Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

Yes, of course (well, I use different equations for each frame actually). The equations for transforming coordinates from frame A to frame B are not the same as those for changing coordinates from frame B to frame A (unless A and B are the same frame, in which case the transformation becomes the identity map).

This is true even in Galilean relativity: If S' moves along the x-axis of S to the right with speed v, and they coincide on (x,t)=(x',t')=(0,0) then the origo of S' is described in S by

f(t) = vt

so the equations for transforming coordinates (x,t) from S to (x',t') in S' are

x' = x - vt
t' = t

and the reverse way is

x = x' + vt'
t = t'

The transformation equations are not the same.

Er, what now? All I do is change coordinate systems. Are you saying that "switching frames" i.e. changing coordinate systems is somehow not allowed by the Lorentz transforms?

Again, the meaning of this is entirely unclear. The Lorentz transformations are there to specifically allow you to change coordinate systems.

Not rigourous how, exactly? How can using the equations from a specific framework, in this case str, to transform between coordinate systems in order to analyse an experiment in accordance to that framework be somehow unrigourous?

You don't have a single one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

przyk and funkstar,
You know, I will not enter in endless discussions about Relativity. The web if full of that kind of totally unproductive threads and I never saw one reaching a good conclusion. And that is justified because Relativity is an inconsistent theory.
People like you says "First demonstrate today's theories are wrong and after I will see your alternative".
Well Section 1.1 present my arguments. If you don't like them and you find them wrong fine, leave this and worry about something more productive for you. I have already discussed with you about this and I know we will never reach an agreement.
I will concentrate here to answer questions about my theory and not about Relativity.
If nobody here is interested fine, I will worry on something more productive for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder why.

Typically, people who make such claims do so because they make assumptions that SRT explicitly rejects. This is what you have done. Most of your relativity gendanken was fine, and one of your conclusions:

is indeed a prediction of relativity. This contradicts one of your assertions:

Relativity does not assume this, only you do. Contemporary physicists believe this to be false.

If you assume invariant time, you get Galilean/Newtonian relativity.
If you assume an invariant light speed instead, you get Einstein's relativity.

Clear enough?

If relativity were self-contradictory, it would not have survived five minutes, let alone 100 years. It would never have made it to publication.

As I said, feel free to try to come up with experimental evidence against relativity if you can. I think your chances are slim here, but not zero. Please don't waste your time on the assumption that relativity is logically flawed - physicists and mathematicians do check this kind of thing, you know. What do you think peer review is for?

People like you insist on replacing theories they don't understand.

I gain nothing personally from pointing out the errors you are making. You could, if you understood them.

This is a very narrow-minded thing to do. You're ignoring anyone who tells you that you've misunderstood the theories you are trying to replace. If you won't take the time to properly study existing theories, why should anyone pay any attention to your ideas?

Well, it's your time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I blame the bad simplification attempts in the teachings of relativity.
There are no inconsistency in either SR or GR neither are there any paradoxes, just the problem that relativity bucks simplification.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

100 years just because of the lack of the right alternative. Now you will see.

 

*sigh*

You haven't even shown that an alternative is needed. And don't think no-one has tried.

Also, your alternative theory must duplicate all the correct predictions of all the theories you are trying to replace, as well as some correct predictions that they don't make. And when I say correct predictions, I don't mean vague indications that gravity will bend light and that muons will live longer when they move at high speeds. Your theory must make correct and exact numerical predictions. I don't think you fully realize just how daunting a task this is.

It's one thing to come up with an alternative way of thinking about the universe that you feel vaguely describes what's going on. It's another thing entirely to be able to turn your theory into a logical construct that perfectly matches all the observations over the last 400 years and more.

Can you demonstrate that your theory predicts an orbital precession of exactly 43 arc seconds per century in Mercury's orbit, and that muons travelling at high speeds in particle accelerators will live exactly as much longer as they are measured to? If you can't, it is way too early for you to begin advertising your theory.

Also, do you expect people to take one look at your site and adopt your theories because they are so *obviously* correct? You might feel this way if you have an investment in your own ideas, but others do not.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Welcome, by the way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks very much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Inconsistent how, exactly?

Not necessarily. However...

In which case, you are the one arguing that the need for a new theory arises from inconsistencies in the old ones. As such, they warrant close inspecting. And since they fail to be genuine inconsistencies (or even original - a rehash of the twin "paradox" gets you exactly zero points) it's very reasonable to suspect that the rest of the work is at least as erroneous. Especially if your theory "repairs" the "inconsistencies"...

