if you looking for the answer "more than the speed of" i think it is, by a theory i made the speed of light is not constant and result of the theory of relativity is special case of my theory 

Dear Daniele,

By definition, the relative speed is the speed of one object in the frame of reference of another object. That is, another object must have its synchronized clocks and rulers.

If we consider a third system of reference in which both objects are moving with velocities V1 and V2, measured by its clocks and rulers, according to these values, it is possible to find the relative velocity V, only if we have a coordinate transformations, different in different theories.

Therefore, the Formula for relative velocity depends on the considered theory.

Galileo: V= V1 + V2;

Ritz: V= V1 + V2;

Einstein: V= (V1 + V2)/(1+ V1V2/C2)

Seth: V= (V1 + V2)/(1- (V1/C)2) if V1 and V2 are the absolute velocities of these objects;

Absolute: V= (V1 + V2)/(1- (V1/C)2) if V1 and V2 are the absolute velocities of these objects.

Уважаемый Daniele,

По определению,  относительная скорость - это скорость одного объекта в системе отсчета другого объекта. То есть, у другого объекта должны быть свои синхронизированные часы и линейки.

Если мы рассматриваем третью систему отсчета, в которой оба объекта движутся со скоростями V1 и V2, измеренными по ее часам и линейкам, то по этим величинам можно найти относительную скорость V, только если мы имеем преобразования координат, разные в разных теориях.

Поэтому Формула относительной скорости зависит от рассматриваемой теории.

Галилей: V= V1 + V2;

Ритц:  V= V1 + V2;

Эйнштейн: V= (V1 + V2)/(1+ V1V2/с2)

СЭТ: V= (V1 + V2)/(1- (V1/с)2), если V1 и V2 – абсолютные скорости этих объектов;

Абсолют: V= (V1 + V2)/(1- (V1/с)2), если V1 и V2 – абсолютные скорости этих объектов.

Daniele,

see attached.

Cheers

Firstly I wish to thank researcher colleagues who have contributed with their answers to the question. As per different comments we can deduce the question concerning the relative speed of two particle beams accelerated, for instance, at the speed of 250000Km/s with respect to the reference frame of the accelerator, presents three different answers deriving from three groups of theories:

1. Group of "postmodern theories" based on the Einsteinian relativity. In this group the relative speed of two beams, in the considered case, is given by vr=0.984c. If instead we consider a speed of 280000km/s for every beam, we have a relative speed given by 0.998c.

2. Group of "neoclassical theories" based on the Newtonian-Lorentzian classical theory. In this group the relative speed, in concordance with the Alexander C. theoretical formula, is given by vr=5.38c. If the speed of every beam is 280000km/s the relative speed is 14.36c.

3. Group of "contemporary theories" based on the Galilean relativity. In this group the relative speed is vr=1.67c for the speed of every beam of 250000km/s. If instead the speed of every beam is 280000km/s with respect to the reference frame of accelerator  the relative speed is 1.87c.

From my viewpoint we have no theoretical element in order to determine the group of theories that is right. In these cases, differently from philosophy and mathematics, physics trusts to the only method that distinguishes physics from other activities of human mind: the experimental verification. For what I know no direct measure of that relative speed has been executed and all measures in accelerators are always indirect measures that make use of a group of theories. On this account those measures are unable to specify the right group of theories. In all accelerators of the world normally the group of postmodern theories is used as per a theoretical choise that has rather the value of a profession of faith that a scientific act.

Daniele,

“…we have no theoretical element in order to determine the group of theories that is right...” [in the case of different speed definitions]

– that isn’t so. Again – all material objects are always moving in the absolute 4D “Cartesian” spacetime only with the speed of light. “Massive” objects if are at rest relating to the absolute 3D space are moving along [coordinate] time axis with the speed of light. After a spatial impact they move in the 3D space also, correspondingly, as that Pythagoras said, they slow down the temporal speed in 1/gamma times; since the moving in time means changing of internal state  of the object, its internal state changes slower in 1/gamma times;

if an object is a clock – the clock dilates its tick rate in 1/gamma times.

Photons are moving in the 3D space only; if an object is a photon, then, if a photon is radiated by some moving in the 3D space light source with a speed V, the photon’s speed will not be equal to V+c, it remains be equal to c. Any attempt to add a speed to the speed of photons results only in changing of photons’ frequency. Just the same happens with “massive” particles, an attempt to add a speed to the speed of  such particle results in changing of particle’s [de Brogile] frequency, a difference is only that a massive particle can change its speed, but the more speed the more particle becomes be similar to photon..

And Nature is made so, that just the “relativistic” formulae for speeds addition is true in the sense that (1) – it corresponds to the requirement “V is always lesser then c”; and  (2) -  what is more important – only speeds values that are obtained by using this formulae give true results at calculation in the dynamics in most cases, i.e. – calculations of values of energies, momentums, etc. at objects interactions.

Though that by any means doesn’t mean that the Lorentz transformations are totally true, first of all – the SR is principally inconsistent theory, because of it postulates the absence of the absolute 4D (and Euclidian) spacetime. It is practically totally correct if a (investigated) system of material objects constitutes a rigid system. But for technical applications this point in most cases isn’t essential  – for example on Earth  “the rigidity”  is practically always provided at least by Earth gravity.

But for a system of free objects the Lorentz transformations don’t work and, for example, it becomes be possible to measure of the absolute speed of the system – again see http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190  .

