Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

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

  1. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    What I've done is show that F = dp/dt is invalid if the system is not closed - it doesn't say anything about relativistic mass increase. The law of conservation of momentum (observed in particle accelerators) supports F = dp/dt, not F = ma.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    przyk,
    So your solved problem means nothing...

    It's incredible how many concessions in math and physics rigourosity you give just to mantain Relativity "floating"!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    You know I can refute each one of your 6 points as I have already done before but I will not continue.
    Also, if you think it is a farce surely we must not go on.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    1100f,
    You and 2inquisitive are talking about different things. You are talking on what happens when the source moves while 2inquisitive talked about when the observer moves which are two very different things.
     
  8. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    1100f,
    I have already fixed this up. You should see the site again.

    Right, I think angular momentum does not conserves in some cases. It is not a main law of Physics and nature as the Principle of Conservation of Energy.

    I didn't say that, you said that. I said the wave-lenght must also tansform as a lenght (distance).

    Yes.

    To study what? About unexisting waves, unexisting "space-time distortion" and parallel universes? That is your "real" physics? It seems much more like a "Virtual Physics".
    Sorry, suggestion discarded. I have better things to do.

    By the way, my theory, amazingly developed by a wonderfull "wishfull thinking", describes reality perfectly and without any inconsistency, strange paradoxes, etc, etc, This means it describes exactly what really happens, this means the truth!
     
  9. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    This is from your site:
    If no destructive interference is expected, how can you have an interference pattern?

    It is a main law of physics exactly as the law of conservation of energy.
    The law of conservation of energy comes from the fact that the laws of physics are invariant under time translation.
    The laws of conservation of linear momentum comes from the fact that the laws of physics are invariant under linear translation and The laws of conservation of linear momentum comes from the fact that the laws of physics are invariant under rotation.

    There is no law of transformation of length. You just invented this, and as you say, it all depends on the situation.


    yes, sure:
    it has no destructive interference but has interference pattern, it solves maxwell's equations and does not solve them.

    There are no paradoxes not in classical physics, not in relativity and not in quantum mechanics.
    When there is a "paradox" it shows a poor understanding.

    yes sure.
    MM does not have destructive interference.
    In a pair anihilation a neutrino is created and no angular momentum is conserved.
    There exist no em waves
     
  10. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    That is a blatant lie! You have never addressed those 6 points.

    You have deliberately ignored even your own results in order to support your biased conclusion. Don't you dare lecture anyone about truth, you don't have a leg to stand on.

    -Dale
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    1100f,
    The text describes what happens theoretically with the two rays arriving together to the same point. In this case they will have no direct destructive interference as it would happen if they would have different phases. Many descriptions of the experiment found at the web describe the experiment this way and I believe at first it was done this way. The text then describes well this case.
    My intention is to include a brief description of MM experiment and how it is verified by the Emission Theory of light, what it is already well known in Physics.
    I'm not interested in a detailed description on how the interference detector works. Those interested in this (like you) can search for this at the web.

    This is about linear momentum. The spin or "magnetic moment" has nothing to do with this.

    ???
    Lorentz transform transforms time and lenghts!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  12. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    OK, I should have said: I can refute each one of your 6 points as I have already done before with your previous arguments.

    Yes I dare! All about Relativity Theory like space-time distortion, all about "waves of matter" of the "Wave Mechanics Theory" (bad called today "Quantum Mechanics") and electromagnetic waves is nothing more than a BIG FAT LIE!

    Today's Physics LIES and my new theories are just the start-point towards a TRUE PHYSICS.

    Just that and I dare about that! Oh yes!

    I have two strong legs and a good mind to stand on.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  13. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Then refute them already. I am always ready for a serious discussion.

    -Dale
     
  14. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Sorry, this was a misprint. The correct sentence is of course:
    The laws of conservation of linear momentum comes from the fact that the laws of physics are invariant under linear translation and The laws of conservation of angular momentum comes from the fact that the laws of physics are invariant under rotation.

    But, as you don't know what I am talking about, you didn't even notice the mistake or try to correct it
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  15. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Wrong again
    Lorentz transform transforms the time and location of events
     
  16. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Yes I agree with you that a theory that accepts Maxwell's equations (since at low velocity this is what your theory says) but does not accept its solutions (electromagnetic waves are solutions of Maxwell's equation) because it does fit the theory author's wishfull thinking, is a BIG FAT LIE.
     
  17. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Hmmmmm nearly! and as meatloaf always said - two out of 3 aint bad!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    I don't know. I personally thought that him standing on his good mind might explain a few things

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    -Dale
     
  19. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    lol
    It would somewhat explain the development of such a unique organ, and he did say as much himself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2006
  20. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    1100f,
    Of course I don't know what are you talking about. Linear and angular momentum have nothing to do with spin which is related to the intensity of the magnetic field of the particles!
     
  21. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    I don't like unproductive discussions. We have discussed enough. You already know my arguments and I know yours. For me is enough. We can both take our own conclusions. I still think my reasoning is right. As I said before I will not follow endless discussions about Relativity.
     
  22. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    This is what I told you, You don't know what you are talking about.
    Spin is an intrinsic angular momentum.
    Spin is related to the rotational properties of the particle (how they behave under a general rotation of the coordinate system)
     
  23. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    This is a pretty pathetic retreat, but if you change your mind and wish to have a real scientific discussion then I welcome it. However, if you wish to make unfounded and irrational assertions, ignore evidence and logic, and still congratulate yourself for your wisdom in your tireless search for "truth" then let me once again suggest that you find a like-minded religious group of your preference. Given your stated goals and demonstrated methods, religion will be a much more satisfactory and appropriate avenue than science.

    -Dale
     

Share This Page