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

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

1. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Billy T,

This is explained in Section 2.3 o my manuscript: "New interpretations for old experiments"

You empirically find that is verified:

q.v.B = k.m0.v2/r

I propose that the factor k belongs to the other side of the equation. Actually the equation must be:

s.q.v.B = m0.v2/r

where s = 1/k = (1-v2/c2)exp-1/2

This means that actually the electric and magnetic fields are affected by the relativistic factor "s" and not the mass!

The mass doesn't increase, is the force that decreases.

It's very easy...

Last edited: Sep 6, 2005

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
In case you are unaware of it emperical data suggests that we each are at the center of our own universe.

5. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Billy T,

Again, you have that 2D relativistic analogy model of the Universe, not me!
You assume a relativistic model and have problems to "see" how an absolute frame could be. Of course you have that problem, for Relativity an Absolute frame cannot exist.
The baloon you mention is exactly a 3D balloon for me. It expands away from the center of the Universe. Your citation: "any point has all the other point moving away from it does not apply! For me all the points are moving away from a center. There's only one point where it can be seen all the other points moving away. For the other points this does not apply.

I don't know which is the absolute fraqme of the Universe, but I know it exists. Probably it will be difficult to find, but the fact that we cannot find it is not an argument against it existence.

I can say that if scientists have already detected that all the galaxies seem to be moving away then WE are NEAR the center!

I can say another thing, Mechanics Theory states that gyroscopes have "fixed" directions and then we should ask: "Relative to what referential are this directions fixed?". Of course there's only one answer: relative to the Absolute Frame! Gyroscopes gives some directions at rest relative to the Absolute Frame but today we are not able to decide which directions are the directions of it. We must know more about the Universe to find what characteristics can determine which are the "privileged" directions.

7. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
I can say that if scientists have already detected that all the galaxies seem to be moving away then WE are NEAR the center!

You really didn't think that one through. Galaxies are moving away FROM EACH OTHER! In other words, you can observe from any galaxy in the universe, all other galaxies moving away. Does that mean they are all near a center?

8. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
(Q),
I think this is a wrong statement.
What really have been proven through measurements of displacements of "supernovas" is that they are all moving away FROM US. Of course if there is a spheric expansion they are all moving away from each other, but is a spheric expansion from a center that must be near us.

9. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Yes and appearantly you do not understand that if one is using a 2D analogy to help understand how every galaxy (corresponding to a dot on the 2D surace of the ballon) can see all other galayies (corresponding to a dot on the 2D surace of the ballon) as moving away from it. I say you do not understand as you answer "from the center of the ballon" but there is no such place in the 2D world of the surface of the ballon - just as there is no such place as the center of the universe in the 3D world.

No one informed is arguing that the center of the universe exist but can't be found. It is every where or no where depending on your view. It is not centered on the Earth - That view went out a long time ago. Even the Catholic Church no longer support it but they burnt Bruno at the stake because he knew it was false.

10. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

Gyroscopes do indeed maintain a "fixed" orientation. Of course, this statement makes no sense unless we say what they are "fixed" with respect to. In your theory you claim that they must be "fixed" with respect to the absolute frame of the universe. However, this is not the only possibility. A given gyroscope can have a fixed direction with respect to all inertial frames simultaneously. The key lies in the fact that different inertial frames may label the orientation differently, but the physical orientation is still the same. You may say the gyroscope points in the x direction. I may say it points in the y direction because I am rotated by 90 degress from you. The point is that in any inertial frame the gyroscope orientation is independent of time. Here is a simple example: the the gyroscope will always point to the same star (at least insofar as the fixed stars are a truly inertial frame) no matter what inertial frame you look at it in. You may say the star is 200 ly along the x-axis, and I may say the star is 200 ly along the y-axis because my frame is rotated with respect to yours, but the gyroscope points to the star in both frames.

11. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Billy T,

Ok, I should not speak in terms of the balloon.
I must say that the analogy of the Universe expansion with the 2D surface of a balloon is wrong!
I saw a special program wich showed the development of how it was proven that the Universe is expanding. A software (made by "Paul") acopled to a telescope found supernovas and by spectral analysis, taking into account doppler effect, it was measured the velocity they were moving. Of course this measured how all the supernovas moves away from the telescope (us).
We can only assure that the Universe is expanding away from us!

I don't know where the 2D balloon surface analogy comes from but sure we cannot see how the Universe looks like from any other distant galaxy and so I don't know in what this statement is founded.

I didn't say that!
I only said it must be near in a Universal scale what means for example that our galaxy must be near the center of the Universe. Not Earth of course. Earth moves and also the Sun. The center of the Universe don't move!

Last edited: Sep 8, 2005
12. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,
I agree with you. Any referential only "shifted" from the Absolute Referential has fixed directions relative to it and the same applies to gyroscopes. But if something is fixed relative to any of this referentials it is also fixed to the Absolute Frame.
I have only mentioned the Absolute one to simplify...

I believe the Absolute Frame can only differentiate from the others because of some possible characteristics of the Universe we even don't know today.

13. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Martillo, the only thing that has died here is your "New Light in Physics". It burnt out about 22 pages ago.

Messages:
877