 Cheers

Valentin,

“…That statement is quite confusing…”

- read the SS posts more attentively, in the post above it is written “…“Massive” objects if are at rest relating to the absolute 3D space…” 

And some remark:  “…They are similar concepts, but I prefer the concept of ARF to the one of absolute space…”

 - the [3D] absolute space (more correct – 4D absolute spacetime) and ARF are physically quite different things. The spacetime is some “empty container” (for Space and Time as the possibilities), when any “reference frame” is by definition some system of an observer and observer’s set of specially (say, in accordance with some theory) arranged (i.e. with defined by some way length measurement unity) rules  and with specially synchronized clocks (with defined by some way time intervals measurement unity).

Cheers

Valentin,

I can only agree that I used a jargon in the last posts; in the reality any “massive” material object always is moving along ct-axis; if the object is at rest relating to the 3D space, it (since all material objects are continuously moving in the 4D spacetime with the speed of light, any object cannot 4D stop because of the energy conversation law), it moves along this axis with the speed of light; etc.

To understand this point is first of all necessary to understand – what is Time, what is Space,  (for Matter  - since physics studies Matter; in other cases, for example for Consciousness these notions differs from those for Matter)  and what is the speed of material object in the spacetime. Answers on these questions are in a number of RG threads and at least viXra links in the threads.

Cheers

Sergey,  I read your paper and it seems to me that you accept Newtonian concepts of absolute space and absolute time, that were not accepted by Einstein, but it seems also to me that you accept Lorentz's Transformations according to Einstein that nevertheless have a different physical meaning from the same transformations according to Lorentz. I see in this paper of yours a profound consciousness, i.e. the persuasion that something in the present physics isn't convincing and therefore I appreciate your attempt of solving that contradiction. I am not independent relative to this question and therefore certainly I am unable to assess your paper.

Anyway I would want to do some consideration. Your statement "since all material objects are continuously moving in the 4D spacetime with the speed of light" claims substantially in 4D spacetime only the speed of light is possible. Then I ask if that 4D spacetime represents actually nature where countless speeds are observable. Another statement says " the more speed the more particle becomes be similar to photon" doesn't consider massive particles are charged while photon is neutral. Addition of a speed v to the physical speed of photon isn't a physical fact but a relativistic fact. This fact, relative to the change of frequency, represents the relativistic Doppler effect. My considerations aren't a denial of your work but an invitation to the critical argumentation.

Daniele,

- to more comprehensive answer on your questions is necessary to read also at least http://viXra.org/abs/1503.0077  , and – to more understand this paper,  the paper http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173    .

So let we accept as something well grounded that: (1) – Matter (because of the energy conversation law) evolves non- interruptedly in the 4D spacetime; at that in depth Matter is some logical system – a huge “computer”, more correctly – a huge number of relatively independent automata that   non- interruptedly change their states. In Matter there are two basic types of changes – an automaton changes its internal state and the automaton changes its position in the space. Any change is a logical transition and both changes are so rather similar; at that any elementary transition in the 4D spacetime is a change in the spacetime, at that changes of internal states is motion in the time (along the ct-axis of the spacetime).

Matter-computer is very rigorous logical system and runs under a few rigorous rules, including – it runs with highly stable operation rate – so all changing of any material object are, in certain sense, identical – or all material objects always and non- interruptedly move in the 4D spacetime with identical (by the module, as vectors all speeds are of course different) speeds.

“… that 4D spacetime represents actually nature…” – the spacetime isn’t a “nature”, that is logical possibility for Matter’s elements to change – some “empty [“logical”] container”. But seems that this container indeed is filled by a dense lattice – some 4D chess board - of some primary logical elements that are base for material particles also; where all particles move as pawns – [elementary] step by step. So it is very possible that in this board any other speeds cannot be realized.

So “…where countless [different by module] speeds are observable” – that is very possibly not – see above.

“…Addition of a speed v to the physical speed of photon isn't a physical fact but a relativistic fact. This fact, relative to the change of frequency, represents the relativistic Doppler effect.”

– that isn’t in certain sense so. Yea, when in most of textbooks the formulae for Doppler effect is  obtained, authors (including orthodox relativists) use the “principally non-relativistic” method – they add some (say, - a source’s) speed to the speed of light, including obtain at that the speed more then c. But that is simply more convenient method (and an example when the “the closing speed” and “the speed of runaway” (see first SS post attached) are useful)  aimed at to obtain the Doppler effect formulae. But physically all is interaction of light/a receiver (/ a source) of light when these objects exchange by momentums, at that the relative (in Lorentz sense!) speed “a source [of light] - a receiver of light” and the speed of light itself are always lesser then c/ equal to c.

An example – let in some fast moving [relating to the absolute space] wagon, in the wagon’s middle a flash of, say – green, light, happens. In the space the light that moves ahead will be blue (photons’ momentums are more then for green ones), since moving lamp transmitted to photons [which move in the space with the speed of light only] some momentum; light moving back will be red, since the momentums are subtracted. At that in both ends of the wagon observers will see green light, since changing of photons’ momentums are subtracted/added with observers’ momentums when observers see the light (which in reality is blue or red) correspondingly.

Cheers

Dear Daniele,

The experiment may not always show the difference between the theories. For example, in my theory units of length and time have  otherwise determinations , as here the speed of light depends on the absolute velocity V of the Earth and on the direction of light relative to the vector V. Therefore, the recalculation of the experimental results from one theory to another will give a coincidence with the theory in the case that the light source is moved along the vector V and beam of light has the same direction . We need to have a rotated beam of light to detect a difference with my theory.  And such experiments were performed, and they showed the difference of reality and SRT, and they showed the coincidence of reality with my theory. For example, see

PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, October 2006, Volume 4, p.73-92,  Reginald T. Cahill

 A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected; or

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS16.pdf

 ---

Уважаемый Даниэле!

