Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 105

Thread: Speed of light

  1. #1 Speed of light 
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    If two lasers were shot at each other with just enough parallel distance to keep the beams for colliding, would the light passing by the other light pass by at twice the speed of light?

    If two cars pass each other at the same speed from opposite directions, isn't the separation speed the combined total of the two speeds? The cars would be leaving each other at that combined rate.

    So if the laser passes by the other laser coming from the opposite direction the speed it's moving away from the other beam is twice the speed of light, no?

    If not why not?

    If this is true then light may travel at a somewhat fixed speed (It's been proven it can be slowed down) however it would not be the fastest thing in existence.

    If I'm wrong on this please explain why.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    lights acamera action, that is an interesting theory, i wouldn't be able to tell you the science but, it sounds right!!! tell ya what , write a theses on it, .. you are smart!!! :P


    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Yes, but this does not change anything. No one ever said that the speed of light was the highest calcuable distance, but rather the highest speed anything coud achieve.

    In your case, there is no particle, or wave, or other phenomenon that is accelerating beyond the speed of light, but rather a situation on which there is a variation of twice the speed of light.

    Imagine one laserbeam, and one laserbeam, on the opposite side, but in an angle.

    When the light passes, it will look something like this: | /

    Now, as you know, in this situation, the angled lightstream, will not be travelling at the speed of light in the vertical direction. Thus, the entire speed of light between the two particles is less than 2x.

    Again, this case does not disprove anything, it merely shows that there are velocities higher than the speed of light, yes, but this does not mean anything can travel beyond it.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Hi (In)Sanity,

    I see you are still debating the lightspeed topic.

    As I understand it most time measurements are based upon that speed from a fixed point which adds up pretty well for most things, however when you are talking about light, I am not sure how it addresses the idea that light is the fastest around.

    You also mention that it has been proven that light can be slowed down. I was not aware of this, what is the proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by TB
    Hi (In)Sanity,

    I see you are still debating the lightspeed topic.

    As I understand it most time measurements are based upon that speed from a fixed point which adds up pretty well for most things, however when you are talking about light, I am not sure how it addresses the idea that light is the fastest around.

    You also mention that it has been proven that light can be slowed down. I was not aware of this, what is the proof?
    TB, there have been many articles on this and I thought I posted one here even though I can't find it now

    http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/....18/light.html

    Light also travels slower under water and in a few other circumstances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Again, this case does not disprove anything, it merely shows that there are velocities higher than the speed of light, yes, but this does not mean anything can travel beyond it.
    I understand and agree. I just found it interesting conversation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Hi (In)Sanity,

    interesting stuff on the slowing of light, I had not considered that light could travel slower. I checked and it appears Einstein only said that nothing can exceed light speed, not that it could not slow down. I was also sure that he said that it was a constant, this stuff now shows it not to be.

    How does this affect e=mcsquared, does it mean where light is slower the mass conversion produces less energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    How does this affect e=mcsquared, does it mean where light is slower the mass conversion produces less energy?
    Very good question, I guess the formula assumes lights maximum speed. When it's traveling at 38 mph the energy yield would have to be far less.

    Amazing how science changes all the time, as they say all laws are made to be broken, and theories are just opinion.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    The speed of light does not change. Through glass, light 'slows' down. Let me explain.

    As you know, matter is composed out of molecules. Now, in my view of the universe, these things act a little like pinball boards. Although in reality these things are much more complex than that, exchange of energy and all that, it does function a lot like the included image.



    Light does not actually slow down. It simply intersects with molecules, and thus it appears as if it is going slower, because it takes longer to the destination. Imagine the street system of the US. Although I have never been there, I have been told it is made out of 'blocks'. Now, you can take a straight route, driving about 100 mph, or you can drive around several blocks at about 100 mph. Now, your speed will be the same, yet your overall speed (seeing as you technically did the same distance; distance between your original location and your destination) is quite different.

    The same goes for light. It remains at the same speed, it simply has a different overall speed. Einstein is flawless :P (<- At least in this regard )

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    The speed of light does not change. Through glass, light 'slows' down. Let me explain.

    As you know, matter is composed out of molecules. Now, in my view of the universe, these things act a little like pinball boards. Although in reality these things are much more complex than that, exchange of energy and all that, it does function a lot like the included image.



    Light does not actually slow down. It simply intersects with molecules, and thus it appears as if it is going slower, because it takes longer to the destination. Imagine the street system of the US. Although I have never been there, I have been told it is made out of 'blocks'. Now, you can take a straight route, driving about 100 mph, or you can drive around several blocks at about 100 mph. Now, your speed will be the same, yet your overall speed (seeing as you technically did the same distance; distance between your original location and your destination) is quite different.

    The same goes for light. It remains at the same speed, it simply has a different overall speed. Einstein is flawless :P (<- At least in this regard )

    Mr U
    Does the same hold true for passing through water, or very strong gravitational pull on light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    I believe it does for water. Do you have a link referencing to this?

    Now, strong gravimetrical pull is a whole different matter, and I ain't touching that one as it is beyond my field of expertise. Although I am not entirely convinced that black holes exist, they do disprove at least a bit of the 'speed of light' theory, so there ya go .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 re:black hole gravity... 
    Forum Freshman AdmiralFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18
    Good point Mr U. However there is another explination for the slowing down of light around black holes, it is principly the same as the explaination for its travel through various substances; it takes a longer path. The space around black holes is curved around, and within the event horizon no line of space leads outside the hole, from there on any way you travel your path is always curved into the singularity. Light always travels at its speed in a vaccum as it aproches/enters black holes, it just takes a very severly curved path.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    With Classical Physics the velocity of one beam relative to the other will be 2C.
    With Relativity Theory the velocity of light must be ever C whatever the referential is choused (one of the two basic principles of Relativity!)even that of another beam of light.

