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

Odin'Izm,

You interpret some experiments this way.
I have another interpretation.

I believe others experiments will be done to finally find the truth!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you interpret these results?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already posted the math in this thread. Twice. You didn't agree, and your argument was some nonsense about not being able to transform into other reference frames (which we are) and something about the transforms only being useful for observations (which is wrong). I've tried to show you just how basic your misconception about frames is, by forcing you to do a tiny bit of work, to see the frame depence of spacetime coordinates. Something that is intrinsically true, and not just in relativity, but in every conceivable description. That you refuse to do so only reflects badly on you.

Here's another reason why you're wrong: The "Lorentz" in "Lorentz transformation equations" is a verb. A transformation is Lorentzian is it conserves the spacetime interval, i.e. if the distance between two events (marked by spacetime coordinates in a given frame) given by the Lorentz metric is invariant between frames.

If you want to use the time coordinate after transformation as a measure of proper time, your transformation must be Lorentzian, and the object must be at rest in the frame you transform to. Your transformation was Lorentzian and the object was at rest for going from the frame of the mothership to the frame of the first twin but not so for going to the frame of the second twin (Can you see which of the two requirements was violated?).


As for your supposed other inconsistencies, they are nothing more than trivial invocations of absolute time. A rookie mistake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funkstar,

You are referring here to the first inconsistency I agree could be removed with an extra consideration as I wrote before:

Now the problem have been reduced to the two last remaining inconsistencies:

You wrote:

This is not a way to present the math of the problem!

I haven't even mentioned absolute time. I have just calculated the relativistic predictions in different frames and compared them to show that contradictions appear what shows inconsistencies in the theory.

I have already presented my math. You say it is wrong. Now is time to you to present your math.

Show your math!

 

You have not presented your math, unless you have a very unusual definition of the word "math". You have presented a rough sketch of some vague thought experiment you've come up with that you think invalidates experimental results. Let me tell you something: No thought experiment will ever invalidate an actual experiment. You are wasting your breath suggesting it.

He has presented his math, you're just either too dense or too stupid to realize what it means. I'm not sure which. Get it through your head: YOU ARE WRONG. Nothing you have said has the slightest inkling of presence in real life.

For the moment, let us assume that you are, somehow, right. The you are not just saying that SR is wrong. You are saying that GR, which is one of the most accurately measured theories ever devised is wrong. You are also saying that quantum field theory is wrong, which is itself the most accurate theory ever devised. Do you have the knowhow to create a replacement for the Lorentz group that fills into quantum field theory?

You have to realize that SR cannot be "wrong" while the rest of physics stands up on its own. Physics is too integrated at this point for one theory to be wrong and have the rest of the structure stand up on its own like it has. I suggest you either actually show your math or just shut up.

 

Physmachine,

The experiment is precisely defined and it shows theoretical contradictions in Relativity Theory.
Do you want a real experimental one? I'm claiming for one: a modified version of Davisson-Germer experiment. Do you want to know what is it about? You have to visit my website.

Actually I believe that about half of today's Physics is totally wrong. Do you want to know why? You have to see my website.
Here I can only give you the "Final Note" of my manuscript:

"FINAL NOTE

The new theories are coherent with Classical Physics, Quantum Physics, the Einstein E=mc2 formula and the De Broglie formula, although some corrections must be made. It disagrees with Relativity Theory, the Wave Mechanics Theory, the Electromagnetic Wave Theory, the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom and the Quarks Theory."


Now,

Isn't it enough what I have already wrote?:

What else do you want?
Do you want me to write the original Lorentz equations for time for each twin as the observer?
t' = k(t - wx/c2)
Do you need me to substitute x=wt on it?
t' = k(t - w2t/c2) = k(1 - w2/c2)t = t/k
t' = t/k

Do you want the time calculated for the mother-ship where we must only substitue w with v and find that t' = t/k but here the k is different?

Do you really want me to show this really stupid substitutions that anyone with a little real want to find the truth can do mentally???

OK, there it was, now show me your math or are you ashamed to show everybody here that your own math also leaves to the same contradictory results but you simply don't want to accept this because you would not like to have to agree here that Relativity is an inconsistent theory?

(Afterall "my math" is just the current relativistic math applied to "the perfect problem").

 

Okay, reading your website (which I unfortunately am doing right now) I find a few questions already in the first section:
(1) How do you propose we measure such an absolute reference frame?
(2) Are you aware that Maxwell's equations can arise out of special relativity by merely claiming that charge is Lorentz invariant (which experiments support)?
(3) How do you answer the fact that experiments have shown that the speed of light IS independent of reference frame?
(4) Are you aware that it is NOT assumed that the electromagnetic fields propagate instantaneously?
(5) Are you aware that Maxwell's equations are in fact Lorentz invariant?

These are just the inconsistencies I see in the first two sections. I'm only guessing that I'd find at least 20 glaring inconsistencies through all eight chapters. Am I "educated stupid" and you're just a shining light to guide me to the Truth?

 

No intention of butting in, nor have I read any of his web site. However, I do have a couple of comments regarding some of our objections.

Measuring some absolute frame is not a requirement, nor does being unable to do so alter the possibility of such a frame existing.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

2 & 3 are linked at the hip.

What is really shown is that the invariance of light is an illusion caused by the fact that a moving observer is not viewing the same photon.

The following is an example of modern thinking by a NASA, Phd, Physicist.:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/details.htm

Nor was it assumed until recent decades that particle entanglement could occur instantly. There is a great deal left to explain and sticking strictly by the befuddled rambling of SRT we will never find the correct views.

 

MacM,

Welldone! I totally agree with you in those points.

