- #1

- 257

- 4

- Thread starter Quarlep
- Start date

- #1

- 257

- 4

- #2

- 32,949

- 11,438

Yes.we have a observer O and two objects A and B a speed is 0.5c and B speed is 0.3c than we can calculate other relative speed acoording to these informations

We know that (according this info B sees A going to 4/17c

[Edit: the above was incorrect.]

Why can't we ask B? B is an observer just like O and A; there's no reason why he can't directly measure A's speed relative to him.but we can pretty sure thats true because we cant ask. him

The SR rules for velocity addition have not been extensively tested with macroscopic objects, true. But SR in general has been very extensively tested, and the results would make no sense if the SR rule for velocity addition were not true, since it forms a consistent part of the whole theoretical framework of SR.How can O predict this speed or he know that theres special relativity and nothing is really what it seem.

Last edited:

- #3

Nugatory

Mentor

- 13,243

- 6,125

They have, however, been tested. Google for "Fizeau velocity addition".The SR rules for velocity addition have not been extensively testedwith macroscopic objects, true.

(PeterDonis knows this already, of course - this comment is for Quarlep).

- #4

ghwellsjr

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,122

- 146

You better get a new calculator. 0.5-0.3 is 0.2 not 0.15. The OP was correct.I calculate 3/17 for the speed of A relative to B (assuming they are both moving in the same direction relative to O):

$$

v_{AB} = \frac{v_A - v_B}{1 - v_A v_B} = \frac{0.5 - 0.3}{1 - 0.5 * 0.3} = \frac{0.15}{0.85} = \frac{3}{17}

$$

- #5

- 257

- 4

- #6

- 7,397

- 6,483

Correct. The velocity addition formula can be derived directly from the Lorentz transforms, which by definition don't allow anything moving below the speed of light to reach or exceed it.

- #7

- 32,949

- 11,438

Oops, you're right! I multiplied instead of subtracted.You better get a new calculator. 0.5-0.3 is 0.2 not 0.15. The OP was correct.

- #8

ghwellsjr

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,122

- 146

Blame it on the calculator!!! Those buttons are so close together.Oops, you're right! I multiplied instead of subtracted.

- #9

- 32,949

- 11,438

Unfortunately I did this one in my head...Blame it on the calculator!!! Those buttons are so close together.

- #10

- 16,738

- 7,425

Uh ... are the parts too close together? :D You could blame it on your hat.Unfortunately I did this one in my head...

- #11

- 441

- 8

You can check it yourself by substituting 1 for either of the values.

- #12

- 32,949

- 11,438

Not wearing one. I appreciate the effort to salvage my self-esteem, though. ;)Uh ... are the parts too close together? :D You could blame it on your hat.

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 35

- Views
- 7K

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 186

- Views
- 15K

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 16K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 30

- Views
- 6K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 447

- Last Post

- Replies
- 23

- Views
- 4K