    Which is the right one?

    I believe in the classic prediction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by TB
    How does this affect e=mcsquared, does it mean where light is slower the mass conversion produces less energy?
    The C in E=mC^2 refers specifically to the speed of light in vacuum, which doesn’t change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1
    It seems that most constants are exactly that, constant. Sound travels faster or slower depending on the density of the air, or water. Sound travels faster in water, and light travels slower.

    THey both have the same constant speeds, it depends on the stuff that they have to move through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis



    Light does not actually slow down. It simply intersects with molecules, and thus it appears as if it is going slower, because it takes longer to the destination. Imagine the street system of the US. Although I have never been there, I have been told it is made out of 'blocks'. Now, you can take a straight route, driving about 100 mph, or you can drive around several blocks at about 100 mph. Now, your speed will be the same, yet your overall speed (seeing as you technically did the same distance; distance between your original location and your destination) is quite different.
    There are two obvious problems with this idea. First, if the slow-down is caused by photons bouncing around randomly from particle to particle as you claim, then one would expect the time that it takes a photon to pass through the material to be somewhat random; some photons would find more direct paths through the material during their random bouncing than others. But that's not what we observe - it always takes the same amount of time for a photon to pass through a material of a given refractive index, which indicates that they aren't simply bouncing randomly.

    Second, (as I pointed out in another thread) in order for an electron in an atom or molecule to absorb a photon, the energy of the photon must correspond to the energy difference between the current level of the electron and the level to which it will be promoted. If the energy of the photon doesn't correspond to the energy gap between where the electron is and where it's going, it will simply pass by the electron without being absorbed. That's why glass is transparent to visible light but metal isn't; there aren't any energy levels that the electrons in the glass could be promoted to that correspond to the energies of visible photons, but the electrons in metals have energy levels available to them that correspond to almost any wavelength.

    The problem here comes in when you consider the fact that ALL photons, no matter what their wavelength, will slow down when they pass through a material of a given refractive index even if it's impossible for the electrons in the material to absorb them. Radio waves are too low in energy to promote an electron to a higher energy level, but they will still slow down when they enter a material. Similarly, gamma rays are too high in energy to be absorbed and re-emitted by an electron. Yet, gamma rays will still slow down just like radio waves, visible light, or any other kind of photon when they enter a material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 re:light 
    Forum Freshman AdmiralFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18
    If light really does slow down, then its frequency/wavelegnth changes, how do account for this variation in energy without absorbtion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    What decreases is the average velocity of the photons but between the atoms they have velocity C.
    The formula velocity=wave-lenght*frequency cannot be applied to the average velocity.
    The instantaneous velocity when the photons do not interact with the atoms remains the same: C

    Obs:
    If the medium is not at rest the Emission Theory states that the velocity of the photons after the interactions will be C+u where u is the velocity of the atoms of the medium. With Relativity the velocity will allways be C.
    Personally I defend the Emission Theory...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: re:light 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralFloyd
    If light really does slow down, then its frequency/wavelegnth changes, how do account for this variation in energy without absorbtion?
    The energy doesn’t change. As the photon slows down its wavelength decreases, leaving the energy the same. The energy of a photon = h * velocity/wavelength, where h is Planck’s constant. As you can see, a decrease in wavelength can make up for a decrease in velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    What decreases is the average velocity of the photons but between the atoms they have velocity C.
    Since most atoms in solid or liquid materials are only a few angstroms apart at the most, how could a photon with a wavelength of hundreds of nanometers ever be “between” atoms? Unless the photon has an extremely tiny wavelength, it should always be overlapping with numerous atoms at the same time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    Excellent question!

    This leave us to the structure of the photon. I have the answer but I can't describe it so briefly as a post requires. You should take a look on:
    www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

    There a structure for the photon is proposed and is not so simple but you can think that a photon is composed by two very small particles separated at a distance equal to the "wave-lenght" (I call it light-lenght). I think that the particles alone pass freely between atoms one following the other. Of course there's a complex interaction with the medium since one of the extremes can interact with one atom while the other ineracts with another one and still preserving a strong link between them.

    Not so simple but is possible!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    That is obviously a crackpot page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    Your previous post leave me to an important thought:
    The energy doesn’t change. As the photon slows down its wavelength decreases, leaving the energy the same. The energy of a photon = h * velocity/wavelength, where h is Planck’s constant. As you can see, a decrease in wavelength can make up for a decrease in velocity.
    I know what you say, is in basic Physics texts. I looked at the internet if an experiment to prove that has been done but I couldn't find anything about. I mean an experimental proof that a change of the wave-lenght inside a dense medium (for example under water) changes. I think that this experiment could be decisive against the particle (photon) model of light.
    Do you know anything about it? If so please let me know, it is very important for me!

