About "A New Light In Physics"

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by martillo, Oct 28, 2016.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    I don't have a paper, I have a book. Do you know someone that could have the credentials you would like and be interested to analyze it? Let me know. Some samples are purchased times to times but I'm not having feedback...
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And yet you still havn't got the message?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Well, here is where different interpretations can come from the same phenomenon. As a good physicist you think you are which is yours?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Martillo has been around for many years.

    Long enough for him to have learned to speak and write in English, but not long enough to have discovered Vixra, I guess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    That is like to enroll in the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" just to have some place to stay while disagreeing with everybody there. Sorry, prefer to go on alone on my own way.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    Certainly sounds like you don't waste your time on physics.
     
    origin likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes we have many with the same combination of problems such as inflated egos, tall poppy syndrome and delusions of grandeur.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We'll see you at Stockholm next year, OK?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    If you would dedicate all that effort just trying to bother people in some physics subject you could achieve something knowledgeable in the physics' area but you don't... Why don't you try something in psychology about the lack of motivations? It could even help lot of many people like you...
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2016
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    There are paradoxes in a lot of areas that I entertain myself with, but unlike in politics where justice is denied by the justice department, people's efforts to resolve paradoxes in science are of particular interest to me. I have no interest in running for office, but the inconsistencies in the generally accepted scientific theories are things that I personally feel free to try to sort out for myself, to my own satisfaction. I think we are somewhat the same to that extent.

    So in the case of future improvement to the physics of relativity, that will evolve over time, there will be changes necessary to better describe what I call the invariant natural laws of the universe. One of the changes that I hope will come along, and that maybe you and I agree on, is that the physical mechanics of gravity will unfold, as in the discovery of a quantum solution to gravity. That will involve a lot of new details about the true nature of the forces involved, and you are right to dig in.

    The the math of General Relativity, which describes the curvature of spacetime and the geodesics that objects follow as they move relative to reach other, may someday have a mechanistic explanation that will give essentially the same predicted outcomes; maybe even with more precision. I'm saying that the math of GR works amazing well, but the physical explanations are as yet lacking. Even though we may not mutually understand each others "model", we share the enthusiasm to keep the investigation alive at our layman level.
     
    martillo likes this.
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Says the guy who wrote a book about (his mistaken ideas) physics when he has admitted and demonstrated he does not know much about the subject.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    Yep. We have reached the phase where the crank gets angry that people are questioning him rather than complimenting him on his out-of-the-box brilliance. I predict we will see the grand trampling exit next, where he expresses amazement that he ever bothered with this bunch of closed-minded losers to begin with.
     
  15. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    origin:
    I said I would look for a topic to have your opinion. What do you think on Section 7.1 where I state:

    "The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step.
    Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction.

    The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant) field, parallel to the plane, in the entire plane. Sources for them are just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields. Even an infinite series of those solutions would have no possible source for their fields.

    Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist."

    ... ... ...

    I would like to invite billvon and paddoboy too to share their opinion.
    Anyone else is also welcome of course, particularly quantum_wave.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2016
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    My opinion is that this is silly and completely at odds with reality.

    Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit more.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Not much effort required at all. In general, I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff...In your case it was particularly easy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But anyway, when you take up my challenge and write a paper for peer review, we'll all see the "method in your madness" or lack thereof.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,137
    No.

    Infinite fields are useful theoretical concepts with no mirror in reality. (Similar to those "massless balls" and "frictionless planes" often used in high school physics courses.) In reality, sources produce all the EM fields we observe - and these sources are well explained within the framework of Maxwell's Equations. Indeed, antenna designers specialize in this sort of work; they build the sources.
    A silly and nonsensical statement. Of course they exist, and the existing equations demonstrate how.
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Thank you for encouraging member inputs.

    We both have some pretty alternative ideas about electromagnetic waves. Apologetically, I'll comment about the model that I am working on, in order to give some context to my opinion about your view of EM.

