The relativistic velocity addition formula: A graphical solution

1991 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 524-526
Author(s):  
Robert W. Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Addition Formula ◽  
Graphical Solution ◽  
Velocity Addition

A pedagogical note on the relativistic velocity addition formula

1999 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 369-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Dibble ◽  
Grant W. Hart ◽  
Harold T. Stokes
Keyword(s):  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Addition Formula ◽  
Velocity Addition

A More Intuitive Version of the Lorentz Velocity Addition Formula

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 442-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Devlin
Keyword(s):  
Addition Formula ◽  
Velocity Addition

The four basic errors of special theory of relativity and the solution offered by extended Galilean relativity

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shukri Klinaku
Keyword(s):  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Addition Formula ◽  
Principle Of Relativity ◽  
Galilean Relativity ◽  
Velocity Addition ◽  
Basic Equations ◽  
Tycho Brahe

Is the special theory of relativity (STR) a “simple” or “tricky” theory? They who think that it is a simple theory say (i) that its postulates are simple, that Nature is such, (ii) that the mathematics of STR is perfect, and (iii) that experiments support it. I consider its two postulates to be very true, whereas the mathematics of the STR has a shortcoming, and, as for the experiments, the question must be posed: which theory do they support best? The problem for STR lies in the transition from its postulates to its basic equations, i.e., Lorentz transformation and the velocity addition formula. The passage from the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light to the basic equations of the STR is affected by four fundamental errors—three physical and one mathematical. Continuous attempts to reconcile these latent mistakes have made STR increasingly tricky. As a result, it is in a similar situation to Ptolemy's geocentric model after “improvements” thereto by Tycho Brahe. However, the “Copernican solution” for relative motion—offered by extended Galilean relativity—is very simple and effective.

Recasting the Lorentz Velocity Addition Formula

2010 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
John Mallinckrodt
Keyword(s):  
Addition Formula ◽  
Velocity Addition

scholarly journals Alternative proofs for Kocik’s geometric diagram for relativistic velocity addition

2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-130
Author(s):  
Amol Sasane ◽  
Victor Ufnarovski
Keyword(s):  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Velocity Addition ◽  
Geometric Diagram

From Pappus to Kocik’s diagram for relativistic velocity addition

2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-38
Author(s):  
Gerhard Wanner
Keyword(s):  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Velocity Addition

VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOMAS PRECESSION

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
SURATNA DAS ◽  
SUBHENDRA MOHANTY
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Group ◽  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Thomas Precession ◽  
Spin Orbital ◽  
Interesting Observation ◽  
Velocity Addition ◽  
Very Special Relativity ◽  
Spin Orbital Coupling

Glashow and Cohen make the interesting observation that certain proper subgroups of the Lorentz group like HOM(2) or SIM(2) can explain many results of special relativity like time dilation, relativistic velocity addition and a maximal isotropic speed of light. We show here that such SIM(2) and HOM(2) based VSR theories predict an incorrect value for the Thomas precession and are therefore ruled out by observations. In VSR theories the spin-orbital coupling in atoms turn out to be too large by a factor of 2. The Thomas–BMT equation derived from VSR predicts a precession of electrons and muons in storage rings which is too large by a factor of 103. VSR theories are therefore ruled out by observations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document