    If anyone knows please post it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    Why sou say that is obviously a "crackpot page"?
    What leaves you to think that and so fast?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I think that this experiment could be decisive against the particle (photon) model of light.
    How so? The particle model of light predicts that the energy of a photon should increase as the photon's wavelength increases and decrease as the velocity decreases. So if your photon is slowing down but not losing energy, then a shorter wavelength is inevitable. Remember, according to quantum physics all particles have a wavelength, so it doesn’t discount the particle model of light to acknowledge that a photon particle has a wavelength.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    So if your photon is slowing down but not losing energy, then a shorter wavelength is inevitable.
    It is proposed that the interaction of a photon in a dense medium is that the photon is braked momentaneously by the atoms (only very near them) but in the space between them the photon travels at the C speed of vacuum. Only the average velocity decreases.
    I imagine that the wavelength of those photons can be determined inserting a wave-lenght detector inside the medium. For example inerting a narrow slit in a liquid medium so that the light can be diffracted and then detemining the wave-lenght by the angles of diffraction.
    May be a monochromatic laser with a well known wave-lenght should be used as source of the light.

    If the photons recover their velocity in the space between the atoms they will reach the slit as photons with the original wave-lenght and no variation will be detected in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    It would however be a mistake to think of the speeds of sound and light as being remotely equivalent or comparable.

    Sound is the transmission of the vibration of air molecules or water molecules, or molecules of some medium. It used to be thought that light also represented vibrations in a medium - a substanceless medium called the ether, or aether. This theory did not stand up to scrutiny. First there was the Michelson/Morley experiment which showed that light did not move at a different speed when at right angles to the Earth's motion compared to when parallel to the Earth's motion. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity assumed that light moved at the same speed relative to any observer, which would make the aether theory untenable. The General Theory of Relativity then disposed of the aether altogether and replaced it with Spacetime, which is distorted by gravity and light moves along geodesics in spacetime, which is why it sometimes looks as if light is affected by gravity as if it had mass.

    I'm not sure how tenable is HU's theory that the reduced speed of light in a medium is down to bouncing around molecules. It seems to me that under that circumstance, medium indices would not be constant, but chaotic. At any rate, the speed of light limit still holds true, because an object of mass that could hypothetically pass through the object (such as a neutrino) could never do so at a speed equal to or greater than the speed of light passing through the same medium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    It is proposed that the interaction of a photon in a dense medium is that the photon is braked momentaneously by the atoms (only very near them) but in the space between them the photon travels at the C speed of vacuum.
    Again, it doesn't make much sense to talk about a photon being "between" atoms in most solid or liquid materials. The distances between atoms are much, much smaller than photons - that's why you can't see individual atoms with an optical microscope, no matter how good your magnification is.

    Let's say you shine 500 nm green light through water. Say the average distance between atoms in the water is 4 angstroms, which is actually substantially larger than it would probably be in reality. This would mean that at any point on its journey through the water the photon would be encompassing about 1250 atoms, simultaneously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Perhaps it's the gravitational pull of the surrounding atoms that cause the photons to slow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee wrote:
    Again, it doesn't make much sense to talk about a photon being "between" atoms in most solid or liquid materials. The distances between atoms are much, much smaller than photons
    Again, I say it is possible! I have already posted above about a structure that can pass through the atoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Again, I say it is possible! I have already posted above about a structure that can pass through the atoms.
    Obviously photons can pass through atoms. The question is how a photon could exist “between” atoms when the distance between an atom is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a photon. Do you have any actual scientific references (books, peer-reviewed research papers, etc) on this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    The speed of light is based on the magnetic permeability and electric permittivity of free space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    What I have is my "crackpot page" (as you said): www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

    There totally new theories are presented. For the first time (I believe) structures for the photon, the electron and the neutrino are proposed that perfectly explain the wave-like behaviors: interference, diffraction, refraction and also the quantum behaviors: pair creation and annihilation, photoelectric effects and the quantumlevels of enrgies, etc, etc.

    I know you will not see it. There are so many new ideas that the first reaction on everyone is get angry and think it is crazy. I understand, it wasn't easy for me to develop them. About a half of what we have learned and somehow agree for so many years may be wrong.

    But may be someone will take it seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,
    I have created an image to visualize better how a photon with large wave-lenght can exist between atoms. The image is not at real scale. The structure conceived for the photon is a pair of particles with a size very much smaller than the size of the nucleus of an atom. The two particles mantain a strong link that mantain them at a distance equal to the wave-lenght:
    http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...nse_medium.jpg

    hope this will help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    (Q)! Welcome!

    (I'm sure when I posted before I was at the end of the thread and was right after someone else's comment about the speed of light and the speed of sound, I didn't see all that other stuff, including Scifor Refugee's assessment of HU's "bouncing round the atoms" theory, otherwise I would have just said I agreed with it.)

    martillo, the crackpot page is so defined because of certain characteristics it demonstrates.

    1) The author is not a physicist, but a computer repair operative.

    2) The author is evidently working entirely alone.

    3) The author explicitly states that he assumes Relativity Theory is wrong, but is unable to adequately explain what it is about the supposed objections (particular kinds of interactions and energy calculations) that are overwhelmingly against RT. It is not certain that he understands these other interactions fully. Neither does he provide any kind of adequate explanation for the vast mass of data provided by particle accelerators that confirm RT to a very great degree (to say nothing of masses of confirmatory astronomical data).

    4. Some of his theories don't exactly sound groundbreaking:
    The electron and the positron are made by three elementary particles and the photons by two then, in a pair of positron and electron creation/annihilation must be involved two photons and a third pair of elementary particles.

    It is proposed that theoretically a third particle exists in a creation or annihilation processes and that it is a neutrino.
    I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the neutrino was postulated because of exactly this kind of calculation. In other words he has done absolutely nothing new.

    5. His mathematics is better than mine, but still at an elementary level of squaring stuff, dividing it and adding it up. Real physics has been postulating new particles for years, but you actually have to move a bit away from ½mv<sup>2</sup> and start deriving new, harder equations. This is what String and other GUT theorists have to do - to create equations of motion that fit all the previous theories, which are based upon experimental verification of previous equations of motion, and so on.

