Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

Nasor,
That "reasoning" is what you all are applying to me now. Think about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I found logical flaws on your first page. How many times are you going to have to be reminded of this? How long are you going to turn a blind eye to them? How long are you going to keep assuming you are right and every physicist since Newton was an incompetent fool every time you find a new way of misapplying existing theories? Can you imagine what would happen if every highschool physics student was this arrogant every time they got a homework problem wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmmmmmm I wonder if martillios next theory will be that the universe revolves around him?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

przyk,
I have already considered your arguments but I also apply logic and for me it says I'm still right.
I'm not an arrogant one at all. I'm just very sure on what I'm talking about the covered subjects.

I appreciate your comments (this apply to everyone in the forums) as totally honest ones coming from your real beliefs in what you may have studied hard but I have walked a long way in the subjects we treated and I can see they cannot rigorously refute mines.
I know you don't believe that, your instinct says for example that today's such advanced Physics with so much physicists working couldn't have been wrong for 100 years and that some "idols" of Physics so much proclamed by the press media and all those very serious books cannot be so wrong anyway. This kind of "feeling" in our minds make everyone have a very strong reaction against the possibility that they could be wrong and believe me distortionate our logical reasoning.
I know, don't you think I have also had this kind of problems in my mind? I had.
I had a very hard work fighting them and having to be extremely honest with myself!

I make errors, I make errors everyday and being conscient about that I have made strong theoretical verifications and I had to change and correct many statemets along the development of the theories and I could see how many times we think we are applying logic correctly when we actually aren't and I could understand how even "idols" could have made a mistake.

I cannot make some experiments myself to have experimental data availabe. I could make just that of Section 4.11 "The spin" with two small speakers' magnets but I did a very strong theoretical work and I'm good in that, I always was.
Now I think real Physicists have what I can call some "theoretical discoveries" to work on and I believe they are great ones.
You think I'm arrogant saying this? I'm not. I'm just very sure on what I'm talking about.
You don't believe in me, I know, but afterall, do you know me? do you know what I really did? How I worked? You don't know anything! So please give me a chance.
That's what I'm asking now, a chance.

May be I made some errors, Ok, but may be there are many right things and the errors can be corrected after. The important thing is that I could be right in some new theoretical discoveries! That's what is important.

 

If you haven't even the time and respect to learn the physics that has time and time again proven to be true, never proven untrue and even predictive. Why should anyone treat you any differently? Thats not even the case though - people here have actually bothered to lend your claims consideration, but they just didn't give the right answer huh? I suggest what you are really seeking is not the truth, but for sane physics scholars to drop castiron physics and adopt your assertions at request. Are you sure you have both feet planted firmly in the world of reality?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

also as a matter of interest are you a religious person?

 

imaplanck,

Yes I'm sure.

No I'm not.
I believe in God but there's no religium that can satisfy my faith. My faith tells me that for the symmetry and balance of the Universe a God and a Godess must exist together and such thing as the "Devil" does not exist.
Of course is a matter of faith only, there's no evidence but is my faith.

 

You assume this, without justifying it:

Because it contradicts relativity, you assume relativity is wrong. From there:

Is this what you call logic? First of all, disproving Einstein's theory does not in itself imply an absolute frame. Second of all, your so-called disproof itself is completely dependent on your assertion that "age is an intrinsic property of living individuals." An assertion that:

a) you never even attempted to justify.
b) is widely believed to be false.

You need a justification, and because of b) it had better be a damn good one. Until then, the conclusion following your gendanken carries no weight.

You presupposed existing theories to be "absurd", and by your own admission can't be bothered learning about them. You then expect everyone to give your theories the attention you failed to give the ones you think need replacing. This is arrogant.

Whenever you have trouble with an existing theory (like F = dp/dt), instead of consulting an expert to make sure you are actually applying it properly you instantly reject it. This is arrogant.

These titles:

are arrogant and presumptuous.

Given that you don't understand the theories you are refuting, no-one has any reason to even look at your attemts at disproving them.

It's not just instinct and feeling. I understand at least one of the theories you are trying to refute (relativity) a lot better than you do. I fully understand the basics of this theory, and am not moved by the problems you are having with it. I also had problems with relativity before fully understanding it.

Same goes for thinking you're more talented than Einstein.

Glad to hear it's at least rung some alarm bells. Did you actually consult with a physicist and ask them what they thought of your refutations?

And you think you're more reliable than the entire peer review system?

String theory currently has little or no experimental evidence supporting it. This is what Brian Green, a leading string theorist, had to say about this:

With you, its:

Do you have any idea how hard tens of thousands of physicists have worked on relativity, QM, and string theory? Did you give them a chance?

This is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard. One error could potentially send your entire theory falling down like a house of cards. If you think there are errors in established theories, why don't you think they can be patched up?

Your chances of this would be greatly improved if you learned some logic and physics. Remember that the way nature works is not decided by you.

 

How did I know you were a god believer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmmmm may I suggest that you haven't seen what everyone else has seen and overlooked this as a possible sum up to your physics theory similarily?

 

I look at your site and got into the chapter that talks about Michelson Morley experiment.

I quote your conclusion:
"In other way, calculations of the absolute velocities can be made to show that the two final beams reach the detector in phase. Then no interference pattern is theoretically expected."

Since experimentally we know that there is an interference pattern and you conclude that by your theory there should not be any interference pattern, your theory is completely wrong

 

przyk,

Finally you arrived to the key question!!!
Someway late but you got it!!!

