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

PhysMachine and fo3: Beautiful rants. I agree completely.

You mean, with more accurate theories than ever? Possibly on the verge of a unified physical theory? I'd say it's in a pretty fucking good state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You guys simply don't understand what is going on.

I'm not trying to impose anything to you.
I started this thread as an advice to anyone really interested in Physics development that something could change soon in the main theories and you can participate if you want to. It's a chance to do something important in Physics.

I found several new interpretations for some experiments and found a really new point of view that seems to be in agreement with all the main experiments already done. This deserves an opportunity to be analyzed by you and I strongly believe it will worth for you too.

But you simply give answers without even looking at the site. I understand that the internet is full of alternative theories that doesn't go much further and you don't want to waste your time, but I insist because this one really have a chance!

One important thing I discovered is a modified version of the Davisson-Germer experiment for high velocities (See Sections 6.3 and 6.4)) that can be done and can really decide if Relativity is right or wrong! I cannot make it!

Nobody interested here? I can't believe...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is an almost daily occurrence that particles are accelerated near the speed of light in acceleraters. Special relativity is one of the most accurately confirmed theories ever devised, mostly because it's so counterintuitive. If you want to ignore a century of experimental work, then suit yourself. I'm convinced, as are most credible scientists on the planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The new theories also agree with those experiments!

Is obvious you haven't read it.

 

Westmorris,
Your arguments are missing some content. So what if the molecule didn't crash into the other molecule, there were trillions of other molecules that did.

Westmorris, what the hey is so difficult to assess than the absolute zero motion of a point in space. This means only a recognized point that doesn't move. The point is the frame, it isn't on a frame. The universe doesn't care if we've found it and we have, though some fail to recognize the point.

It seems that you've glommed onto some ideas that you chose to expand. If you aren't a physicist why do you chose to believe one sect over another? Is it cool to believe in SRT because it is "counter intuitive" and you know how to do that? Or you've fopund a rfeasonable facsimile of god so you quit looking. Do you actually demean those you are discussing SRT with because they cannot seem to shake the tradional world they were accustomed to and that has proved to be the one and only?

Why do you use words you aren't knowledgeable on the usage of? You probably consider yourself a philospher? Superluminal would normally nail you to your own cross, but, you seem to say the right words of aggreement so you are tolerated. In other words, SL agrees with those that agree with him, 0thers, he ridicules even though he has never seen the other side of the road. SL is in an agreement circle he is come fortable with though he does confess to a severe state or condition of masochism, he likes the pain,(its probably a sex thing) "then everything gonna be alright" as the song goes. Me thinks he smokes too much, it makes him cough and it reminds him of the favorite body part of shit smokers when they hand the dube to another, "eer!"

But you have a place to discuss ideas and to be accepted, so believe pilgrim, President Bush will make everything allright, a funky war that we can all believe in as correct, the war and the precious SRT that is that we fight, evil.
But , as Aer remarked, I am rambling, yes the Texas Rose.

Geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

So if I am reaching for something meaningless, what is that exactly that you see I reach for?

Geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Aer,

You wrote:

Relativity implies the relativistic mass that varies with velocity by the factor s=root(1-v2/c2).
If you propose Lorentz Transforms with constant mass then is another new theory you areproposing!

 

UnderWhelmed,

Of course it will need more energy related to the equation KE=mv2/2

Much sarcasm, poor significance...

 

Aer,

Today Physics can't explain what is happening and call this the "wave-particle duality". Obviously is a mystery but I have already solved it! Take a look!

 

fo3,

And they are right. Relativity is full of inconsistent "paradoxes". In Mathematics these are called contradictions.

those have a GOOD Physical intuition. They are intuitively right!

 

I've provided content elsewhere which you always ignored. We can discuss it here then, that's fine.

I don't see the relevance at all as I'll explain below. It seems to me you have some very strange notions.

I understand the intended meaning, but find it short-sighted. How can you know a point isn't moving? You can take it as a convention, sure... but that isn't "absolute", it's presumption. You could verify it from every other point in the universe, sure... but you have no way to verify if what you think of as the universe itself hasn't changed in property or isn't itself moving. Given that you cannot at this juncture, even properly define the extents of the universe, you run into a problem. Further, how does absolute motion fit into the notion of an expanding universe?

Who says it is? The issue is relative motion right? It's the label "absolute" the renders the term pointless.