    Here is his page on the Neutrino. http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...e_neutrino.htm

    His theory states:
    It is proposed that the neutrino is a pair of a positrin and a negatrin [sic] like the photon with the only difference that it doesn’t travels at speed of light, it has lower velocities.
    He seems to have forgotten that the role of a phyisical theorist is to explain why something has the same characteristics as something else, but behaves differently.

    The rest of the page is a list of equations that the neutrino "verifies" though I'm not sure if he means that it verifies the equations or they verify it. However, he does not make a single statement or show any data that demonstrates the validity of his theory about the positrin and the negatrin.

    The guy is a crackpot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Silas,

    Your comments does not surprise me but I appreciate to define way my page is seen as crackpot.

    Let me defend my perspective.

    1) The author is not a physicist, but a computer repair operative.

    2) The author is evidently working entirely alone.
    This is wonderful because gave me a totally independent point of view and that working hard with electronics made me "feel" electromagnetics phenomena in deep. (You forgot to say that the author studied Electrical Engineering).

    3) The author explicitly states that he assumes Relativity Theory is wrong, but is unable to adequately explain what it is about the supposed objections (particular kinds of interactions and energy calculations) that are overwhelmingly against RT.
    I have a theory that explain all what Special Relativity seems to describe in a new way. I have theoretical and experimental well defined considerations against Relativity. I think are well founded objections.

    4. Some of his theories don't exactly sound groundbreaking
    It is expected because very original ideas are presented and also expected for somebody who only took a look on them.

    you actually have to move a bit away from ½mv2 and start deriving new, harder equations
    You are wrong. The formula is completely right!

    Finally I must say that the manuscript have the aim to guide the reader to a newset of theories. The text is concise, simple and precise. It is expected that some study must be made by the reader to understand it all. The reader will have to think and search on some subjects.

    Not all have been done! Still much work remains to be done.

    Thank you for your comments. It is evident that you visited the site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Again, I say it is possible! I have already posted above about a structure that can pass through the atoms.
    What does your theory explain that conventional physics can't explain? In other words, what advantage does your theory have over orthodox physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee,

    I think today's Physics have an explanation for everything but there are some that are wrong propositions. You and everybody want to know the truth isn't it? Nobody wants to believe in wrong things, specially because wrong theories can leave us to wrong results.

    The new theories solve the "wave-particle duality" mystery.
    It is shown that photons as special particles can have a wave-like behavior but that there are no waves!
    The duality does not exist any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    1) The author is not a physicist, but a computer repair operative.

    2) The author is evidently working entirely alone.
    This is wonderful because gave me a totally independent point of view and that working hard with electronics made me "feel" electromagnetics phenomena in deep. (You forgot to say that the author studied Electrical Engineering).
    My apologies for not realising that the poster of the link and the author of the page were one and the same!

    If you'd studied Electronic Engineering, that would give me hope that you had some knowledge, at least, of quantum physics - but you don't seem to even mention quanta on your website. Having studied Electrical engineering means I can trust you to rewire my house. It does not bode well for your credibility as the source of a new GUT.

    And your independent point of view in fact is devoid of any correction or improvement from knowledgable people. Science arises from a "scientific community" for a very good reason - if you have ideas and mix with other intelligent people who at least share your background of knowledge and interest, they can spark ideas of their own, and those ideas can spark further and better ideas from you. If you work entirely alone, only knowing books, then you are going to be missing out perhaps on entire areas of research which might already show that your ideas are wrong - or which might prove that they are right.

    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    you actually have to move a bit away from ½mv2 and start deriving new, harder equations
    You are wrong. The formula is completely right!
    ½mv<sup>2</sup> is the formula for kinetic energy. I am not doubting that the formula is right for getting the kinetic energy of any moving object. But where are your actual equations of motion that describe what happens with your positrins and negatrins?

    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    The new theories solve the "wave-particle duality" mystery.
    It is shown that photons as special particles can have a wave-like behavior but that there are no waves!
    The duality does not exist any more.
    martillo, there is a "wave-particle duality" because quantum elements such as photons exhibit both wave behaviour and particle behaviour. Please post a link to the page on your site in which you explain this fully, because I could not find it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Hi Silas! Thanks for the welcome!

    From the website linked above:

    There exists an Absolute Referential “RA” in the Universe. Things that are at rest relative to this referential have no movement.
    First of all, referential is an adjective describing the pointing to something, and therefore, in your term, must be describing absolute; ie. pointing to absolute. However, you don't explain exactly what is pointing to absolute?

    The Emission Theory which proposes that the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the source is then necessary valid. The final velocity is:

    ç = c + u

    where c is de light constant at which the source emits photons, u is the velocity of the source and vector addition is assumed for the velocities (bold means vector).
    Why is it then that whenever ç is measured from a variety of objects moving at various velocities relative to us, it is identical to c? In that case, u is always zero and becomes redundant.

    I see no point in moving any further on through until you have clarified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Silas,
    You wrote:
    but you don't seem to even mention quanta on your website.
    Chapter 5 is totally devoted to explain Quantum phenomena of pair creation/annihilation, the photoelectric effects and the quantized levels in the hydrogen atom.

