About "A New Light In Physics"

martillo

martillo

Registered Senior Member
Here in the "Alternative Theories" forum, which is of course intended to discuss theories alternative to those of the mainstream, I would like to receive opinions on any of the many topics of my called "A New Light In Physics" work directly available at: www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics.
It was developed some years ago in times I participated in this and other forums discussing some topics about it. Time have passed and I would like to listen the opinions from this forum at this time.
Please take in consideration that because of my daily work generally I could not answer properly until afternoon.
 
Last edited:
martillo said:
Here in the "Alternative Theories" forum, which is of course intended to discuss theories alternative to those of the mainstream,
Click to expand...
At least compared to some of the ratbag alternative, anti mainstream nuts we have infesting this forum, you at least have the decency to post in the correct section.
I havn't time to check out your stuff as yet, [not that my say so is the be all and end all, I'm only a lay person] but quickly a couple of queries that I always set out for those hopeful that they have invalidated the giants of the past, on whose shoulders they are now standing.
[1] What are your credentials?
[2] Assuming you are a lay person such as myself, how can you hope to invalidate/falsify any mainstream theory, from the realms of a science forum, open to all and sundry.
[3] There are literally hundreds of hopefuls and "would be's if they could be's" that have the ego to assume they are able to cut down to size, the giants of the present and past, so one must ask, is this an inflated ego problem?
[4] Or do you have an agenda of sorts...you know "tall poppy syndrome" "god of the gaps" mysticism, or just plain ornery anti science bias.
[5] Or perhaps you are a professional, well credentialed, and with access to all the preseent 'scopes, particle accelerators, Satellites, and other deep space probes.
[6]If so, why not submit a paper through the proper chanells.

If my questions/inferences seem rather harsh, you must understand that we are subject to this sort of nonsense everyday, from all sorts of cranks and god bothering nuts.
Agan, I havn't read what you propose and will get to it as soon as possible.
 
paddoboy and Dr_Toad:

What I can say for you at this time is that some valuable things come in unexpected ways sometimes...
 
Martello, I'm not sure your twins thought experiment conflicts with special relativity. Though I will state this in less than scientific terms, SR is all about the postulate that the speed of light is invariant in a given frame. It is also about the fact that relative motion between frames causes time dilation. Now my unscientific conclusion is that clocks in relative motion measure the passing of time at different rates.

If so, the growing of beards acts like a clock in SR. It is visual effect that proves that the twins have had relative motion. Going in opposite directions and then coming back to the same location doesn't produce time dilation, and so the beards would be the same, in my understanding. Please point out the error in my thinking.
 
origin said:
OK. Just advertising your website I guess.
Click to expand...
Actually the motivation in posting here in the forum is the hope of finding some physicist that could be interested in something in my work and be interested to do something about.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
You're selling a book?
Click to expand...
My work resulted in a manuscript which I published through CreateSpace self publishing system mainly to have the author rights on what I developed. For that to be possible I had to hidde some of the sections of the book in the website to be reserved to the published book. About 80% of the content is freely available at the site. Only really interested ones would need the complete manuscript.
 
quantum_wave said:
Martello, I'm not sure your twins thought experiment conflicts with special relativity. Though I will state this in less than scientific terms, SR is all about the postulate that the speed of light is invariant in a given frame. It is also about the fact that relative motion between frames causes time dilation. Now my unscientific conclusion is that clocks in relative motion measure the passing of time at different rates.

If so, the growing of beards acts like a clock in SR. It is visual effect that proves that the twins have had relative motion. Going in opposite directions and then coming back to the same location doesn't produce time dilation, and so the beards would be the same, in my understanding. Please point out the error in my thinking.
Click to expand...
Lorentz Transforms already take into account length contraction and time dilation embedded in its equations. What I did is to apply Lorents Transforms to the problem and analyzed the results finding contradictory results in differents frames on observation of the same phenomenon. I consider this an inadmisible inconsistency.
 
martillo said:
Lorentz Transforms already take into account length contraction and time dilation embedded in its equations. What I did is to apply Lorents Transforms to the problem and analyzed the results finding contradictory results in differents frames on observation of the same phenomenon. I consider this an inadmisible inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Can you state what that inconsistency is in simple layman talk, because I guess I didn't get it.
 
quantum_wave said:
Can you state what that inconsistency is in simple layman talk, because I guess I didn't get it.
Click to expand...
Ok, in layman therms, the problem results in that at the end in one frame a first twin has beard while the second not, in other frame is the second who has beard while the first not and in a third frame both have about half beard. Don't you find this observations inconsistent?
 
martillo said:
Ok, in layman therms, the problem results in that at the end in one frame a first twin has beard while the second not, in other frame is the second who has beard while the first not and in a third frame both have about half beard. Don't you find this observations inconsistent?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll re-read the thought experiment.
 
martillo said:
Ok, in layman therms, the problem results in that at the end in one frame a first twin has beard while the second not, in other frame is the second who has beard while the first not and in a third frame both have about half beard. Don't you find this observations inconsistent?
Click to expand...
This comment sounds like you have a profound misunderstanding of Relativity, so not much seems to have changed over the years. Not understanding the subject matter is not a very sound basis for writting a book - unless it is meant to be fiction. Perhaps you can post your 'thought experiment', so I can see if maybe I am just misunderstanding you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top