Эксперимент не всегда может показать различие между теориями.  Например, в моей теории иначе определяются единицы измерения длины и времени, так как здесь скорость света зависит от абсолютной скорости V Земли, и от направления света относительно вектора V. Поэтому пересчет результатов эксперимента из одной теории в другую даст совпадение с теорией в случае, если источник света двигался вдоль вектора V и туда же направлен луч света. Для обнаружения разницы с моей теорией необходимо поворачивать луч света. А такие эксперименты ставились, и они показали отличие реальности от СТО, и они показали совпадение реальности с моей теорией. Например, см. PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, October 2006, Volume 4, p.73-92,  Reginald T. Cahill

 A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected; or

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS16.pdf

Dear Sergey,

«And Nature is made so, that just the “relativistic” formulae for speeds addition is true in the sense that (1) – it corresponds to the requirement “V is always lesser then c”; and  (2) -  what is more important – only speeds values that are obtained by using this formulae give true results at calculation in the dynamics in most cases, i.e. – calculations of values of energies, moments, etc. at objects interactions.”

No! Nature didn't do that!

Only the people blame in it, that they came up with these postulates, which led to the property of relative simultaneity. And only in the mid 20th century Landau proved that the property of relative simultaneity prohibits to synchronize clocks on a rotating circle. Although without this property, a such clock synchronization is easy to do. The nature of such blunders can't commit, to her simultaneous events on a rotating circle are possible, therefore, any theory that corresponds to the Nature, must have the quality of absolute simultaneity, but not a property of relative simultaneity. Thus, the Theory of relativity can only work in those conditions when it is possible to build a reference systems, in which the axioms of relativity can run, i.e., only for collinear velocities of the reference systems. In other conditions the theory of relativity (STR and GR) not applicable. (If only approximately.)

---

Уважаемый Sergey!

«И природа сделала так, что только “релятивистской” формулы сложения скоростей является истинным в том смысле, что (1) – она соответствует требованию “с V всегда меньше С”; и (2) - что для вас важнее – только значения скоростей, полученные с помощью этой формулы дают достоверные результаты при расчете в динамике в большинстве случаев, т. е. – расчеты значений энергии, количества движения и др. на объекты взаимодействия.»

Нет! Природа такого не делала!

В этом виноваты только люди, это они придумали  такие постулаты, которые привели к свойству относительной одновременности. И только в середине 20 века Ландау доказал, что свойство относительной одновременности запрещает синхронизировать часы на вращающейся окружности. Хотя без этого свойства такую синхронизацию часов сделать легко. Природа такое промашки не может совершать, в ней одновременные события на вращающейся окружности возможны, следовательно, любая теория, соответствующая Природе, должна иметь свойство абсолютной одновременности, но не свойство относительной одновременности. Таким образом, Теория относительности может работать только в тех условиях, когда возможно построить системы отсчета, в которых могут выполняться аксиомы относительности, то есть, только для коллинеарных скоростей систем отсчета. В других условиях теория относительности (STR и GR) не применима. (Если только достаточно приблизительно.)

Dear researcher colleagues,

I think all confusion existing in present physics derives also from lack of an unitary scientific language, for which it happens often that we use the same words for indicating different concepts and it generates confusion, misinterpretations and lack of understanding. I see it happens for instance with the concept of relativity. There are many different concepts of relativity: Galilean relativity, Newtonian relativity, Maxwell's relativity, Lorentz's relativity, Einsteinian relativity. There are then many other ideas about relativity that from my viewpoint is the most overused concept in physics. Today the Einsteinian concept  of relativity is predominant among academic institutions and cultural associations  that disregard  our discussion on reference frames, inertial reference frames, absolute reference frame, privileged reference frame, relative speed, etc.. For them the scientific truth is the Einsteinian relativity and there isn't discussion, unless for few enlightened scientists. But those who think the Einsteinian relativity isn't the definitive theory are unable to find a common scientific position and it is a great problem for the future of physics. Everybody thinks he is right and all remains firm. For instance I think Galilean relativity has to be always the point of starting for every discussion about relativity and then it is possible to examine why other concepts of relativity were born and how they are in concordance or in disagreement with that concept.

Valentin, (and Alexander, Daniele, though)

“…Sergey, there is no such thing as ct-axis in the Universe. That ct-axis, as well as the 4D spacetime, is an abstract construction. At best it can be used to describe motions…”

- that you will claim till you don’t ask himself – what is the notion “motion of material object”?; and till you don’t understand – what that is (it is a change of the object’s state - a logical transition, when in Matter changes of object’s spatial position and changes of internal state of the object are essentially equivalent). As to the 4D Matter’s spacetime (and what is the motion in the spacetime) – there are a lot of explanations in a lot of RG threads, when I don’t like to repeat seems rather evident things. So – see, for example post SS for Hugo in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity/20

(and possibly useful SS posts on the next page, besides you is rather active in this link) and in this thread above.

Though seems, nonetheless, useful to repeat the main point: all material objects move in the absolute 4D “Cartesian” Matter’s spacetime with (the absolute value) the speed of light. At that, because of the energy conversation law, every free object, e.g. – a particle - always has the 4D momentum P=mc and the energy E=Pc=mc2, where,  if the particle moves in the 3D space with a speed V,  m=m0/(1-V2/c2)1/2, m0 is the [inertial and gravitational] mass of the particle if it is at rest relating to the 3D space.

If the particle is at rest in the 3D space it moves along ct-axis only and has momentum P0=m0c (E0=P0c=m0c2). I.e. the energy of free particle is totally kinetic energy.