    But where are your actual equations of motion that describe what happens with your positrins and negatrins?
    The theories give a structure for the particles that is compatible with Classic Physics (although some corrections must be made) when the distances considered are much larger than the "wave-lenght" of the particles and is compatible with quantum Physics when interactions between particles happen at distances about the "wave-lenght".
    For example an electron is seen as a very small negative charge with mass By large electric and magnetic fields and is seen as three rings for the annihilation and creation process.

    Please post a link to the page on your site in which you explain this fully, because I could not find it.
    I must apologize because this is mentioned in section 3.3 which is not available yet. I'm making some refinement and it will be online soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    (Q),

    First of all, referential is an adjective describing the pointing to something, and therefore, in your term, must be describing absolute; ie. pointing to absolute. However, you don't explain exactly what is pointing to absolute?
    Any gyroscope and pendulum can give you fixed direction in space (remember Foucault's pendulum). What I cannot determine is the totally Absolute Referential of the Universe that would have it center at the center of the Universe and may be privileged directions in space. But the directions of any gyroscope serve as fixed directions of equivalent referentials for all the known laws of Physics.

    Why is it then that whenever ç is measured from a variety of objects moving at various velocities relative to us, it is identical to c? In that case, u is always zero and becomes redundant.
    The first consideration that must be taken is that the majority of the objects of our reality are too much slow to detect variations in the velocity.

    The second consideration is that in the emission theory every photon acquires a new source velocity component (u) when they interacts with atoms ( the atoms of the mediums), even air atoms, then the original source velocity component is lost. An experiment in vacuum with a source of considerable velocity should be made and I believe it haven't been done yet.

    Finally I want to mention the particular binary stars phenomena that have been presented as a demonstration of the constant velocity of light. In the new theories light is constituted by trains of photons that can present a self accomodation effect so that the component of the source velocity dissapears.

    This is mentioned in Section 8.1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Has anyone every done anything standing still? How would one know they are standing still? If you used any known reference point to base this standing still it would have to be moving toward or away from you. If it appears to not be moving, then you must be. Does anyone know the speed the universe is expanding at? I don't recall the number, but I think we are moving around 32k mph at the moment. That of course doesn't factor in all directions.

    So how does a gyroscope ever really reference any true direction when all the things we have attached them to are always moving. Perhaps they are just accurate enough for our purposes. I suppose if you could get them to really stand still then they would be very precise with regards to the rest of the universe.

    Just thinking with the keyboard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    What I cannot determine is the totally Absolute Referential of the Universe that would have it center at the center of the Universe

    Could that be because there is no such thing as an absolute referential and a center to the universe?

    Note that these two points nullify your theory.

    But the directions of any gyroscope serve as fixed directions of equivalent referentials for all the known laws of Physics.

    But those directions are relative to some other point in space.

    The first consideration that must be taken is that the majority of the objects of our reality are too much slow to detect variations in the velocity.

    We currently have sufficient technologies to accurately measure those variations regardless of how 'slow' everything is. Even if it was a fast moving object, ç = c.

    The second consideration is that in the emission theory every photon acquires a new source velocity component (u) when they interacts with atoms ( the atoms of the mediums), even air atoms, then the original source velocity component is lost.

    If light interacts with atoms, they can be absorbed and re-emitted. Their velocity is still ç = c.

    An experiment in vacuum with a source of considerable velocity should be made and I believe it haven't been done yet.

    The velocity of the source matters not since the speed of light is not dependent of the source - the permittivity and permeability of free space dictate lights velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    It is shown that photons as special particles can have a wave-like behavior but that there are no waves!
    The duality does not exist any more.
    The wave/particle duality of photons is not a problem that needs to be solved. It has been experimentally observed that all particles have wavelengths – electrons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, everything. So far we have only been able to experimentally measure the wavelength of particles up to the size of large molecules, but it seems that every particle in existence has a wavelength. You can even calculate it if you know its momentum and mass. So it would be very surprising if photon particles didn’t have wave-like properties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Scifor Refugee wrote,

    So it would be very surprising if photon particles didn’t have wave-like properties.
    In the new theories photons have "wave-like" properties. I didn't say that they do not.

    It has been experimentally observed that all particles have wavelengths – electrons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, everything.
    The only unique experiment where the "wave-lenght" has been observed in that particles is the diffraction. That doesn't prove the existence of a wave specially if new theories explain how all that particles can present diffraction without any wave.
    Ofcourse I know you will not even consider this new possibilitybut others will do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    SciFor Refugee it's true that wave/particle duality "does not need to be solved", as long as we are aware of it. The hope of course is that GUT will provide a rigorous explanation for it that can be easily accepted.

    However, it really isn't as simple as you're making out. Particle properties are those properties we can assign to objects of mass, like baseballs. Throw baseballs at a wall with a gap in it, and some baseballs will bounce off, but the ones that go through the gap will continue on their original trajectory. Even if they bounce of the gap edges in different directions, there is no concept of interference fringes, of cancellation and reinforcement of baseballs, they just bounce off each other, and each one follows a definite path.

    Now, to waves. Think of a wave on water. What exactly is the "wave"? It's not an object you can lift off the top of the water, it's merely a property of the movement of the water. There is no "wave particle" which is doing the bobbing up and down. Again, the water is just water. The water does not possess "wave-like properties", it's merely the medium through which we can see the operation of the wave dynamics.

    An electron is regarded as a point charge, but it is a particle. It has a mass, a velocity and can be accelerated by electrical charges. It can be aimed very precisely. That's exactly how you're reading my words, after all!

    But fire electrons at a wall with two gaps in, and interference fringes will appear. And in fact, as is well, known, if you fire electrons one at a time at a two-slit wall, you will still see interference fringes - record where the phosphors glowed, and there will places where there are many hits, and places which never saw a single electron. It seems that the probability curves are what are interfering in such a case.

