Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Come on, REAL Physics please!


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#52 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 06:25 PM

Why me?
What else do you want for me? To give your food in your mouth?
As I say at the main page "I cannot make it all!"
May be someday it will be done just the way you need, for now I present enough evidence to be considered as possible and if I were you I would not discard those possibilities so soon.

I'm an Engineer not a Physiscist. You should take it as if I have solved the engineering problems of the theory and that some physicists' problems remains.
As I say at the main page:
"I have no more time, no more resources and no capability to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that."
and
"Still much work remains to be done."

You spent time looking at some pages. I apreciate that.

#53 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 07:31 PM

But martillo, what exactly IS the problem?

Einstein's theories predict exactly what we observe in the experiments.

There's no problem that needs solving.

Sure, everything is fine with current theories, isn't it?
What about the "wave-particle" duality? Is like to say we have an animal that sometinmes behaves as a fly and sometimes as a shark to describe it.
Have this sense for you?
And what about the very strange predictions that come from current theories like "Parallel Universes", "Dark Matter and Dark Energy"?
Have this sense for you?
Sorry, not for me and I believe for the majority of the people of the world. Seems there are very badly solved things in Physics.
Wouldn't it be better to take some time and think "Hey, we are getting very strange predictions with our theories, isn't it time to review them? May be something could be wrong..."

#54 Roadam

Roadam

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 10:44 PM

As we have seen your theory doesn't even stand on the simple thing as F=ma, I didnt bother to really try to work it out.

#55 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 01:38 AM

De Broglie's waves actually do not exist.(Actually there are no "waves associated to matter", only a wave-like behavior!).

Few physicists have believed they "exist" except as being the way to describe a particle's behaviour. One thing is sure, it makes no more sense to assert the "existence" of the corpuscle; what we still call "a particle" just ain't the intuitive idea of a little ball. You need to get an idea straight before saying it is wrong.

I'm just looking for someones in the forum to take a look in the new theory and may be discuss something about.

Your conduct here is not the right approach to this end.

#56 Roadam

Roadam

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 04:59 AM

The first page of your work considers a triple twin version of a time dilation. According to some explanations of twin (not) paradox, its not symmetrical. Twin Paradox (from Einstein Light: relativity in film clips and animations)
Twin paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somehow, no matter what, observer in a frame would find that clock in a frame moving relative to him is moving slower.
But anyway. Your paradox can be simplistically explained in Minkowski space.
Posted Image

Something like that, only that the second rocket is moving in -x, so its a mirror of the first one.

#57 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 03:17 PM

My new twins' problem is completely symmetrical and there's no way to decide which would age less or more.

Moderation note: posts discussing the twins paradox and other special relativity topics have been moved to Twins paradox and other special relativity topic discussion, because they are a discussion of well-known theory, not this thread’s alternative theory.

#58 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 03:25 PM

Few physicists have believed they "exist" except as being the way to describe a particle's behaviour. One thing is sure, it makes no more sense to assert the "existence" of the corpuscle; what we still call "a particle" just ain't the intuitive idea of a little ball.

Well, if there are no waves and no particles what really exist?
What do you propose?

Your conduct here is not the right approach to this end.

NO? What are we doing here then?

#59 martillo

martillo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 03:31 PM

As we have seen your theory doesn't even stand on the simple thing as F=ma

You haven't demonstrated that my reasoning is wrong so how can you say "it doesn't stand on"?

I didnt bother to really try to work it out.

It's your decision, I will not try to convince you.
I just will say that you could be missing something...