In other words, you're only interested in people who a priori agree with you. You're not even fazed by the possibility that you might be fundamentally mistaken about the theories you're trying to supplant.

Even if relativity was shown to be a bad model of nature, and absolute time turned (rather miraculously) out to be true, I would still be right that your supposed inconsistency was no such thing. That you don't

But, since your theory is motivated by the "failure" of relativity theory, and as that "failure" turns out to be anything but, well, then I doubt anyone is going to give you time of day. Like a mathematician adopting "False" as an axiom and using it to prove anything, your theory becomes of questionable worth if it adopts a poor starting point.

Good for you. I suggest taking courses in math and physics.

 

Incidentally, what's your avatar? At first I thought it might amphetamine, but I spot two C6 rings...

 

przyk,

The new theory will do that but only real physicists will demonstrate it in some future.

 

funkstar,

What for?
To learn for example about Schrodinger equation and QM and how this theories added an extra mathematical degree of freedom in the description of the Universe and how today's Physics just trying to agree with all these existent theories INEVITABLY reaches to the final conclusion that parallel Universes must exist?
Thanks but I already know it is ABSURD and that those theories are wrong theories.

 

Yeah there is definately a benzene substituent, but its not amphetimine as you said. As to what exact molecule, I dont know. I went to the site where google grabbed the image and the only information it gave was of 3D molecule imaging software.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not to be pretentious, but that sounds about the most arrogant and ignorent thing I've heard in a long time.
If you only took the time to learn quantum and relativity you would see your assumed errors fall by the way side. It's a great thing when you find your thinking turning from 'WTF is this pigs shit!' into 'Wow this all makes sense after all.'

 

And you know this how? Sounds like you're expecting people to accept your ideas on faith alone. If this is what you think, you've completely missed the point of science. What, other than evidence, could make you so sure your ideas are correct?

 

przyk and everyone else,

The most important thing, the theory, is ready. It is theoretically consistent from the Mathematic and the Physics point of view. Some feasible experiments are pointed to be done, I cannot do them.
As I say at the main page "I CANNOT MAKE IT ALL"
Now is time for real physicist to analyze, verify, take data, make experiments and approve it following the so recalled scientific methodology.

The theory is available completely at the internet, for free PDF download and a printed version of the last version will be available soon.
I don't hide anything. Everything what I know is there. There's nothing else.
The site has an average of ten visits per day and some few books have been already sold what is much to say considering that a free PDF is available. This means that already are people really intertested in the theories.
Now is only a matter of time.

 

Does this mean you removed your anti-relativity section and reconsidered the basis of your entire theory in light of this? You studied all the current physical theories at record speed that you didn't understand a few hours ago, so that you are now actually in a position to be able to claim they are inadequate?

By the way, to change the subject from relativity a little, do you realize that by claiming F = dp/dt is false, you are effectively denying the law of conservation of momentum?

How many of them do you think are qualified physicists? At most, you might succeed in confusing a few people.

martillo: wake up. I'm sure you have more potential than this.

 

przyk,

Not at all.

Yes I deny current Dynamics' Law of Conservation of Momentum and as you can see I have already corrected it at the end of that page.

Today's law is directly derived from that (wrong) equation: F=dp/dt

Actually dp/dt = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt) and m(dv/dt)=F so the Law is derived from the deduced equation:

dp/dt = F +v(dm/dt)

This means that only when the total force F on an object is zero and also there's no variation in its mass then dp/dt = 0

Note that this definition is totally compatible with the calculations made in the cited web pages but is also compatible with the equation of motion of the rocket considering m the mass of the rocket plus the mass of the contained fuel.

Note that the propulsion force acts on the varying mass m of the rocket plus its contained fuel.

 

This is why it isn't straightforward how to apply F = dp/dt to a rocket - the object whose p you're considering isn't the same over time. A rocket with 10 tonnes of fuel isn't the same as a rocket with 20 tonnes of fuel. The number of atoms is decreasing over time.

 

So reject the theory because you don’t like its conclusions? You realize, don’t you, that you are using exactly the same “reasoning” that dumb-asses have been using for thousands of years to try to hold back legitimate science?

“But this would mean that the sun is actually the center of the solar system, rather than the earth! Ridiculous!”

"But this would mean that the earth wasn't really created by god 6000 years ago! Heresy!"