    A particle is an object you can throw in a straight line. A wave is a propagation of motion within a medium. At the quantum level, leptons and hadrons exhibit both characteristics and they are pretty much mutually inconsistent. This is the problem.

    I am fascinated to read martillo's analysis of wave/particle duality, but I suspect it boils down to "particles have some wave-like properties". Which seems to be what SciFor understands as the current theory, but it actually isn't, and could not ever be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Silas,

    At the quantum level, leptons and hadrons exhibit both characteristics and they are pretty much mutually inconsistent. This is the problem.
    But, why is this inconsistent? Because it doesn't much our intuitional guess about how the universe should work?

    No. What the problem is (if there is one) why doesn't this wave/particle duality effect things on larger scales? What property keeps the fuzziness of the quantum world from affecting us? Why aren't we interfering with ourselves?

    Sir Roger Penrose thinks he has the answer (imagine that...). Gravity is his claim. It costs energy for objects with gravity to exist in a state of flux. And so in the interest of economy, they settle into one and only one location.

    Now. It's only a theory, but what the hey? Sounds good. The problem with testing it is that the technology to test it is few years away yet. It involves tiny mirrors that would be small enough to exhibit this state of flux for about a second before settling down to one configuration.

    But we'll just have to wait for that.

    (You can read about it in an article written by Penrose in the latest Discover magazine (Yes. Yes. Popular science... but it's written by the man himself and not Joe Shmoe.) Maybe he's written about it elsewhere too. I'd be surprised if he hasn't.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Silas,

    I am fascinated to read martillo's analysis of wave/particle duality
    Can you tell us what is fscinating please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Our unagreement can be dilucidated with that experiment I have mentioned:

    I imagine that the wavelength of those photons can be determined inserting a wave-lenght detector inside the medium. For example inerting a narrow slit in a liquid medium so that the light can be diffracted and then detemining the wave-lenght by the angles of diffraction.
    May be a monochromatic laser with a well known wave-lenght should be used as source of the light.
    If light is a wave there will be a change in the wave-lenght.
    If light is a photon no change will be detected.

    Have somebody the resources to make it accuratelly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6
    Insanity,

    "If two lasers were shot at each other with just enough parallel distance to keep the beams for colliding, would the light passing by the other light pass by at twice the speed of light?

    If two cars pass each other at the same speed from opposite directions, isn't the separation speed the combined total of the two speeds? The cars would be leaving each other at that combined rate. "

    If I had understand it alright we has two objects going away or approaching third object (frame) with the speed of light:

    velocity Vba = -c velocity Vca = c
    B< -----------------------A----------------------> C

    It may seems as absurd but I think that acording to SRT velocity Vbc is not 2c as seems to be but is 0!

    I can prove it immediately using Lorenz transformations. We come to velocity addition equation:

    Vbc = (Vab + Vac) / (1 - (Vab*Vac) / c^2)

    Vab = -c
    Vca = c

    Vbc = 0/2 , which is 0

    In the case when A and B move in the same direction wrt A their relative velocity is again 0 because they cant be divided and represent one and the same frame.

    SRT is interested only from how much is the "absolute' velocity of a frame, not from the direction of movement. The above paradox is one example of the SRT inborn absurdness and incapability to deal with more then 2 frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Eienstins theory put to the test 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    27
    Am watching Nasa's Gravity Probe B project with interest. It may proove insight into relativity theory. I've found no referance to the mission on the web, but have info from watching the Nasa channel on D. Sat. T.V. The probe will emit laser light such that variations via close proximity as light beam passes close to earth may be measured via time it takes for beam to travel to another sat. farther out in the star system. Hope info. becomes public from experiment so that we all can ponder results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman craterchains's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, usa
    Posts
    58
    Some said we would never fly, also many said we could never break the sound barrier, then
    there were those that said we would never land on the moon, or build space stations. And now
    here are those of so little faith in mankind's abilities and capabilities to doubt that mankind
    won't find out a way to go far faster than the speed of light? WTF people, light speeds ain't
    worth a bucket of warm spit. To travel the galaxies in reasonable lengths of time would require
    far faster drives for sure. I say mankind will go to the stars. I say our generation will see that
    threshold before long, but how many will cross over into an intergalactic society, how many
    will be able, or would be able to accept such new developments. I think our generation is
    gonna to have one hell of a wake up call soon.
    It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you. Will Rodgers 1938
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by craterchains
    Some said we would never fly, also many said we could never break the sound barrier, then
    there were those that said we would never land on the moon, or build space stations. And now
    here are those of so little faith in mankind's abilities and capabilities to doubt that mankind
    won't find out a way to go far faster than the speed of light? WTF people, light speeds ain't
    worth a bucket of warm spit. To travel the galaxies in reasonable lengths of time would require
    far faster drives for sure. I say mankind will go to the stars. I say our generation will see that
    threshold before long, but how many will cross over into an intergalactic society, how many
    will be able, or would be able to accept such new developments. I think our generation is
    gonna to have one hell of a wake up call soon.
    It does not logically follow that we will be able to break the light-speed barrier simply because we have accomplished other difficult tasks. Breaking the light-speed barrier is probably impossible because of fundamental laws of the universe. No one ever thought it was fundamentally impossible for us to fly, build space stations, etc. Some people just thought that it would be too difficult for us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Some said we would never fly, also many said we could never break the sound barrier, then there were those that said we would never land on the moon, or build space stations.