An example: if a gamma-quantum, having energy, say, 2MeV creates in an electric field the pair “electron + positron”, the total “spatial part” of the kinetic energy of the pair is Ek=(2 –1.022) MeV, which they can spend, say, on a heating of a substance, where particles slow down. After the stop in substance the positron finds an electron and annihilates, at that the “temporal” kinetic energy of the annihilated pair transforms into the "spatial" kinetic energy of the (mostly) two gamma quanta with energy 0.511 MeV.

The next step relating to the Matter’s spacetime notion - an understanding that in Matter two times [rules and corresponding intervals] act/exist – “coordinate time” (relates to the changes of internal state of objects only) and “true” (or “absolute”) time, which relates to any changes of objects; the true time isn’t a coordinate of the Matter’s spacetime. At that all interactions between material objects happen only in the 3D space and “in true time” independently on – what temporal coordinates objects have. All material objects always are [simultaneously] in the same true time moment, but at that can have different coordinate times; and so – different temporal coordinates. So – because of an object’s [coordinate] time’s coordinate depends on how fast the objects’ internal states changed before an interactions – at the interaction of some objects their clocks will show different “times” and in this case one can observe some equivalent of the “relativity of the simultaneity” – there is nothing surprising, unusual, etc.  in this point.

But, again – the Lorentz transformations (and the “relativity of the simultaneity”, which follows from this transformation) are valid in very many cases and always if a set of material objects constitutes a rigid system. Rather important examples of such systems are systems where the objects are “rigidly united” by  forces /fields, first of all – electrodynamical  and gravitational. In such cases practically always is possible to arrange an inertial reference frame and an observer, using the frame’s instruments can measure parameters of the system’s objects and correctly calculate future states of the system. So, for example, the SR – since in a hundred of years in this theory rather convenient mathematical formalism was developed – has many technical applications. But it cannot be scientific theory, because of is principally self-inconsistent since reject an existence of the absolute Euclidian 4D spacetime; since postulating that real Matter’s spacetime is the Minkowski (pseudo Riemanian in the GR) space with imaginary coordinates, etc., etc., etc… 

Cheers

In my preceding comment I forgot to quote another important interpretation of relativity that is very appreciated in a few cultural environments: Minkowski's relativity based on Minkowski's metric. In this metric linear element of spacetime is defined by

ds2=dx12 +dx22 +dx32-c2dt2

where dx1, dx2, dx3 are space coordinates in the Euclidean space and cdt is the fourth space coordinate that is related to time. Consequently in Minkowski's 4D metric there are three space coordinates independent of time and a fourth space coordinate dependent on time. It needs to observe in this metric the fourth coordinate has imaginary nature and therefore unreal. Einstein, who was Minkowski's pupil, replaced Minkowski's metric with a different metric in which the linear element is given by

ds2=-dx12 -dx22 -dx32+dt2 

In Einstein's metric the fourth coordinate is effectively a time, but now space coordinates dx1, dx2, dx3 have imaginary nature. Besides in this metric the same linear element ds has at times sizes of imaginary length and sometimes sizes of real time. In both metrics there is a total confusion that is caused only by intention to reach Lorentz's Transformations starting from the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light.

Valentin,

Again – till you aren’t understand – what are the time, space and spacetime in tribal Matter,  you will not understand what are motion, clocks and rules, etc.; and, for example could only believe/ not believe on the SR / GR theories, including in the “discovered” in these theories “time dilation”, “space contraction”, “spacetime curvatures”, etc.

As well as you will meet with other difficulties in physics; for example in “…If you use ct instead of t… ” – there is nothing strange in the “ct”, you can use to measure time  intervals between events  any unity practically – you can graduate your clock in cm and instead of “now 12 o clock” say (let the clock’s pointer has the length 10 cm) “now 31.4 cm o clock”, or – if use a sandglass – “the speed of my car now is 100 km/kg”, etc, etc., etc.

Again – see the links in the SS posts; besides it would be useful the posts:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity/4

(SS post May 1 2015)

and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity/6

(SS post May 2 2015)

Cheers

Daniele,

- a couple remarks to your last post.

- (1) – there is no difference in the SR between “ds2=dx12 +dx22 +dx32-c2dt2” and “ds2=-dx12 -dx22 -dx32+dt2 ”, in this theory both metrics (-1,1,1,1) and (1,-1,-1,-1) are totally equivalent; and

(2) – “…in Minkowski's 4D metric there are three space coordinates independent of time and a fourth space coordinate dependent on time…”

 – that isn’t so. Just because of “discovery” of that the Matter’s spacetime isn’t Newtonian (where space and time are indeed independent on each other), but, as that Minkowski claimed in 1908: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality…” 

- appeared the contemporary version if the special relativity as some theory that “discovered fundamental properties of space and time”.

Cheers

Valentin,

“Sergey, are you saying that nobody understood motion and clocks…” – yea;

“…until 1907 when Minkowski invented "spacetime" based on Poincaré's and Einstein's work?..” – not,

 everybody until 1907[8] (and manybody till now) didn’t and don’t understand what are “motion and clocks”, including – after  the “Minkowski invention” that resulted in the famous  - but bare - declaration that the space and the time in Matter’s spacetime exist as  “only a kind of union of the two”. And, further, just Minkowski invented the magic “inertial reference frames” that transform the spacetime (what further was used by Einstein when he declared transformations of the spacetime by masses and frames) at their motion.

Again (that is in many SS posts)  - notions “Space” and “Time”, including space and time (and the motion in the spacetime) for tribal Matter (and the notion of Matter itself) are Meta-physical (and Meta – mainstream-philosophical) and can be properly defined in “The Information as Absolute” conception only; from the definitions follow many physical applications, including that the Matter’s spacetime is absolute, 4D, “Cartesian”; that Lorentz transformations are only result of two applications of the Pythagorean theorem and work totally only for rigid systems (for free particles/bodies is enough of one application of the theorem), etc. – see the linked SS posts and “The Informational Conception and Basic Physics” in http://viXra.org/abs/1503.0077  or in the RG.