I just want to say that Physmachine points are inconsistencies with some beliefs of current Physics. They are not inconsistencies of the theory presented.

Inconsistency of a theory means a logical or mathematical contradiction "inside itself".

I challenge you and anyone to find one contradiction on my theories!

 

I challenge you and anyone to find one contradiction on my theories!

And you called me a parrot? I find you more of a duck. Quack.

 

ha........... did someone mention Quack......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Martillo, the only "real " inconsistancy that people are claiming is that your theory is not supported by observations. That there is no experimental basis that can support your thoeries. In fact there is experimental proof that your theories are invalid.

I am not going to make any specific reference because I am unqualified to do so but this is what they are attempting to say.
So maybe the question is not so much about logical inconsistency but more about how observations made in reality are either incompatable or comparable with your theories.
If you stick to this approach then you and every one else will be greatly benefitted.

For example Length contraction is a necessary outcome of SRT but this has yet to be shown in physical observations.....etc etc etc.....as MacM has said:
"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" although I am sure he didn't intend it to be applied to length contraction......hmmmmmm

 

Quantum Quack,

Which experimental proofs are you talking about?

You have to make the reference or your assertion has nosense.

OK, let talk about my theory then. But for this you have to study it...

What I can say now is that it is consistent with all the main experiments already done in Physics!

 

the ones that support the currently held physics belief systems.

or don't you think that most of the physics in use today is supported by experiment and observation?

Please note I did not say teh word or imply the word "ALL"

 

What I can say now is that it is consistent with all the main experiments already done in Physics!

 

Hey martillo, I haven't had a chance to read your entire paper yet, and I shall refrain from commenting in general until I do. Unfortunately, I have already discovered an error. In section 2.1 ( http://www.geocities.com/anewlighti...l_Electric_and_Magnetic_Fields_and_Forces.htm )you describe the magnetic field of a current ring, and you quite correctly demonstrate that the field looks like a dipole field far away. However, in the next line you say that the magnetic field can thus be stronger than the electric field at small distances. This does not follow as far as I can tell. In fact, for your current ring, the magnetic field at small distances (I presume you mean measured from the origin) with z << R approaches a constant value with a correction of order z^2/R^2. Perhaps this is a simple mistake, and I don't know what use you make of the erroneous conclusion that the magnetic field of the ring can be stronger than the electric field of a point charge at the origin. However, simple examples that are incorrect tend to bias people against you. I apologize if this was brought up earlier, but I didn't want to read all those posts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Best, and I look forward to your reply.

 

Physics Monkey,

I appreciate your comment.

The word small in that next line does not mean z << R

The meaning comes from the fact that in a graphic the electric and the magnetic forces are two lines with a crossing point.
It can be seen in a simple intuitive graphic with FE proportional to (z)exp-2 and FB proportional to (z)exp-3 that at small distances FB is bigger than FE and at large distances FB is smaller tha FE. A crosspoint exist.

The word smaller there means smaller than that cross-point. Note that this cross point is still under the aproximation z >> R (R very small).

I agree that actually it can be confused. I'm sorry but is not easy to explain it all in a few words and I wanted to make a concise and simple book...

 

martillo,

Ok, I agree that it is possible to arrange the currents, charges, velocities, etc so that the electric (qE) and magnetic (qvB) forces have the same size at some point far away z >> R. However, I don't think this is an equilibrium point (forces sum to zero, no motion) for a simple point charge. In equilibrium, the velocity of the charge is zero, and so there is no magnatic force at all. If the charge velocity is not zero, as is neccessary to have the magnetic force and the electric force be equal in magnitude, then the particle is not in equilibrium. I don't think I understand what you mean by equilibrium point. Perhaps you are using an alternative definition? Could you please clarify.

 

Physics monkey,

You must forgive me. You are right, it has nosense to talk about equilibrium point here. I mixtured the concepts with those of section 3.3 where exist an atraction between two rings of opposite charge and a repulsive magnetic force between them and there's an equilibrium between the two rings.

I'm sorry, I answered you too fast and made that mistake.
I have corrected the post for future readers don't get confused.

Feel free to ask any kind of question. I developed the text very carefully but it was not easy and I have to make many corrections while developing it and may be some things should still be corrected...

I hope you enjoy the text and can find interesting and usefull things in it.

 

martillo,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I have another question for you now. I am in Chap. 3 where you discuss elementary particles. It seems that you wish to model elementary particles by small wire loops. I find this very interesting; I assume the ring has fixed charge distribution and spins to create a current. Is the mass as well as the charge of the particle distributed in space? If so, what is the angular momentum that arises due to the spinning mass? How does this angular momentum compare to the observed quantum mechanical spin of the electron?

 

Physics monkey,

You can note that Mass is not defined in the text (Gravity is not even mentioned!). I believe that mass can have an electro-magnetic origin but I couldn't conclude anything yet, that is why mass is not well treated.

The new theories determine an Energy directly associated to mass: Em = 1/2.mç2 but is defined as the Electro-magnetic Potential stored in the Electric and Magnetic fields of the structures of the particles. The theory suggest a strong relationship between mass and the Electric and Magnetic fields but I couldn't define theoretically mass. This need further research.

You asked:

The answer is no. The rings are the shape of the distribution of the charge of the rings, not its mass.

Mass must be understood as a property of the rings like the total charge "q" they have. It is a mathematical value, a parameter of their structure (as I said, may be related to their magnetic and electric fields).

We have the natural intuition that material things have mass and so you probably got the idea that the rings are made of some "material" and have mass. In the new theory this is not true. In section 3.1 is particularly defined the charge of the rings: