The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by martillo, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    You lost me upon claiming "absolute position". What a silly notion with no evidence to support it. The very idea of position is intrisically relative in the context of nature. Point A is meaningless without some other point to compare it to, and you can never know if both points are in motion relative to something else.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Ho hum. Another "revolutionary" theory.

    Can you give us a quick summary of your theory's major results, please?

    Also, can you suggest an experiment which could prove your theory false, potentially?

    Thanks.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Fucking hell.
     
  8. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    Holy shit! We have a revolutionary breakthrough here. This journal is going to be famous for publishing this - all hail geocities, the new journalistic hotness in the scientific community.
     
  9. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    ok, why on earth would you believe anything you get from a geocites site?
     
  10. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Am I reading this thing right? In one section he states that E/M radiation propagates at c+source velocity and in another E/M is action at a distance. (Instantaneous). :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :bugeye:
     
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    James R,

    Yes I can: just read the CONCLUSION of the text.


    No, I can suggest an experiment to prove it right: just take a look on section 6.4 of the text: "The experiment as a proof".
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  12. Dilbert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361
    I tend to consider proof as proof. "The experiment as a proof" what the fuck does that mean? That comming up with an experiment counts as proof?

    And by the way, the 6.4 section was the shortest experiment description i have ever seen. Perhaps i should try something similar in my documents, instead of actually writing what i want to say i simply link to another section which in turn links to another section.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. UnderWhelmed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    DAMNIT! I was just starting to get a handle on the old theroy's!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    On a sidenote, I'm amazed at the amount of people who fail to grasp this notion.
     
  15. UnderWhelmed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    Whats the old saying "know your enemies" or something to that effect...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    On a sidenote, I'm amazed at the amount of you who fail to grasp what is and is not a proof of length contraction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Hey martillo, that appears to be the same 'new light in physics' that has already been debunked in other forums.

    Do you want it debunked here too?
     
  18. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    Please debunk it, I don't want to waste my time even skimming through it.
     
  19. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Debunked???
    Where? I didn't see it!

    Hearing at all of you I can understand how a Physic's LIE can survive for 100 years.

    You really don't take Physics seriously. You don't worry about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. You really don't care about the truth. You simply read, memorize and repeat every wroten thing in every "pretty book" and behaves as you know it all (in a sarcastic style of course).

    That's why Physics is at the state it is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  20. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    wesmorris,

    The notion of absolute position have sense when we think in the place of things in the Universe. It's relative to an absolute frame of the Universe. Is not the relative distance between objects.
     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Debunked???
    Where? I didn't see it!


    You saw it, you ignored it.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I obviously disagree.

    *sigh*

    There is no evidence of an "absolute frame of the universe". Even if you had that evidence, how do you know it's not moving in relation to something else?

    You're missing the point, but that's okay. Other posters have much more relevant criticisms. I'm out of here.
     
  23. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
     

Share This Page