Cheers

Sergey,

it seems to me a little excessive your claim for which the true physics, that explains all,  would be born with Minkowski:

"everybody until 1907[8] (and manybody till now) didn’t and don’t understand what are “motion and clocks”, including – after  the “Minkowski invention” that resulted in the famous  - but bare - declaration that the space and the time in Matter’s spacetime exist as  “only a kind of union of the two”. And, further, just Minkowski invented the magic “inertial reference frames” that transform the spacetime (what further was used by Einstein when he declared transformations of the spacetime by masses and frames) at their motion. "

I would want to remember the Principle of Inertia and the Principle of Relativity are due to Galileo in years between 1610 and 1632. Then there is the great Newtonian physics in which the only error was that to introduce metaphysical concepts of absolute space and absolute time, that may be interesting in metaphysics but they have no importance in physics. And then there is the great physics of thermodynamics and electromagnetism. Certainly Minkowski was an excellent scientist who gave an important contribution to transition from classical physics to modern physics, like a very important contribution was given by Einstein. Now nevertheless we are living another important transition from modern physics to contemporary physics and we have to be aware of that. All in physics is again in discussion and we have to understand what is right to keep and what is better to neglect.  This is also and above all the big mission for young contemporary scientists in order to follow the road of research.

Daniele,

“…it seems to me a little excessive your claim for which the true physics, that explains all ,  would be born with Minkowski...” “…I would want to remember the Principle of Inertia and the Principle of Relativity are due to Galileo…, etc”

- in my post above there is no claims that the true physics was born with Minkowski. All is quite the contrary: “…everybody until 1907[8] (and manybody till now) didn’t and don’t understand what are “motion and clocks”, including – after the “Minkowski invention…etc.”.

The notions “time”, “space”, “clocks”, “motion”, etc. indeed, of course, were known to humans seems all time of humans’ existence, far before Galileo, Newton, Kant, etc. – as some empirical notions that have some, experimentally known also, properties; for example – between two points in the space there is an spatial interval and if somebody is in point A, then for him to find himself in the point B is necessary to move. In 1600-th such properties were studied more thoroughly and it was discovered that it is possible to use some parameters “space” and “time” [intervals], suggesting that they are some common parameters and “change” uniformly and independently on most of properties of material bodies and can be measured to characterize interactions/ processes in [“physical”] systems of bodies.

And this knowledge indeed is enough in many practical situations; including, e.g., Newtonian mechanics works well if bodies’ speeds aren’t large; as well as Loretzian/SR mechanics is later for large speeds.

But to go farther now  is necessary to understand – what these notions are in Matter? – not in human’s consciousness when she depicts Matter aimed at  making some useful things (as well as – what is Matter itself?); i.e. what happens on fundamental levels?.

This problem isn’t new of course also and just Minkowski attempted to solve it, claiming about “the unity” of the space and time in Minkowski 4D spacetime and,  further, - in the transformations of the Matter’s spacetime by observers and their moving inertial reference frames; further Einstein added that the spacetime – again having imaginary, in fact, space or time, can be “curved” by masses.

But these relativistic claims aren’t correct just because of the authors didn’t know – what are notions “time”, “space”, “clocks”, “motion”, etc.; again – these notions can be properly defined  on some satisfactory level only in “the Information as Absolute” conception (see the links in SS posts above). Though corresponding definitions are too common in certain extent, they yet now allow, for example, to obtain conditions and limits of applicability of the SR (more correct – the Voigt-FitzGerald….Einstein-Lorentz theory, since the main distinction VF…ELT from the SR is just “relativistic transformations of the spacetime”, which are absent in Matter in the reality) and to develop methods to describe physical situations when the  VF…ELT doesn’t work.

Further elaboration of these notions seems should be made when studying big spatial and temporal scales; though yet now it is possible to say that, for example, in the cosmology application of the GR should be limited…

Cheers    

Sergey,  the fact that, as you write, only Lorentzian/SR mechanics works well for large speeds is a viewpoint, it isn't certainly a scientific truth. For example I think just the exact opposite. In fact never I maked use and I make use of Lorentz's Transformations, but I use another group of transformations that comprise effectively Galilean Transformations. The opinion for which Galilean transformations are an approximation of Lorentz's transformations at small speeds has no physical meaning because they at all speeds, small and large, describe two completely different physics. The theory according to which authors who don't accept Lorentz's transformations in both versions, modern and neoclassical, are ignorant or don't understand is a little outdated theory. In actuality the exact opposite could be right. I have good reasons for going beyond Lorentz's transformations and anyway future hystory of science will decide which interpretation of nature is correct.

Daniele,

“…The opinion for which Galilean transformations are an approximation of Lorentz's transformations at small speeds has no physical meaning because they at all speeds, small and large, describe two completely different physics...”

- that isn’t so. Here is the same physics; always when the GT work then the LT work also, but always more correctly. On other hand for small speeds the correction is near V2/c2/2 and so, for example up to 100 m/s is near 10-12 and the GT are well applicable. But when speeds of interacting bodies raises the incorrectness of the GT raises (more then - in reality) quadratically and the transformations cannot be applied principally. An example we have here above – from the GT follows direct addition of speeds, when, e.g. the sum of speeds can be principally non-physical.

Again – the VF…ELT works well in many practical cases; when the main – and principal – flaw of the relativity theories is self-inconsistence of the theories as result of total – and non-grounded - absolutization of the relativity principle from what were “discovered” the fantastic “relativistic phenomena” -  that real Matter’s spacetime is pseudoEuclidian / pseudoRiemannian,  that the spacetime can be transformed by some observer, which has a inertial reference frame, etc.