    Mere speculations - none violate any physical laws.

    And now here are those of so little faith in mankind's abilities and capabilities to doubt that mankind won't find out a way to go far faster than the speed of light?

    There is no doubt in mankinds abilities to achieve a great many things. But breaking physical laws is not likely one of them.

    light speeds ain't worth a bucket of warm spit.

    The dog barks as the caravan passes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Xgen

    In the case when A and B move in the same direction wrt A their relative velocity is again 0 because they cant be divided and represent one and the same frame.

    The relative velocity of photons moving in the same direction is a meaningless concept.

    The above paradox is one example of the SRT inborn absurdness and incapability to deal with more then 2 frames.

    If it's a meaningless concept in the first place, why should SRT need be capable of dealing with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Is light speed barrier really a "physical law" or just a theory?
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    It is a physical constant derived from the laws of electromagnetism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    R-I-G-H-T!!
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    First of all, as has been noted repeatedly, the lightspeed barrier has nothing to do with the sound barrier. The latter was considered impossible on grounds pertaining to engineering and physiology, not physics. Ever since the speed of sound was first measured it was known that objects were moving faster than that speed (such as light, for example).

    The lightspeed barrier is a prediction of special relativity (SR), a theory that has considerable experimental muscle behind it. Every day in particle accelerators, physicists have to take SR into account in order to have their synchrotons work correctly. And it is the unequivocal testimony of experimentalists everywhere that no matter how much energy you put into accelerating charged particles you cannot get them to go faster than light. The velocity dependence of the particle's total energy is precisely what would be predicted by SR. And someone in this thread (Martillo?) said that 1/2mv^2 is "exactly right". That statement is exactly wrong. To be correct at high velocities the kinetic energy of a particle must be expressed as K=(g-1)mc^2, where g is the Lorentz factor of SR (sorry, can't make a gamma here).

    If this is supposed to be a science forum, then please let's stick to the science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    Quantumdude,

    you wrote:
    If this is supposed to be a science forum, then please let's stick to the science!
    Sorry, but many errors have been made in Science in the past and Science didn't stop and will never do untill finding the truth!

    Every day in particle accelerators, physicists have to take SR into account in order to have their synchrotons work correctly. And it is the unequivocal testimony of experimentalists everywhere that no matter how much energy you put into accelerating charged particles you cannot get them to go faster than light. The velocity dependence of the particle's total energy is precisely what would be predicted by SR.
    I must tell you that here is an example where today's Science fails in a really bad way. Those experiments are reallly very bad interpreted. They assume that there is a variation in the mass of the particles with velocity while what really happens is that the Electric and Magnetic Forces vary with velocity!
    I'm sorry if this possibility haven't been taken into account but is the real one.

    Please take a look at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...xperiments.htm
    You can see how the same kinematics results are obtained with the variation on the Electric and Magnetic Fields!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Sorry, but many errors have been made in Science in the past and Science didn't stop and will never do untill finding the truth!
    Certainly "the truth" is not to be found by denying the Lorentz transformation in favor of the Galilean transformation.

    I must tell you that here is an example where today's Science fails in a really bad way. Those experiments are reallly very bad interpreted. They assume that there is a variation in the mass of the particles with velocity
    You are wrong. Special relativity does not oblige us to say that the mass of a body varies at all. In fact particle physicsts reject that interpretation, although there is actually nothing wrong with it. Rather, particle physicists regard the mass as the invariant (!) norm of the 4-momentum.

    while what really happens is that the Electric and Magnetic Forces vary with velocity!

    I'm sorry if this possibility haven't been taken into account but is the real one.
    I know how to Lorentz transform EM fields and forces, thank you.

    Please take a look at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...xperiments.htm
    You can see how the same kinematics results are obtained with the variation on the Electric and Magnetic Fields!
    Do you remember when I told you that you should study physics, and you responded to the effect that you aren't interested in hearing what physics professors have to say?

    That's how I feel about your website.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    I didn't say I'm not interested in what professors have to say, actually I'm very interested in what they say about the new theories. The point was that you sent me to school to learn your Physics and I said that I would not go to school to discuss with professors in classrooms.

    And I don't mean I don't respect today's Physics, I believe everybody involved have studied a lot, followed the guideliness well and have found that today's propositions are fine. I'm just suggesting that there are new interpretations possible to many phenomena, really original and intelligent ones that deserves the opportunity to be taken into account now. Is not something that appeared in my mind in a weekend, is a result of many years of verification into the main rules of Physics, Mathematics and Logic.

    It is not easy, I have found many errors (not one) and sometimes one sustaining another seeming that all is fine. Is like a puzzle that have to be dismounted and mounted again from the begining. It wasn't easy for me, I also had to question what I learned and it was a hard work to find what could be wrong and what could be right. Now I'm presenting a new set of theories in a very symple and concise way that don't reflect all that trouble.

    I'm just asking everybody to be open to new serious possibilities in Physics. Unfortunately many people discard them in an incredible fast way. But I know that someones will think about and is for them that I have developed the text and the web site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I didn't say I'm not interested in what professors have to say, actually I'm very interested in what they say about the new theories. The point was that you sent me to school to learn your Physics and I said that I would not go to school to discuss with professors in classrooms.
    The fact that you are not open to learning physics as it is taught and practiced by professional theorists and experimentalists is precisely what I was talking about. It is obvious that you do not have an adequate understanding of the theories you mean to critique, because you have not taken the time to learn them properly.

    It is not easy, I have found many errors (not one) and sometimes one sustaining another seeming that all is fine. Is like a puzzle that have to be dismounted and mounted again from the begining.


