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

I am curious to see the answer to this one...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you suggesting the the emission theory is correct?

If so, maybe you can explain why the photons that stars emit don't appear as a combination of red and blue shifted light? Or perhaps you can explain why the light from stars moving towards our frame doesn't overtake and move past the light emitted from star moving away from our frame?

Or maybe you can explain why develop theories while you ignore current observations?

Does your new theory explain why I can't stop reading this thread?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funkstar and Underwhelmed,

While considering the two referentials S and S' and the Lorentz transform it must be considered that t represents the time happening in S' seen by the observer in S.

This means the Lorentz Transform gives the relativistic predicrion of what is happening in S' but seen by the observer in S.

I'm very sure about this.

Please take your time about this. It is basic but a delicated consideration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Underwhelmed,

Because your intuition is telling you that something very good and important is happening here now.

 

No, people cannot stop reading this thread because they don't wish to get into an actual debate on relevant issues, but rather only like slapping/punching others.

In this case "others" is only you.

 

Underwhelmed,

It must be considered first that in general stars have a very small velocity compared with the velocity of light, second that every time light passes through a relative dense medium (for example atmosphere and interestelar gas) the light looses its original source component of the velocity and acquires a new one, the source velocity of the new medium. The photons are re-emitted by the new medium. For the case of binary stars another phenomenon must be taken into account but to understand this you must take a look on the new theories.

 

Aer,

This is what you are doing here! (may be someone else...).

 

martillo, I want math, not words. If (x',t') are the spacetime coordinates in S' (the twin A frame) for some event, what spacetime coordinates (x,t) in S (in the mothership frame) do they correspond to?

It is wrong. There's nothing about observation from S about the Lorentz transforms. All they do is transform spacetime coordinates from one frame to another. Do you even understand what is meant by coordinates?

Please give the math I asked of you.

 

1) Dont tell this to that crack Marlitto.

2) Thanks for the Enlightenment. But why is it so, What are its mechanics behind this phenomena ?

3) So momentum is not related to the mass of any body ?

 

No, no.. I think I was correct when I said others are only here because they want to slap you around. They (myself included) don't listen to anything you have to say because everything you say is founded on ignorance.

 

Fine, Lets say I give you that one. What happens in the case when you have two stars overlapping one another from our point of view. The star moving closest to out PoV is moving away from us and the second star that is farther away from our PoV is moving towards us.

What do we see? Does the light from the second star catch the first stars light? Is there any doppler shifting?

Can you provide any observations that support this claim...remember its on you to prove your theories using current observations...

Such as?

 

Funkstar,

(x',t') are the the spacetime coordinates of an object in S' while (x,t) are the spacetime coordinates of the same object in S.

So, to describe a phenomenon happening in S', wich has in S' known coordinates (x',t'), we must apply Lorentz Transform to find the correspondent coordinates (x,t) to have the description of the phenomenon in S.

Then t is the time of S' seen by an observer in S.

Just tell me if it is not clear yet.

 

Underwhelmed,

If they totally overlap we will see the light of one star the nearer one. The light of the other will be absorbed by this star.
If we can detect two stars is because we are receving the light of both with enough separation.

I can't prove this, I'm giving the explanations some physicists gave to consider that observation as not conclusive for one or other theory.


My theories haven't been proven yet!

For now is only a very consistent theory that explain quite all the main experiments already done, even those which Relativity explains except the gravity problems of the Mercury's orbit precession. For me MASS is something that can have a Magnetic origin and Newton's Gravity Law can be corrected to take into account some magnetic effects. But I couldn't conclude anything yet. Is something for further study.

That's what I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that.

The theory have very strong and consistent arguments. It deserves the opportunity to be analyzed by more expert minds. This is what I'm claiming.

 

Funkstar,

Daemon, the equations where right at the first time, I corrected back again. What was wrong was the first post about t, t', S and S', I corrected it...
I'm sorry... It is a confusing subject isn't it?

 

Yes, but I want the math. What are the specific equations to transform (x',t') to (x,t)?

No. t is time in S. Nothing more.

Just do the math.

 

in the case of photons anyway. the momentum of a photon is p=hf/c, where p is momentum, h is planks constant, f is frequency, and c is the speed of light. as you can see, mass is not in the equation.

as for the proof of time dilation near massive objects, you will either have to take the word of most physicists, or learn to solve coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations. your choice.

 

so, where does the extra energy of the photons go? I think our universe would be quite different if photons were constantly giving/taking energy from things in order to change their frequency relative to their "new" emission.

 

cato,

The difference in the energy is given or absorbed by the atoms of the medium.

 

Funkstar,

If you don't agree with this you are in serious trouble with Relativity.

This is strange since you seem to know about Relativity and the Lorentz Transform equations are a too basic thing for you to ask here but I think I can guess your point.
The equations that always appear in the literature are those which x' and t' appears at the right side of the equations and you are asking for the equations that directly gives x' and t' as functions of the variables x and t, is this true?

I have a doubt about this and I'm not on my desk now (travel).I think I could answer this on Friday 26th.

 

Thanks CATO.