Improving the measure of relaltive velocity equivalent to the absolute velocity.

[geistkiesel]

An observer on the A inertial frame intends to measure the absolute velocity of the A frame. The A inertial frame had been accelerated from the planet earth measured at 9000 units of velocity.

The B inertial frame was initially located on the A inertial frame and was launched into space moving along side the A frame with zero observed relative velocity (Vab = 0), initially.

Next the B frame began to move oppositely to the A frame of reference at .1 unit velocity wrt A assumed at rest. Then the B and the A frames measured the relative velocity of B wrt A and A wrt B (each using ultimate accurate transponders in the x-ray wavelength range) where each measured 9000.10000000 units relative velocity on the first measurement.

Question: May The measured AB relative velocity be improved by successive changes of direction and lowering the speed (.01, .001, .0001, .00001 units etc) of the B frame of reference wrt the A frame of reference?

Geistkiesel ​

 

[geistkiesel]

Question: May The measured AB relative velocity be improved by successive changes of direction and lowering the speed (.01, .001, .0001, .00001 units etc) of the B frame of reference wrt the A frame of reference?

This is my simplest yet, and no one appears ready willing and abel to bite?

Geistkiesel

 

[James R]

The B inertial frame was initially located on the A inertial frame and was launched into space moving along side the A frame with zero observed relative velocity (Vab = 0), initially.

Next the B frame began to move oppositely to the A frame of reference at .1 unit velocity wrt A assumed at rest.

So Vba = -0.1

Then the B and the A frames measured the relative velocity of B wrt A and A wrt B (each using ultimate accurate transponders in the x-ray wavelength range) where each measured 9000.10000000 units relative velocity on the first measurement.

But Vba = -0.1 and Vab = 0.1. That's what you said before.

Why would they suddenly measure Vab = 9000.1?

Question: May The measured AB relative velocity be improved by successive changes of direction and lowering the speed (.01, .001, .0001, .00001 units etc) of the B frame of reference wrt the A frame of reference?

No idea what you're asking.

 

[superluminal]

What lack of imagination leads these people to be absolutely unable to realize that any scheme they come up with for an "absolute" velocity measurement, can be completely encapsulated in a new single frame, moving at some new arbitrary velocity? And that since all of the variables used in their scheme are self referential or locally referenced yields a completely meaningless result?

This is simple childrens logic.

 

[superluminal]

Geist,

Think. Any simple sum and difference arithmetic you come up with can have a constant added to both sides such that the arithmetic is still valid, but the entire equation is now zooming off to the left (that's encapsulating the frame).

Sheesh!

 

[geistkiesel]

So Vba = -0.1



But Vba = -0.1 and Vab = 0.1. That's what you said before.

Why would they suddenly measure Vab = 9000.1?



No idea what you're asking.

I hope this clears up what I said in my original post in this thread. Your use of Vab and Vba is misplaced here (above). The .1 unit (of B) was measured as an an absolute velocity wrt A.

Geistkiesel

 

[geistkiesel]

Geist,

Think. Any simple sum and difference arithmetic you come up with can have a constant added to both sides such that the arithmetic is still valid, but the entire equation is now zooming off to the left (that's encapsulating the frame).

Sheesh!

So don't concern yourself with the problem then; go onto better things and leave me alone.

 

[superluminal]

No.

 

[superluminal]

Geist:

...absolute velocity wrt A.

Absolute velocity with respect to A. How do you do that? Absolute means you are measuring against some reference that is the same for the entire universe. A is moving... How fast?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Hi Geist !

An observer on the A inertial frame intends to measure the absolute velocity of the A frame. The A inertial frame had been accelerated from the planet earth measured at 9000 units of velocity.

Would the observer on A be allowed to bounce a radar (or similar) beam off of the earth to measure the 9000 units?

The B inertial frame was initially located on the A inertial frame and was launched into space moving along side the A frame with zero observed relative velocity (Vab = 0), initially.

Next the B frame began to move oppositely to the A frame of reference at .1 unit velocity wrt A assumed at rest. Then the B and the A frames measured the relative velocity of B wrt A and A wrt B (each using ultimate accurate transponders in the x-ray wavelength range) where each measured 9000.10000000 units relative velocity on the first measurement.

Egads! Do you propose that by bouncing x-rays back and forth between A and B that the reading would be 9000.1 instead of the expected 0.1? Why is it that a reflected radar beam would only read 0.1?

Wouldn't the earth have to be hit by the beam in order to obtain either 9000 or 9000.1 units?

Question: May The measured AB relative velocity be improved by successive changes of direction and lowering the speed (.01, .001, .0001, .00001 units etc) of the B frame of reference wrt the A frame of reference?

Geistkiesel

I think the readings would be .01, .001, .0001, etc. and not 9000.01, 9000.001, 9000.0001, etc.