Of course not. It's the structure of the universe that's the object of the model of it no? Maybe you've "found it" maybe you haven't. Saying "some fail to recognize the point" regarding theories that haven't withstood the rigors of criticism of the scientific community - stinks of arrogance and immaturity. If your theory is so damned good, it would be irrefutable. Maybe people just aren't ready for your awesomeness! It's certainly true in my case. Well, some people are ready.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm an engineer. I understand science and respect the process. There is a theory that has withstood it. While it's obviously incomplete, I see no flaw in its logic, and see many with yours like that which we are currently discussing. That and it's painfully clear that almost everyone I've seen complain about SRT or whatever almost always displays a comprehension that appears to me as not at all what SRT is, but some misunderstanding they can't get past. MacM is a prime example. I just don't think the idea of space-time or its basic implications fit in many people's heads, and feel confident that I have a basic understanding of it. If people would reject it for reasons that clearly show problems with it, that might change my mind... but to this point no one on this site who complains about it has demonstrated to me that they understand it well enough to criticize it. I don't mean that as if "I'm the expert". I just mean per my basic understanding, your basic understanding and that of a few others is just wrong and I have no idea how to explain it any more clearly than I have in my thousands of words trying to explain it to mac. James can't even get through to him, and his explanations are far more clear than my own. So many have tried, and so many failed to get through the shell constructed to protect the alternative theories. Bah, regardless... IMO, one must demonstrate they understand what they're criticizing and no one critizing has done so thus far. It's the notion of space-time and its implications that seem to trip people up and cause them to reject it before they've even gotten in far enough to actually criticize something meaningful.

What does "cool" have to do with it? Do you think I'd tentatively accept a theory about the nature of space and time because it's "cool"? Conversely, do you think it's "uncool" because it is "counter intuitive" and you simply don't know how to do that?

Seems like what you've done. Myself, I think string theory is the most promising theory, but obviously it's not complete either. I can accept that for now, SRT (which is brilliant) is the best thing going and I'm excited to see how things go in this area.

Where the hell did that come from? You're being absolutist. I demean you for it since you're kind enough to suggest it. I think you're emotionally attached to rejecting SRT. You hate it for whatever reason, and now you don't know anything but hating it, so you continue. You're falling into the simplest, most seductive trap of humanity - you're anthropomorphizing SRT.

Show where I've done that. It's not a very kind accusation.

Why wouldn't I?

I have no idea what you're talking about. SL happens to think I'm a brilliant bastard. He LOVES me. He wants me to be his bitch but I won't allow it. Hehe. Seriously though, what the shit are you on about? What cross did I put up that I should be nailed to?

So now you, who seems obviously biased by your previous interactions with him, are kind enough to psycho-analyze him right here in our precious forum for everyone to see? Your kindness is unbounded, but your analysis SO goddamned irrelevant. Maybe it was just supposed to be funny. I got lost there trying to figure out why you were talking about that.

Uhm... okay. I have no idea what he does or does not do too much.

So now I'm a coolaid drinker eh? You're wrong.​

 

Relativity is full of inconsistent "paradoxes".

I've never seen a relativity paradox, please provide an example.

 

I'm not claiming to agree or disagree that relativity produces paradoxes, but here is the abstract from this article:

 

No. People with horseshit for brains retard the E=γmc² equation to be E=m_rc² where m_r is relativistic mass. Mass doesn't even come into play in the lorentz transfomations.

Wrong, you just misunderstand the theory.

I very much doubt that you've come up with an accurate theory all on your own.

Ha! You might as well recite the phone book in your posts to Geistkeisel. He is a dipshit as I've shown elsewhere.

 

One must be a subscriber to view the contents of that article - do you have the details?

Most of the so-called paradoxes of length contraction are misunderstandings of simultaneity. However, the author does claim to show the calculations, so it would be very interesting to see his math before making any assumptions.

 

This is a fine example of why there are so many relativity threads on this forum. People find a theory not to be logical and then claim it to be false. Tell me one good reason why the microscopical world should be describable by the principles we are used to using in our everyday life? Why do tou think there is something wrong with the wave-particle duality? If something doesn't have a macroscopical equivalent, then it doesn't mean that it can't exist in the microscopical world.

 

To describe "absolute motion". IMO, the term itself is a misnomer, as all motion is relative to something else. The concept itself is meaningless as "I'm going this fast" makes no sense unless you add "compared to this". When the "this" is claimed to be "the universe", my objections in my previous pose apply.

 

Nope, I have not read anything but the abstract which is why I said I cannot agree or disagree with it.

 

Aer,

No, I understand the theory very well. Einstein do associate the factor gamma to mass! He does it in his own book!
You are trying to disassociating it and doing this you are inventing a new theory!

Just for curiosity, you relates the factor gamma to what then?

 

Einstein wasn't always the brightest

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

Provide the reference for where Einstein does this (I do not doubt that he did, I just want to look it up).