Cheers

Sergey, I know well what Lorentz's transformations say because the first duty of a critical researcher  is that to know the object of his criticism. Again I affirm Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are two completely different theories: in fact in SR Einstein had to add the postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Light to the Principle of Relativity. If that postulate was an intrinsic property of relativity, there was no need to add a postulate.

You write "the sum of speeds, according to GT, can be principally non-physical". There is no experimental testing about that claim and title of this question proposes just that problem.

I would want to propose to your critical attention the following intrinsic contradiction of SR. With respect to a reference frame, supposed initially at rest, the physical speed of light is given by c=L/T where L is the covered distance by light and T is time that is spent for covering. If this reference frame now is moving, SR theorizes a contraction of distance L'T with respect to the resting reference frame. Consequently the speed of light with respect to the resting reference frame is now  c'=L'/T'

Daniele,

“Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are two completely different theories: in fact in SR Einstein had to add the postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Light to the Principle of Relativity”

- that isn’t so. The postulate about the speed of light by no means contradicts with the relativity principle (roughly – “all physical laws in all inertial reference frames work identically”) – the postulate only concretizes one of possible physical situation when somebody deals with the light, including a physical interaction that we call “a measurement”: in any IRF measured speed of light is equal to c. Nothing more – the difference of the GT and the LT occurs only because of  Galileo didn’t take into account the light, though the light is quite physical phenomenon, [and fast speeds at all].

    And this concretization turns out to be enough to obtain Lorentz transformation – as that was made in the Einstein’s 1905-year paper. And nothing more – the logical absurdity of  the SR as physical theory appeared because of just some next additional claim – in the 1905 (and further)   postulate there doesn’t exist the word “measured” and so, in fact, by this postulate it was claimed that the light is some magic phenomenon such that to make the constancy of the speed of light the real absolute 4D spacetime must not exist, when the “non-absolute relativistic” 4D Minkowski spacetime must transform when a next [again magic] moving “inertial reference frame” appears.

(Though all mainstream journals reject papers with the informational model, some electronic recourses “upgraded” already the SR, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity  - here is not “principle of constancy” but is“principle of Invariant Light Speed”, what is more correct)

Though here is an additional point that relates to the Lorentz transformations – the LT are a part of a theory, i.e. that is a code, which non-material human’s consciousness uses to explain external material reality; at that in any theory critically important to have experimental data. For that humans apply the [first of all- inertial] reference frames, i.e. systems of rules and by some special way synchronized clocks. Next – a human should use his instruments correctly. If he works in some system of bodies that interact strongly enough, then he can use the instruments and the LT and so obtain adequate data to calculate adequate results of possible physical interactions. But if the system contains free bodies, then the LT is wrong.

Including – your example  “the physical speed of light is given by c=L/T where L is the covered distance by light and T is time that is spent for covering”.

 If “L” is distance between rigidly connected points, say on ends of a rod, then, if clocks on the ends were synchronized before the rod acceleration to a speed, V, after the acceleration (and in any time also, though)  the clocks showing will be different (non- simultaneous) comparing with the fixed clocks,  the real rod’s length will be contracted, etc. (see attached file in the SS post above); so,  that measured light speed in this IRF will be equal to c. But If a pair of free clocks in stationary RF were on the distance L and further were accelerated to the same speed V, the distance remains be the same and clocks will be in the same points in the [c]t-axis. If an observer doesn’t know that his IRF is “non-Lorentzian” and will measure the speed of light, he will obtain different speeds of light for cases when light moves from back to front and from front to back (“c”=c/(1-beta) and “c” = c/(1+beta)).

Cheers

Sergey, I agree fully with you that a difference of relative speed of light must exist in the same direction and in the opposite direction.

Daniele, Valentin,

it seems in the SS posts above (and in the links in posts, of course) there is enough information and I cannot to add something else; possibly besides a few remarks:

(1) – there is no problem with understanding that the Matter’s spacetime is absolute – other suggestion, i.e. relativistic postulate on non-existence of the absolute spacetime and so on the total equality of all inertial reference frames immediately follow to evidently absurd physical situation – see Dingle problem;

(2) – again, any human can use any own definition of the relative speed  in some cases; including, for example if in a stationary frame an observer sees two particles moving towards each other and if the observer  wants only to know what time interval will be spent for particles to meet, he can use the relative speed value (V1+V2). But in physics, first of all in the dynamics, this sum cannot be used. An example - let a particle having an energy E moves to moving reverse a bottle with water. An observer in the stationary frame obtains that after particle stop in the bottle, the water was heated up to 99.9999 degrees (Celsius). It seems evident, that in any other frame the thermometer must show the same value, and such result can be understandable/ calculated only if the relativistic equation for speeds sum is applied. The number of such examples can be infinite; and

(3) – if somebody doesn’t understand something, that by any means doesn’t mean that the something isn’t correct.

If you indeed want to understand the mechanics – see the SS posts (and links) and attempt to understand what is written; the content is quiet simple; only sometimes is uncustomary, but it doesn’t contain logical inconsistencies or contradictions with known experimental outcomes.

Cheers

There are two possible definitions in use. One is as Valentin wrote in the very first answer. In vector form V = v1- v2, or the absolute value of this for relative speed. This definition may look natural in some contexts, but note that both v1 and v2 must be known to compute how V transforms when viewed from a different inertial frame.

