- 29,089
- 20,712
Including velocity/speed.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well of course , everything is in relation / Relative to the Observer .
Including velocity/speed.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well of course , everything is in relation / Relative to the Observer .
...and not relative to "space". So you agree that you are not measuring "speed through space", you are measuring speed relative to something?FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well of course , everything is in relation / Relative to the Observer .
Well , all Measurements are done in an instant of Time . So everything is virtually "at rest" / "frozen in time" at the moment of measurement .Ibix said:You can use a ruler. But you picked the ruler to be at rest when you did.
How were you planning on recording where something was without using a ruler, or a radar set or something? That's the question you need to answer.
If the object is somewhere else at a later time, then it has a non-zero average velocity in your frame of reference. That's the definition of velocity, which by definition is relative to some reference frame or observer.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well , all Measurements are done in an instant of Time . So everything is virtually "at rest" / "frozen in time" at the moment of measurement .
FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well , all Measurements are done in an instant of Time . So everything is virtually "at rest" / "frozen in time" at the moment of measurement .
You seem to be confusing yourself. You are explicitly using a measurement over time here, as you must, but denying that it's a measurement because it isn't at an instant (?).FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Can't you measure an objects location in space at one Time , to its next location after x amount of time ??
Both. As has already been mentioned in this thread, velocities never simply add. They have to be composed using the relativistic formula for velocity addition:FRANKENSTEIN54 said:I guess what I'm getting at is , it seems people ADD their speed towards the bullet to arrive at the "Relative speed" of the bullet ! Which is fine . But they DON'T ADD their speed towards the Light to arrive at the "Relative speed" of Light !???? So , which is it ?
Worked example: 70mph is approximately 30m/s, or ##10^{-7}c##. Two cars heading towards each other and each travelling at 70mph relative to the ground, then, do not see each other closing at 140mph, but at 139.9999999999996mph (if I've counted the nines correctly). That is, as Orodruin said, a far smaller error than could be measured, which is why just adding velocities works at low speeds.Orodruin said:We can add small velocities because the correction to that addition are vanishingly small and typically will be within measurement errors. However, for ##v=c## the result is always ##v’=c##.
According to the theory of special relativity, the notion of an "instant in time" is less absolute than one might suppose. One does not have an arbitrary "moment in time". Instead, one has an arbitrary hyper-plane of simultaneity.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well , all Measurements are done in an instant of Time
By that definition relativity makes sense. See here for a summary of many of the observations it matches:FRANKENSTEIN54 said:If it matches observation , then I would say it "makes sense"
Any inertial reference frame can measure these in its coordinate time and space. Other inertial reference frames will disagree.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Can't you measure an objects location in space at one Time , to its next location after x amount of time ??
Only if you are willing to ignore the tiny disagreements that different inertial reference frames would have.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:So you're measuring it Relative to its original location , and basically irrelevant to your location or motion after x amount of time . As you say , bullet relative speed is very slow compared to light . So yes , slow movements towards bullet " add up" .
FRANKENSTEIN54 said:But since light already travels really fast , then "slow" movements towards light would also be a difference so small that "nobody would notice" as you said concerning "simple addition of speeds" . I guess what I'm getting at is , it seems people ADD their speed towards the bullet to arrive at the "Relative speed" of the bullet ! Which is fine .
Light already travels at the maximum speed that exists in the geometry of SR spacetime. You can not add any speed to it.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:But they DON'T ADD their speed towards the Light to arrive at the "Relative speed" of Light !????
Nothing is "absolute" in measuring velocity. All times and distances depend on what inertial reference frame is being used.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:So , which is it ? The bullet & the light are still moving at an "absolute" constant speed towards you
If only a long-time appreciated member of PF would put something about this in their signature so we didn’t have to repeat it over and over!jbriggs444 said:According to the theory of special relativity, the notion of an "instant in time" is less absolute than one might suppose. One does not have an arbitrary "moment in time". Instead, one has an arbitrary hyper-plane of simultaneity.
If you work through the math you find that there can be only one invariant speed, c. So going c with respect to one observer is the same as going at c with respect to any and all observers.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Why would the bullet have to move at speed c , before all observers , regardless of their speed relative to each other , would observe/measure its speed to be c ?
Note that picking a “point A in space” involves more than identifying a single point out of a 3D space. You have to identify that point at each moment in time, and do so in a continuous fashion. So point A in space is a location at each point in time. That gives A a four-velocity, and recall that speed requires two four-velocities. So yes, it is sufficient to identify a point A, but it actually gives more structure than what is needed.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Well , all speed is relative to some point in space/time . An object moving from point A in space to point B in space , would have a "speed through space" .
