Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

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

  1. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem like you're qualified to make that judgment...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    The predictions in your presented problem are not the predictions that special relativity theory makes. You would have known this if you had actually done the predictions rigourously (i.e. actually setting up the Lorentz transforms etc.), instead of relying on your intuition about what relativity theory says (and just using the time dilation formula.)

    Btw., I actually agree with you on one thing: The age (i.e. the proper time elapsed since their birth) for each twin does not change between reference frames. Why? Because the proper time along a time-like worldline is it's length wrt. the Minkowski metric, which is Lorentz invariant.

    Now, if you can understand the technical explanation above, you should also be able to understand why we would be justified to out of hand reject any claim that relativity theory predicts different ages for the twin based on which reference frame you start from. Do you understand why? (Hint: We switch reference frames with the Lorentz transformations. Do you think the Lorentz transformations are Lorentz invariant?)

    In any case, you don't even make it to any actual objections. I presume that with:
    You mean that each twin sees the other as time dilated, correct? You then proceed with
    But you don't present any such results to prove your point! Your entire "refutation" is essentially this: Mutual time dilation, therefore false! I'm sorry, but that's so absurd I don't even know where to start.

    Another suggestion: If you think mutual time dilation somehow leads to inconsistencies in relativity theory, try producing some. Don't just claim that they inevitably arise. That's intellectually dishonest.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    You're kidding, right? Don't tell me you actually consider Section 1.1 to be a rigourous treatment of the problem you set up...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    Someone interested in some subject about the hew theories? Please post.
     
  8. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    yes, I wrote a few posts ago something about your description of the MM experiment and you decided to ignore this
     
  9. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    1100f,
    Believe me I didn't see it! Several posts appeared at the same time and while trying to answer the last one I didn't see the above one. Please forgive me and here I answer.

    Which interference pattern are you talking about?
    The Michelson Morley experiment gives as a result no interference pattern!
    I'm sure. You can easily find this at the web if you need.
     
  10. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807

    If you don't know that the MM experiment gives an interference pattern, then, please take any book in physics and read about the MM experiment, and you will see that you get an interference pattern that when you rotate by 90 degrees the apparatus, according to ether people there should be a shift of the interference pattern and according to relativistic people the pattern should not be shifted.

    Anyway, if your theory does not produce interference pattern, then your theory is incorrect.
    But according to your diagram it should produce them. your results show that you do not have any understanding on the MM experiment


    Maybe you should change the title of this thread to:

    "New physics: MM experiment does not give interference pattern"
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2006
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    110f,
    Well I searched in the web and you are right in one thing, the experiment was arranged with a difference in the arms so taht actually a pattern appear in the final detector. A shift in the pattern would be present if the aether would exist but no shift was detected. I should have wrote about null shift pattern in spite of no pattern. But notice that if the arms were the same no pattern appears if the beams reach the detector in phase while some pattern must appear if the beams arrive without phase. In this sense what I said is right although is not what was done in the original MM experiment.

    Anyway the theory predicts null results what is totally compatible with MM experiment. That's not my discovery, it is well known that the old Emission Theory of Light is totally compatible with the MM experiment! I just found interesting to present the graphics as a guide to the calculations that are involved to demonstrate that the Emission Theory verifies MM experiment.

    I will add a comment about this at the site in the "Detected errors in the last version" part of the main page mentioning "Thanks to 1100f at www.sciforums.com"

    "A New Light In Physics" thanks you!
    Your criticism have foundation and it will contribute to make some future version of the manuscript better!
     
  12. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    You still didn't show that your description gives a null result


    Please. do not mention me in any of your documents

    And btw, if you don't know the basis, and you must look in the web, this shows the general level and value of your theory
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2006
  13. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    1100f,
    Yes I did. I said in the previous post:
    Then what you see in my text is totally compatible with the graphics I present there. It is just that is not exactly as was made in the original MM experiment.
    I think it remains valid and this does not invalidate the theory.

    I prefer to make a right theory in a not perfectly exposed way and in a poor foreign english than a wrong theory perfectly exposed in perfect english.
    Sorry, I don't have the time to make it all perfect. But as time passes and more contributions can appear it will get better and some future version could get quite-perfect, because perfect-perfect for everyone in the world will never get!


    As you explicity solicited I will not mention "1100f" at my site.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2006
  14. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Nobody talked about your english, but about your understanding of physics.
    When you criticize an experiment without knowing what it says (and you admited that untill one hour ago you didn't know what it says), this gives the value of your theory (or the lack of value).
     
  15. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    1100f,
    So that mistake means to you the theory has no value...
    It's your thought and your decision.
     
  16. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Well, let me ask you a question.
    Suppose that there is this guy that do not know math, so he takes a book on mathematics, read it and now he says that he understood all the book, exept for one thing: why are the number eight written horizontally.
    Would you read a book written by this guy?
     
  17. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    1100f,
    It's your thought and your decision.

    But it seemes to me you don't have the necessary background to analyze and approve or disprove any one of the propositions of the new theories.

    Note that with this consideration we both arrive at the same conclusion: that you should not read it anymore.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2006
  18. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    How much of a background do you need to take out the trash?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It seems to me he is far more qualified to dismiss your theory than you are of dismissing Einstein.
     
  19. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    JA, JA!
    You made me laugh this time.

    Well I have already dismissed Einstein with logic, classical physics and a little of his own math (Relativity Theory only, not his Photelectric Effect (Nobel Prize) which support the "particle model" of light only and not any wave!).
    Now I would like him to scientifically dismiss my theories and very fast, I suppose, considering what you have said.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2006
  20. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    martillo, you don't seem interested in the fact that your dismissal of relativity theory has been torn to shreds. I wonder why that is...
     
  21. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    funkstar,
    Only admiting assertions like przyk having to state that the reality of the twins is different according to the choosed referential of observation!
    And you know why I refuse to discuss with you? Just because you also arrive at the same kind of assertions and the difference that you become much more nervous and agressive... (We have already discussed long time ago).
    "Kapeesh"?

    Now I'm waiting for 1100f's fast scientific disprovement of my theories.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2006
  22. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    We determined that you were making baseless assumptions about the nature of the universe that were assumed by scientists for simplicity until experimental observations seemed to indicate otherwise. Your belief in what we'll call the absolute reality is not new. It's very old, and was abandoned over a century ago.
    Funkstar doesn't have anything to be nervous about. As for aggressive, when has anyone threatened or insulted you?
    Your theory is not scientific. You've already shown in the Mercury precession thread that you don't understand the scientific method, mostly through your belief that it's actually possible to prove a theory beyond doubt. You expect people to just look at your theories and accept them as common sense. This might work for the Bible, but not for science.
     
  23. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    896
    przyk,
    Not at all.
    Let me show a fragment of what is said at the "BLOWING AWAY" part of the main page of the site:
     

Share This Page