Is the new concept in the twins like paradoxes isn't it?

Now, I say in Section 1.1:

All the relations in the section are perfectly deduced without errors just this question is the key point: Is age of living organisms an intrinsic property and must it be the same in spite of the referential of observation choosed?

The answer is yes. Why? Because age is a magnitude related to all the physiological phenomenons that affected the organism during its entire life.
The history of the organism cannot be changed by a change of the frame of observation!
For example the "aspect" or "image" of the organism is intrinsic, it cannot change if we change the referential of observation!
The same way its age does not change. In mathematical words: The age is invariant under a change of referentials.
This is then the main premise in the demonstration nobody have considered before (at least as I know) and is right and true!

The difference is that all that theories are "old" and a long time have passed trying to "patch" them while my theory is new!


By the way, the titles you have mentioned are not arrogant nor presumptuous, they are just provocative.

 

Sorry but I cant understand gibberish, but if the original twin parodox has been demonstrated to be a fallacy(Travelling twin A indeed is not equal because she experienced the ecceleration from twin Bs 0 frame of reference up to a 0.9c space ship reference frame(in case you dont know)) why are you trying to revive a dead horse? There are no parodoxes in special relativity! Just incomplete understanding in those who see any.

But does it take into account all accurate dilation measurement post Michelson-Morley?

 

Actually, it's the first problem on your site I pointed out [POST=1068679]here[/POST].

Let's look at this first:

Yep. They can even use video if they want. That way we can see what the universe looks like in different reference frames. Note that there's no reason for all the videos to look the same.

What I'd like to know is where you got this from:

You have to be clear by what you mean by "phenomenon of Nature." In SRT, the laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames, meaning that all the basic equations are the same. This does not mean that the solutions to these equations are the same in every reference frame.

As an example, consider the relativistic formula for kinetic energy. It is E = mc²(γ - 1). This equation is true in all frames, but because it is a function of velocity (a frame-dependent quantity), what you measure the kinetic energy of a particle to be depends on which reference frame you're measuring it from. Trivially, any object's kinetic energy is zero in its own rest frame.

No-one's saying that you grew a third arm or celebrated your 60th birthday before learning to walk and talk in some other reference frame, just that what point you are at in your "history" and how quickly you are progressing through it is different in different frames.

 

imaplanck,

Paradox, by definition (see some dictionary), is something that at first time appears to be contradictory but have a right explanation at the end.
So the "twins paradox" is well called a paradox.

Yes, the problem is about the time dilation as predicted by Relativity!

 

No that is the mathematicians paradox. When people are suggesting the twin paradox they are using it in its general sense(find a GOOD dictionary and regard the difference) to suggest that relativity is wrong.
Why do people resort to arguing semantics of what is said when their general arguement has crashed and burned?

 

THERE IS NO PROBLEM, ALL PREDICTIONS HAVE PROVED CORRECT.

 

przyk,

Yes there is. The reality of each twin is unique. You cannot change the reality by changing the frame of observation.

Now I guess you will ask What do youi understand by reality?
I think that realituy is the conjunct of phenomenons happening at some specific time at some place (If we refers to the entire Universe that will be the reality of the Universe at some specific time).

You ask what I mean by phenomenon. I think it can be understood as the collection (conjunct) of the properties of a system and how it develops in some interval of time.

Now you will ask what I mean by "system" and "properties". Please przyk, think a bit. I assume you have some background in those terms. If not we will not be able to discuss.

Of course I know that. Invariance is not related to the values of the variables, of course!

The "point" something is in its history, that's the problem. The question is then at which "point" are the twins at the cross time. They can have only one "point" determined by their reality and it cannot depend on the frame of observation while relativistic predictions are different in different frames. That's the inconsistency of the theory treated in Section 1.1

 

imaplanck,
[QUOTE“ Yes, the problem is about the time dilation as predicted by Relativity! ”

THERE IS NO PROBLEM, ALL PREDICTIONS HAVE PROVED CORRECT. [/QUOTE]

Yes there is a problem now, the predictions in my presented problem.

 

Yes but your prediction is based on what science? based on what measurement? Anyone can make predictions based on nothing. I could predict that a pink elephant god is responsible for length contranction and mass increase, but if my prediction is based on thin air, it's just a steaming pile of bull.

 

Why not? Each twin has their own view of reality, and the Lorentz transform describes how to translate from one twin's view of reality to the other's. I don't know about you, but I don't have a problem with this. Reality depends on your point of view. So what?

Sounds like you're building up your own view of how the universe works, then rejecting relativity because it's incompatible with your beliefs.

No, it's inconsistent with your notion of an absolute universe. You may as well just say you don't like the philosophy surrounding relativity.

The issue you are having a problem with is this: if twin A is 5 years old when twin B is 6 years old in B's frame, it does not follow in SRT that twin A is 5 when twin B is 6 in B's frame. In general, this kind of reasoning will only hold when both twins are at the same location at the same time.

(Similarly, if twin A is aging at half the rate of twin B in B's frame, it does not imply that twin A is aging at half the rate of twin B in B's frame)

 

przyk,
Ok, I said I would not discuss unproductively about Relativity anymore. The last posts were good to explain with more details some of the statements presented at Section 1.1 that I considered important for the rigourous treatment of the problem.
You don't believe they are right and you say that the twins can have different realities depending of the frame of observation!
Sorry, I can't discuss this anymore.