Now you are considering a series where the B coordinates are approaching the A coordinates in the sense that eventually they are esentially the same. Why not just bounce the X-rays off of the A frame in the first place, and due away with the B frame entirely?

PS:
I prefer your other theory, the "photon emission point = Vabsolute" theory, but I am working on a light model that might surprise you. It has to do with the trajectory of photons. :m:

 

[Billy T]

Hi Geist and Congratulations!

I like your new title. I think it is a step forward for you. Definitely an "improvement," but I think it is you, not your method, which seems to be very much like your original "C was co-moving with A, then accelerated to co-move with B" deriviation of "absolute speed", not your two photons going from point "P" method.

I say you are "improving" because in the title, you assert: "relative velocity equivalent to the absolute {velocity}" If these two are truly "equivalent" then you are also asserting: "absolute {velocity is} equivalent to relative velocity."

Because there are some active in this forum who do not believe this, (for a long time I thought you were one), I suggest you slightly change the new name assigned to "relative velocity", to avoid confusion. Make it read:

"Geist's absolute {velocity is} equivalent to relative velocity." Then it will be more clear that you are no longer claiming that there exist absolute velocity, as most understand this term, or an associated absolute rest frame, (one in which the absloute velocity is zero).

You are only giving a new name to "relative velocity" - If this is what you are now doing, congratualtions on your "improvement." I agree. - A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I.e. all that exists is what most of us call "relative velocity," but if you want to refer to this rose as "GAV" (Geist Absolute Velocity) you surely can, but try to not confuse readers by occasionally admitting that GAV is just your "equivalent" name for what most call "relative velocity."

PS I will miss your color drawings.

 

[James R]

The .1 unit (of B) was measured as an an absolute velocity wrt A.

If it's with respect to A, it isn't absolute, because with respect to B or Q or W it might be different.

You really need to be more careful. When you say "absolute", be sure you mean "relative to the absolute standard of rest".

 

[geistkiesel]

Hi Geist and Congratulations!

I like your new title. I think it is a step forward for you. Definitely an "improvement," but I think it is you, not your method, which seems to be very much like your original "C was co-moving with A, then accelerated to co-move with B" deriviation of "absolute speed", not your two photons going from point "P" method.

I say you are "improving" because in the title, you assert: "relative velocity equivalent to the absolute {velocity}" If these two are truly "equivalent" then you are also asserting: "absolute {velocity is} equivalent to relative velocity."

You like my new title? What is that? I must read on musn't I?
You must be very careful before you go spreading your frames around and equating this and that. I have said, at least by implication, in another thread and here, that the the relative velocity in one frame can be measured as the absolute velocity of another inertial frame. Wow, so what? This scares you?

I think it rather strange that such attention be given to the opening post in this thread. Such a plethora of attention by so many to what is a silly experimental claim isn't it? But you saw the single frame burst into a measured absolute velocity didn't you? The use of the two probes I mean? This fixed the 'broken' original post didn't kit?

Because there are some active in this forum who do not believe this, (for a long time I thought you were one), I suggest you slightly change the new name assigned to "relative velocity", to avoid confusion. Make it read:

"Geist's absolute {velocity is} equivalent to relative velocity." Then it will be more clear that you are no longer claiming that there exist absolute velocity, as most understand this term, or an associated absolute rest frame, (one in which the absloute velocity is zero).

You are only giving a new name to "relative velocity" - If this is what you are now doing, congratualtions on your "improvement." I agree. - A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I.e. all that exists is what most of us call "relative velocity," but if you want to refer to this rose as "GAV" (Geist Absolute Velocity) you surely can, but try to not confuse readers by occasionally admitting that GAV is just your "equivalent" name for what most call "relative velocity."

PS I will miss your color drawings.

There you go Billy T, coloring your lack of understanding with more made up prose disguised in scientific robes.

I have denmonstrated that the the relative velocity expression Va + Vb = Vab is made up of real absiolute velocties Va and Vb that sum tio the relative velocity as measured, i.e. Vab. When using a third frame of reference I showed that wrt Vac then, this Vac = Vc, the increase in relative velocity was identical to the decrease in the relaltive velocity Vcb. And that this value Vac = Vc when Va = 0. The Vc here is in the Vac frame and when the Vc = Vb the Vc is in the Vcb frame.
So keep your story straight, you aren't confusing many of the readers, Billy T, so chill; but then you aren't in this for the science discussion are you?

I defined absolute velocity because that was a phrase dumped on me, so ok absolute velolcity as measured in the Va + Vb = Vab frame, teh va and Vb are measured absolute velcotites wrt each other. You put the embarrassing Velocity = zero where you please.

Go drink a warm glass of milk and take a long nap Billy T , you've earned it.

Geistkiesel​