The other possible definition is the speed of 2, as seen from the inertial frame of 1 (or vice versa). This is a relativistic invariant, easily calculated from the scalar product of the corresponding 4-velocities. The answer is not very pretty when the two velocities are not co-linear:

vrel = sqrt[(v1- v2)2  - (v1x v2)2/c2]/(1 - v1*v2/c2)

It is this latter definition which is most relevant when f.i. computing the collision flux between two particle beams colliding at an angle (when viewed from the detector frame). There is a nice recent discussion of this by Mirco Cannoni, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.00569.

Kare, thanks for your answer. Before commenting on your answer I would want to know if in the second definition v1xv2 is a scalar or vector product. Thanks.

in the second definition v1 x v2 is the vector product (hence it vanishes for collinear velocities, for which the expression reduces to a formula already written on this thread), and v1*v2 is the scalar product.

Kare, thanks for your clarification. The first definition is in concordance with Valentin Danci's answer for which the relative speed is 500000km/s=1.67c. This formula is also in concordance with Galilean relativity and with the Theory of Reference Frames. According to the second definition instead the relative speed between the two beams is 0.984c. There is a sensible difference between the two definitions for which, I think, it not would have to be hard to think and to perform an experiment that could establish which definition is correct. In reality this is the same problem as Kai raised in his comment with electron at the 5.4GeV energy. I would propose to your attention the following fact: the Theory of Reference Frames studies the behaviour of unstable particles that from my viewpoint raise new important problems above all with regard to their speeds and to their decay process. I think the mainstream physics doesn't give satisfactory explanations about these questions. What do you think in this regard?

Daniele> I think, it not would have to be hard to think and to perform an experiment that could establish which definition is correct.

It would be very hard (i.e. impossible), because the two definitions are only about what we mean by the concept of relative speed; they refer to two physical situations which are different most of the times (when the situations are equal, the definitions agree). The last, invariant definition, looks more natural and general for treatment of the relativistic flux factors needed in theoretical calculations of cross-sections, but that does not render the other one wrong.

The relativistic equations give a perfectly satisfactory description of particle velocities and decay rates, in agreement with a century of observations. The speed of a physical particle cannot exceed c by even a little bit, according to special relativity. A lot of commotions occurred when the Opera experiment seemed to observe something else (but that was due to equipment failure).

If you have a theory where (individual) particle speed can exceed c, then your theory is not in agreement with experiment.

Thanks for having clarified your viewpoint. Anyway a scrupulous reading of the OPERA experiment proves neutrinos aren't faster than light but they have exactly the same speed of light. Consequently neutrinos are energy quanta.

Christian, the experiment was performed by OPERA in the laboratory LNGS (National Laboratory Gran Sasso) with the collaboration of CERN.  LNGS and CERN are two very important scientific Institutions and Laboratories. They communicated initially the speed of neutrinos was greater (even if barely) than the speed of light. Then they communicated the experiment presented some errors. Serious laboratories and institutions had  to repeat the experiment after having corrected errors and above all they had to communicate the real speed of neutrinos after corrections..But  they  erased the experiment. Thus I think I am authorized to interpret the experiment and my scrupolous reading of the experiment leads me to accept the speed of neutrinos is exactly the speed of light, i.e. neutrinos have the same speed of photons. It means neutrinos, like photons, are energy quanta and consequently they have zero mass.

Daniele, I don't think your historical description is quite correct. Which "other laboratories" are there to repeat the OPERA experiment in a few weeks???

There is about 730 km from CERN to Gran Sasso. I remember hearing/reading that the position of the neutrino when the timing starts can be determined to only about 10 meter. That (if my memory hasn't failed me) means that there is a relative uncertainty in the velocity of about 1.4 x 10-5, which translates to an absolutely uncertainty of about 4 km/s. Even if the rest of the system was perfect. Hence, it is right to conclude that the speed is consistent with the speed of light c, not that it is exactly c.

Just for the issue of measuring relativistic velocities, here is a paper which made a time of flight measurement of electrons (which is surely a reasonable way of measuring velocity) as the electron energy is increased. Maybe you will be interested:

William Bertozzi, American Journal of Physics 32 , 551 (1964)

Kare, I wrote laboratories LNGR and CERN had to repeat that experiment after having corrected initial errors, not other laboratories. Instead it was decided to erase the experiment that from my viewpoint was very interesting. You think speed of neutrinos is consistent with the speed of light c, I think it is exactly c. They are two interpretations, both valid in the absence of a certain experimental result. Therefore I think also that experiment was interesting and necessary.

Leywraz, the paper that you cite could be interesting. Do you can send to me a copy?

Thanks.

Daniele, your statement constitutes a possible hypothesis. This hypothesis is consistent with the CERN-Gran Sasso time-of-flight measurements, seen in isolation. But the CERN-Gran Sasso time-of-flight measurement is also consistent with the existence of some small neutrino masses, needed to explain the neutrino oscillations also being measured by CERN-Gran Sasso.

Kare, I understand what you want to say. Neutrinos present oscillations during flight and in order to explain those oscillations it is necessary to assign a (small) mass to neutrinos. It means neutrinos are massive particles and aren't energy quanta, like photons. In that event neutrinos cannot move exactly at the speed of light but only to a speed that is nearest to the speed of light. The problem is that nobody knows this speed that instead would have to be a characteristic speed that would represent neutrinos like the speed of light represents photons and energy quanta. Then nobody knows if that speed is constant or variable and all this question is nebulous, also because it is hard to think in nature there is another characteristic speed that is nearest to the speed of light.

I have demonstrated in my paper, that I attach after, the process of oscillation can be explained verw well also without the hypothesis about a small mass. I have demonstrated processes of oscillation regard all particles, whether massive or energetic. Naturally my viewpoint satisfies myself and I have no intention to affirm my viewpoint represents the absolute truth.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291345172_Physico-Mathematical_Models_of_Elementary_Particles_and_Physical_Processes_of_Oscillation

Article Physico-Mathematical Models of Elementary Particles and Phys...

