what you say before you say it?

*************************

Joseph: Now let me tell you what’s wrong with that. It allows an individual to present ideas that might be false and get away with it. They put the responsibility on the reader to figure out what they have in mind. This is equivalent to imposing on others the required ability to read minds. If they show that your ideas do not hold up under close evaluation, you can simply claim that is not what you meant. What you are doing then, is imposing on them the need to complete your theory. If they get it right, you get the credit. If they get it wrong; it is their fault, not yours.

cinci: Utter nonsense. The real scientists want people to find the errors in their work to prevent them going odwn blind alleys. You're the only guy I know willing to make an egregious error and then resist all efforts anyone might make to get you to correct it.

************************

Joseph: Well, I won’t play that game with you. I did do it with Einstein’s theory to show that it is wrong, and that is covered in my first paper on the subject of velocity composition. The importance of using a step by step detailed approach is that it brings out the errors in one’s theory if they exist. I do this in all of my papers only to have people like you (who are poor at mathematics and lack proficiency in computers and graphic skills) try to show I am wrong, and to try to get me to help them do that by providing the skills they lack. Well guess what? I might be stupid enough to waste my time responding to your constant attacks of my work, but I am not stupid enough to do your job for you.

cinci: The game is over Joseph...you lost. And you didn't lose to me because I wasn't playing a game. You are losing to yourself because you're going to go on with this error and even publish it.

******************

Joseph: If you know so much, then document it in meticulous detail with all of the mathematical steps given, all of the variables and constants defined, and all of the necessary illustrations provided to show exactly what you are talking about. Then, maybe someone will take you serious.

cinci: If you can't understand the simple derivation I did, find some other hobby.

*************************

Rybczyk

07-19-2009, 09:34 PM

cinci,

All things considered, I think you handled my criticism very well. And maybe I owe you an apology. Not because my paper is wrong, but because the subject matter is so confusing anyone would have trouble understanding it. The math convention I use evolved over the time I developed the Millennium theory. I did the best I could to make it easy to understand as I kept going deeper into the theory and including more variables in the process. In an attempt to respond to your latest comments, I went back to the physics book I use as a reference and reviewed the Special Relativity treatment on distance contraction. It’s been years since I reviewed that part of Einstein’s theory. To my surprise almost every convention used in the book is completely opposite to the convention I now use. Needless to say, it was very confusing trying to equate it to my treatment of distance contraction. It then became very apparent to me that anyone who tries to equate the Special Relativity treatment to my treatment is in for a very difficult task.

But, the bottom line is this: In my treatment, the distance traveled by object C relative to object B is given in terms of values that are valid in the moving frame of object B. Thus, distance V2t1 is already contracted relative to the stationary frame. Expressing it as v2T does not change that. It is simply restating the contracted distance in stationary frame terms. To get involved with the distance contraction principle, it is necessary to show the expanded distance in the stationary frame. That is done by keeping the speed V2 the same, but by factoring it with stationary frame time T instead of moving frame time t1. That is exactly what I showed in my earlier response #3 and it is correct. But in spite of that, I readily admit it can be very confusing trying to relate the Special Relativity treatment to the Millennium Relativity treatment. It seems like there just isn’t an easy way to explain the difference between Einstein’s treatment and mine. And in retrospect it seems like trying to simplify the Millennium Relativity velocity composition treatment by leaving out the spherical reference frames does not help matters any. In so doing, the fact that all of the distances in the moving frame sphere are contracted relative to the corresponding distances in the stationary frame is lost sight of.

There are other factors also, for example my contention that real distances are unaffected by motion. Although I firmly believe all of these different factors of my theory to be true, I now have a new awareness of some of the differences in perspective between Einstein’s approach and mine. I think I am going to have to accept the fact that it will not be as easy as I thought to get people to understand my approach and why I believe it to be correct. In the end, it’s going to take experimental evidence to settle this question. Meanwhile, I am going on to other areas of research. I spent enough time on velocity composition.

Again, my apology.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

07-19-2009, 10:41 PM

Joseph: But, the bottom line is this: In my treatment, the distance traveled by object C relative to object B is given in terms of values that are valid in the moving frame of object B. Thus, distance V2t1 is already contracted relative to the stationary frame.

cinci: As I see it you state V2 and t1 as parameters in the moving frame. In the convention of most physicists that would mean that t1 would be the rest value of time. It would be dilated and have a smaller value for the observer in the stationary frame. If you ae using some other convention, then I don't have the time to figure out a new convention and a different analysis.

I ran into this when I tried to find Lorentz's version of his transformations. the convention was different and the equation doesn't look the same as Einstein's. Someone pointed out the difference in convention. It isn't spelled out very well in Lorentz's work but apparently was common enough at the time that most scientists would have understood. That is perhaps the reason Einstein spen some time in OEMB carefully explaining what he meant by time and coordinate distances.

The bottom line is that you arrive at a different equation for velocity composition. Perhaps if you converted from your convnetion to Albert's they would be the same but I doubt it since his prohibits light speed >c and yours does not. In any case, in the words of the great Native American, Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, "I WILL FIGHT NO MORE FOREVER.", at least on this one.

************************

Joseph: There are other factors also, for example my contention that real distances are unaffected by motion. Although I firmly believe all of these different factors of my theory to be true, I now have a new awareness of some of the differences in perspective between Einstein’s approach and mine. I think I am going to have to accept the fact that it will not be as easy as I thought to get people to understand my approach and why I believe it to be correct. In the end, it’s going to take experimental evidence to settle this question. Meanwhile, I am going on to other areas of research. I spent enough time on velocity composition.

cinci: Good luck.

*************

Rybczyk

07-21-2009, 09:26 AM

cinci,

Just to set the record straight on ending this discussion, you are correct in your assumption that my formula for velocity composition is different from Einstein’s. You are also correct in your statement that my formula allows for speed in excess of c. This is true, however, only in regard to another frame of reference and not the frame that provides the energy for acceleration. My formula is in full agreement with Einstein’s formula that nothing can exceed the speed of light in the frame in which the energy is provided for accelerating the object to such speeds. In that regard the speed limit is still in effect. All of this is covered in my papers.

Joseph

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.