For both light and bullets at any speed you use the relativistic velocity addition formula. The rule is the same for every object, it is just different from the Newtonian approach.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:I guess what I'm getting at is , it seems people ADD their speed towards the bullet to arrive at the "Relative speed" of the bullet ! Which is fine . But they DON'T ADD their speed towards the Light to arrive at the "Relative speed" of Light !???? So , which is it ?
This is not correct and you are already aware of this. Please do not continue to repeat it.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:The bullet & the light are still moving at an "absolute" constant speed towards you
Orodruin said:If only a long-time appreciated member of PF would put something about this in their signature so we didn’t have to repeat it over and over!![]()
If you are at rest Relative to the source that fires a bullet directly towards you , and it attains a constant speed of 600 mph towards you while you remain at rest . If you then move directly towards the bullet , does the bullet itself then gain speed relative to its source ? I think not . Relative to you moving towards the bullet , then I guess you can say it's speed Relative to you is faster than 600 mph . 600 + your speed .Dale said:If you work through the math you find that there can be only one invariant speed, c. So going c with respect to one observer is the same as going at c with respect to any and all observers.
Note that picking a “point A in space” involves more than identifying a single point out of a 3D space. You have to identify that point at each moment in time, and do so in a continuous fashion. So point A in space is a location at each point in time. That gives A a four-velocity, and recall that speed requires two four-velocities. So yes, it is sufficient to identify a point A, but it actually gives more structure than what is needed.
For both light and bullets at any speed you use the relativistic velocity addition formula. The rule is the same for every object, it is just different from the Newtonian approach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
This is not correct and you are already aware of this. Please do not continue to repeat it.
So , throw all Clocks out the window into the " hyper plane of simultaneity" ???Orodruin said:If only a long-time appreciated member of PF would put something about this in their signature so we didn’t have to repeat it over and over!![]()
Because you don't add velocities ever. See post #57.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:When Light is travelling directly towards you , why don't you ADD your speed towards the light , to the speed of light , to calculate the Relative speed of the light towards you ???
There are several assumptions there that you don't notice you are making - because they seem so obvious to you. To be fair, that's what everyone thought must be case until 1905, when Einstein published the paper on SR. In fact, the introduction to the 1905 paper goes into detail to explain all the assumptions you are making about space, time and measurements of distance and time. And why something important is being missed.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:If you are at rest Relative to the source that fires a bullet directly towards you , and it attains a constant speed of 600 mph towards you while you remain at rest . If you then move directly towards the bullet , does the bullet itself then gain speed relative to its source ? I think not . Relative to you moving towards the bullet , then I guess you can say it's speed Relative to you is faster than 600 mph . 600 + your speed .
You only get / calculate that relative speed because you ADD your speed to its speed .
When Light is travelling directly towards you , why don't you ADD your speed towards the light , to the speed of light , to calculate the Relative speed of the light towards you ??? Resulting in c + your speed , as the Relative speed of light towards you ??? Why change the Mathematical equation for determining Relative speed of the bullet from the light ? Isn't Speed calculated by Distance of object travelled per Time elapsed ?
FRANKENSTEIN54 said:When Light is travelling directly towards you , why don't you ADD your speed towards the light , to the speed of light , to calculate the Relative speed of the light towards you ??? Resulting in c + your speed , as the Relative speed of light towards you ???
FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Why change the Mathematical equation for determining Relative speed of the bullet from the light ?
Yes. But neither time nor distance are the same for different observers.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:Isn't Speed calculated by Distance of object travelled per Time elapsed ?
Maybe I'm not being clear enough . Let's see if we can simplify it .FactChecker said:Any inertial reference frame can measure these in its coordinate time and space. Other inertial reference frames will disagree.
Only if you are willing to ignore the tiny disagreements that different inertial reference frames would have.
Light already travels at the maximum speed that exists in the geometry of SR spacetime. You can not add any speed to it.
Nothing is "absolute" in measuring velocity. All times and distances depend on what inertial reference frame is being used.
No, it is wrong. See post #57 for the correct calculation and the explanation of why simply adding low velocities almost works, and post #58 for a worked example.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:I measure the speed of the bullet Relative to Me to be 800mph . Is that correct ?
If Einstein was wrong about relativity in the first place, then why would you trust ##E = mc^2##? That makes no sense. My last thought on this is to refer you to Dunning and Kruger:FRANKENSTEIN54 said:After all , Einstein himself , in his famous Equation >>> E=Mc2 , uses the "speed of light Squared" !!!???
Now , that's WAY Faster than the speed of light "c" !!!!!!!!!!
No, of course not. Clocks work just fine.FRANKENSTEIN54 said:So , throw all Clocks out the window into the " hyper plane of simultaneity" ???