    In my model of cosmology of the universe, there is wave energy filling all space; light waves and gravitational waves, coming and going in all directions at all times, at the local speed of light. The density of those waves in the local space accounts for the local wave energy density, it varies directionally, and I refer to that as the energy density of space.

    Electromagnetic waves don't have to self-propagate, because every medium, whether we a talking about the medium of space, or more dense mediums like air, water, glass, etc., have a specific level of oscillation based on the atomic composition of the medium, and the resulting wave energy density of that medium governs the rate of oscillation.

    The oscillation of the local medium is encountered by wave energy, both light and gravity waves, as they pass through, and the oscillations assist the advance of the energy wave through what ever medium. The wave energy density of the medium governs the velocity of light through that medium, and the varying wave energy density of different mediums accounts for the change in light velocity, and therefore, the refraction of light as it passes for one medium to another.

    The difference between your account of EMR, and mine, is that I accept the Maxwell equations at face value, out of respect for the history of science, and with the stipulation the they are generally accepted to have a fit with various theories, especially GR. In the case of GR, they are compatible because they are purported to be able to self propagate through a vacuum. However, there is nothing that says that they have to self propagate if there is some other means to account for their advance. That means of propagation, in my view, would be the oscillations that are natural to all environments that are composed of wave energy. Note that there is no vacuum in my model since all space is filled with wave energy.

    Given the proposed wave energy background of space, and with reference to some old ideas like the Huygens principle, light doesn't have to self-propagate. That energy background might equate with the missing source of energy fields that you mention. That does not mean that light isn't electromagnetic waves though; I would have to say that they exist, but in my view they advance through space based on a different explanation than in the standard model.
     
  20. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Thanks everybody for giving the opinions I asked.
    Enough for me.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    I suspect you will check back, and if so, I should say that my last post left out a very important premise that I thought might come out in the discussion, if you responded, based on a look at the chapter headings and some samples of your book. I apologetically mentioned some aspects of my model to give context to my response to your view of EM, but that context did not include the part about the nature of light which includes the bit about the wave particle duality of the photon.

    In my model, photons have mass. All particles and objects with mass contain and are composed of wave energy, and they both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. Therefore particles are complex patterns of standing waves that have two components, the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy from other particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing wave energy component that traverses space, and can be absorbed by distant particles and objects.

    The premise I thought might come up in discussion with you is that light wave energy is the out flowing gravitational wave energy component emitted by photons, meaning that light and gravity are one and the same, but are differentiated by their frequency.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2016
  22. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    There's not much we can discuss since we have opposed models. In my theory everything is particles while in yours everything is waves. Electromagnetic waves and De Broglie waves just don't exist for me. The lambda in De Broglie formula is a distance between particles travelling in trains of particles and what antennas emit and receive are photons (electromagnetic particles) not any wave. Interference, diffraction and refraction are well explained with the concept of trains of particles. The criticism I can make on your model of everything as waves is that waves in a medium can only interfere with each other and so how forces could be explained? There are no forces between waves. How do you explain electric and magnetic attractions and repulsions? How do you explain the forces between protons, neutrons and electrons to form an atom or the forces involved in their collisions? How do you explain the force between two macroscopic objects in general?
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2016
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    When energy waves intersect, there is a high energy density spot at the point of intersection. The spot exists because each converging wave carries a specific amount of energy, and at the point of intersection, that spot has the combined energy of the two or more converging waves. The spot grows in volume as the parent waves form an overlap, and the energy in the overlap space is the combined energy of the two parent waves. The high density spot thus expands to become the energy in the overlap space, and thus the expansion of the energy in that space has become a new expanding wave.

    One force involved is the force of wave energy density equalization, which is simply the fact that the high energy density overlap space equalizes with the energy density of the surrounding space.

    I'll be glad to discuss all of your objections, but I think what you mean is that because our models are so opposed, nothing I say will be a valid explanation in regard to how you would explain the same phenomenon.
     

Share This Page