Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by martillo, Jun 18, 2006.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

    With some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it really works now.

    ---> "A New Light In Physics"


    It worth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    At least we agree that today's Physics is not totally well.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    I would love to see an explanation for the shape of a 5d electron orbital that didn't involve quantum physics.
     
  8. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Nasor,
    In the new theories electrons occupy fixed positions in the atoms but it must be considered that magnetic forces are also present, not only electric ones.
     
  9. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Just for the case, the end of the "Blowing away" part in the main page of the site says:

     
  10. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Many physical observations which are claimed to be predicted by Relativity can, at least partly, be explained by Newtonian physics. What does it mean? It means that Relativity is AT LEAST PARTLY WRONG.

    If Relativity is at least partly wrong, it certainly is NOT COMPLETELY CORRECT.
     
  11. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    Err, no. That doesn't follow at all.
     
  12. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Cangas,

    Have you ever studied relativity, or do you disagree with it just because it yields some rather nonintuitive results? Relativity is a higher-fidelity model than and subsumes Newtonian mechanics. Relativity yields Newtonian mechanics as a low-speed approximation. The two theories agree to many decimal places when velocities are limited to what we Earth-bound observers typically experience. Even a supersonic jet suffers very little time dilation.
     
  13. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Relativity is a wrong theory that gives a wrong explanation to all physics phenomena. Nature and the Universe do not behave as Relativity says.
    Now we have the right explanation for all phenomena that only Relativity seemed to explain.
    See for example at the page linked on the head post:
    Section 1.1 "Considerations against Relativity Theory"
    Section 2.3 "New interpretations for old experiments"
    Appendix B "New interpretations for "relativistic phenomena""

    Particularly the new theories give another more natural interpretation for a change of the time in atomic clocks at high velocities (Appendix B - part C).

    The E=mC2 equation is valid, but actually has a different physical meaning!
    See Section 4.1.



    Note:
    "If there is another interpretation possible is not more a proof, not anymore!"
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
  14. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    I already pointed out the problems with this section [POST=1068679]here[/POST]. You ignored most of this post.
     
  15. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Yes I ignore the post since it does not refute my arguments properly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
  16. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    You didn't properly refute relativity.
     
  17. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I'm sorry. Did someone prove relativity, like the people running the GPS satellites?
     
  18. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    przyk,
    Yes I did but you don't understand my demonstrations and neglect them with wrong arguments.
    What you need is that someone recognized in the Scientific Community tell you "martillo's análisis is mathematically and physically right" but this will take time przyk...
     
  19. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    martillo,

    I seem to remember you not being able to grasp the concept of a coordinate change (as demontrated here wrt. the Lorentz transforms). I'm afraid that you'll have to wait a long time until somebody comes along with an endorsement of your work, if you fail to grasp even the simplest of mathematical tools required...
     
  20. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    funkstar,You know,
    what we were discussing there would be a third inconsistency in the phenomenon that today physics seem to resolve by the called "switching of frames" something that is not said that must be done anywhere while defining Lorentz Transforms.
    Actually is not rigourous to "switch frames" inside a same observation or measurement of a phenomenon.

    Anyway, I avoided to cite that to simplify the exposition. Two inconsistencies in the same phenomenon is enough.
     
  21. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    I'm sorry, martillo, that made no sense: The Lorentz transformations shifts coordinates between frames. It's what they're there for. How is it "not rigourous" to use the Lorentz transforms (set up correctly, mind you) to shift coordinate systems?
     
  22. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    funstar,
    I didn't say "shift" Isaid "switch". That's what you did when you said:
    You used a different transform equation for each twin, this is the same as "switching" frames.

    Nowhere while defining Lorentz Transforms it is said that frames must be switched when analyzing different objects in the same phenomenon and by the same observer but it is used today...
    I think is not rigorous but avoided to mention this extra inconsistency to make it simpler.
    As I said two inconsistencies are enough!
    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2006
  23. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    You mean you didn't understand my refutations. If you disagree with them, try responding to them. From my point of view, the errors in your arguments against relativity are very obvious and betray a poor understanding of the theory. Relativity has already been shown to be internally consistent (bijective linear transformations don't contradict themselves), so trying to come up with a gendanken to disprove relativity is a losing proposition right from the start.

    You'll look less foolish if you try to come up with physical evidence against relativity, as no scientific theory is immune to disproof through experimetation. Even then, remember that you're arguing against a theory that has been used successfully by most physicists for a hundred years now, and has certainly stood the test of time.
    No I don't. I've got a good enough grasp of relativity to spot the most basic and most common misconceptions of the theory. Personally, I don't like the way relativity is taught in schools and universities - reciprocity was introduced to me as if it were something almost magical that just miraculously worked. It was only recently, when I adopted the Lorentz transform, that I realized this wasn't the case.

    Make sure that the theory you're thinking of and are trying to replace really is the theory as proposed by Einstein. There are countless variations of it from people who have their own idea of what relativity is about. If you're having problems with relativity, you've almost certainly misunderstood something. In your case, you seem to think the two postulates of relativity refer to all reference frames. They don't.

    If you want "someone recognized in the Scientific Community" to say anything at all regarding your theories, try getting them peer reviewed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2006

Share This Page