Daniele,

“…It means neutrinos, like photons, are energy quanta and consequently they have zero mass…”

- any particle is an energy quanta, including that have non-zero rest mass, which don’t differ principally from “zero rest mass” photons – every particle/body … moves in the [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime having absolute 4D speed that is equal by the absolute value to the speed of light.

At that the rest mass particles, at least in “well observed” Matter [hundreds millions of light years], besides cosmic rays, move practically with the speed of light in the 4-th, i.e. ctcoor spacetime’s direction, which in this case doesn’t differ from any 3D spatial direction; and “energy quanta”, i.e. photons well send such particles in this direction, including with practically  the speed of light [if created particle has a small spatial 3D speed], creating, for example, pairs having rest masses “electron/positron”.

At that, since every particle is some gyroscope, they have own angular momentums, when, because to define some rotation is enough 3D [“math”] space, when Matter’s space[time] is 4D, in the 3D Matter's space these 4D momentums reveal itself at particles interactions by different way for non-zero and zero rest mass particles: the zero rest mass particles are bosons, i.e. the momentum is equal to 1h-bar, when non-zero mass particles are fermions, i.e. the momentum is equal to 1/2h-bar. Neutrinos are fermions and so they have rest masses; though, because of that these masses are very small, observed [i. e. having energy more then at least tens keV] neutrinos move with 3D speeds that are practically equal to the speed of light, and so – analogously to photons, which, in fact, have the helicities also – they have the helicities that are equal to 1h-bar.

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Daniele, I looked briefly at the neutrino discussion in your article. As I read your equations (31-32), they basically suggests that the conversion from muon to tau neutrinos is (or can be) catalyzed by the presence of electrons. That should lead to the testable prediction that the oscillation length depends on the density of electrons (or perhaps other types of matter, depending on model details). Do you agree?

Note: The processes (31-32) by themselves violate fermion parity, (-1)F. You have an even number of fermions on the left hand side of (31), but an odd number on the right [and vice versa for (32)]. That is a very serious violation, which such be repaired by adding some X onto the scene. 

My general impression is that your efforts are serious and sincere, but that you have to battle a large amount of experimental facts, and of course a large population of (also) serious scientists.

Your hypothesis of a much larger crop of neutrinos than 3 does not agree with the observed lifetime of the Z-resonance. And not with observations of neutrinos from nuclear reactors, I believe.

Note added: I agree with Sergey's remark that also massive particles are energy quanta. No principal difference there, but different type of particles can carry different quantum numbers.

Sergey, in my model of elementary particles there is a clear distinction between massive particles (electrons, positrons, protons, etc..) and energy particles (photons, rays X, gamma, delta, infrared, etc..) because in physics there is a clear distinction between mass and energy. In fact mass is measured in kg while energy is measured in Joule. The dualism wave-corpuscle, interpreted in incorrect way, has generated this confusion for which it is possible to affirm "any particle is an energy quantum, including that has non-zero rest mass". A sure difference, besides others, is the fact that energy particles don't have electric charge while the most of massive elementary particles have electric charge. From my viewpoint the dualism wave-corpuscle indicates only an equivalence between energy particles and massive particles (lambda=h/mc2 , m=hf/c2) but the physical reality is that for instance electrons and photons are two completely different elementary particles. You affirm neutrinos are fermions, but it is true in the Standard Model. In the Non-Standard Model, that is my model of reference, neutrinos are bosons like photons. This fact is useful for answering also to Kare's subsequent comment.

Kare, thanks for having read pages of my paper regarding neutrinos. Your consideration about the oscillation length, that depends on the density of electrons, is certaily a new and interesting fact and it would have to be developped. Your criticisms are right in the order of the Standard Model in which neutrinos are fermions and consequently you can affirm the processes (31-32) violate fermion parity. As I wrote in my answer to Sergey, in the Non-Standard Model neutrinos are bosons like photons, and all bosons have spin 0, otherwise than the Standard Model in which photons have spin 1. If you consider this fact, you see there is no violation. Anyway I attach my paper in order to allow a better knowledge of the Non-Standard Model.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236628225_Bosons_in_the_Zoo_of_Elementary_Particles

Article Bosons in the Zoo of Elementary Particles

Daniele,

“…You affirm neutrinos are fermions, but it is true in the Standard Model….”

- that is experimental fact.

Cheers

Sergey, you raise a very important question that regards present physics, i.e. the interpretation of experimental facts. This problem was caused by the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact before classic physicists were always in concordance about the interpretation of experimental facts and the only conflict in physics was theoretical and regarded the physical nature of light that for a few was corpuscolar and for others was wave. The M.M experiment has differentiated physicists into three categories according to the interpretation that they have given to that experiment: 1. neoclassic physicists have accepted Lorentz-Poincarè's interpretation that is based on the modified concept of ether and on Lorentz's Transformations; 2. modern and postmodern physicists have accepted the interpretation that is based on the absence of ether, on the Postulate of Constancy of the Speed of Light and on LT. ; 3. contemporary physicists have accepted the interpretation that is based on a correct and different physico-mathematical definition of the reference frame and on a revaluation of the Galilean relativity. In post-classic physics experiments are object generally of numerous and different interpretations. The experimental fact exists but in present physics the question is its interpretation. Many present physicists do big confusion then between true esperimental facts and results of simulations that cannot be considered true experimental facts. It happens for instance with experiments of simulation on BigBang. And also on many other experiments there isn't an unanimous interpretation: I refer to experiments on the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, black holes, neutrino mass, etc.....