    It wasn't easy for me, I also had to question what I learned and it was a hard work to find what could be wrong and what could be right. Now I'm presenting a new set of theories in a very symple and concise way that don't reflect all that trouble.
    Graduate students do this very thing as part of their training. I was one of them. The errors you think you have found could probably be explained to you by a qualified instructor, should you be willing to submit to that. The whole "De Broglie vs. Relativity" issue is just one example of a wrong turn you took. There are undoubtedly many others.

    I'm just asking everybody to be open to new serious possibilities in Physics. Unfortunately many people discard them in an incredible fast way. But I know that someones will think about and is for them that I have developed the text and the web site.
    You are asking people to do the very thing that you are unwilling to do yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    Fortunately not everybody think like you. You are an expert criticizing people but not Physics.
    Can you remember your own words in relation to the "De Broglie against Relativity" thread?
    Let me help you:
    Martillo, I have got to admit you stumped me on this one. I had to start a thread at another forum to confer with some friends online and sort it out.
    I think now it would be good for you to take a course in LOGIC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Can you remember your own words in relation to the "De Broglie against Relativity" thread?
    Let me help you:
    Martillo, I have got to admit you stumped me on this one. I had to start a thread at another forum to confer with some friends online and sort it out.
    Since when is it a bad thing to be able to admit that you don't remember something? Everybody forgets things from time to time, including me. It does not negate the fact that I do know a lot about physics, and could be of help to you in getting out of the confusion that you are obviously in.

    I think now it would be good for you to take a course in LOGIC.
    Martillo, I teach courses in logic. I am a mathematics instructor, and I have been a physics instructor in the past. Every post I have made to you has been with the intention of being helpful. I think it is really quite pathetic that you have to resort to making a post such as your last one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    May be you are right and my last post wasn't a good post but I don't understand you. You insist that I should go to a Physics school.
    Let me tell you that in Electrical Engineering we do study Physics particularly (in deep) the subjects related to Electricity and Magnetism that are the main topics that I cover in the new theories I'm proposing and I would like to discuss. I must add my experience working directly with electricity, electronics and magnetism. I think I have enough preparation to discuss about this.
    May be I haven't taken a normal course in Special Relativity but be sure that I have studied it a lot. It seems that this is our point of discussion and you recognized that my reasoning was good enough to "stamp" you.
    So, why can't you be more constructive and stop trying to disgrace my position.

    Finally I don't understand why you waste your time in this forum. You are a menthor at the www.physicsforum.com where new points of view are systematically banned. If you don't want to analyze new perspectives and just stay with the academic physics there is your perfect place. I believe that here the aim is to find the truth and this mean that when necessary traditional theories can be questioned (with logical fundaments of course).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    You insist that I should go to a Physics school.
    I suggest you go back and read where I said that. I did not advise you to study physics until you asked me for advice.

    It seems that this is our point of discussion and you recognized that my reasoning was good enough to "stamp" you.
    I never recognized any such thing. What I said was that the question you raised stumped me (that means I did not immediately have the answer). I never said that your solution is correct, and in fact I deny that it is correct. If you follow the discussion in the thread I started at Physics Forums then you will see that you are wrong when you say that the deBroglie wavelength should transform as a length. Based on the definition one should expect it to transform as a reciprocal length. The posts by Reilly and Vanesch in that thread most clearly illustrate this.

    So, why can't you be more constructive and stop trying to disgrace my position.
    I am being constructive. That's why I wanted to get to the bottom of the question in the other thread. I am now convinced that I have found the correct answer, which I shared with you by posting a link to the thread. I was also being constructive a few posts ago when I corrected you on the non-necessity of regarding mass as a function of velocity.

    Finally I don't understand why you waste your time in this forum.
    I do not feel I am wasting my time if I am helping people learn about science.

    You are a menthor at the www.physicsforum.com where new points of view are systematically banned.
    That is not true. We have some members who do independent work, and some of them we even honor with "Science Advisor" awards (something we give out at Physics Forums). We do not ban new points of view, we ban crackpottery and pseudoscience. There is a difference.

    If you don't want to analyze new perspectives and just stay with the academic physics there is your perfect place.
    I do not mind analyzing new points of view from people who know what they are talking about. In fact I do it all the time. But based on what I know of relativity, I cannot believe you when you say that you have studied it. Please do not misunderstand: I do not think you are lying. I believe that you believe you have studied it. But the fundamental errors I have seen you make lead me to believe that you are not really arguing against relativity, but rather your own misunderstanding of it. And I mean that in the most constructive spirit. Of course, if you only reagard as "constructive" those comments that you want to hear, then you won't see it that way.

    I believe that here the aim is to find the truth and this mean that when necessary traditional theories can be questioned (with logical fundaments of course).
    And my aim is to find scientific truth as well. That's why I made a career out of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    Then for you the De Broglie wavelenght is not a lenght!

    Is this the brillant result of your "science"?

    And about Special Relativity:
    I corrected you on the non-necessity of regarding mass as a function of velocity.
    So now in your "Relativity" mass doesn't vary with velocity???

    You really need a course on Logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Then for you the De Broglie wavelenght is not a lenght!

    Is this the brillant result of your "science"?
    It does not transform as a length, and if you read the thread at Physics Forums you will see why it should not be the case. If one expects that the deBroglie wavelength should transform as a length, and then uses that to argue against relativity, one is doing exactly what I described in my last post. That is, one is not really arguing against relativity, but rather against one's own misunderstanding of relativity. Such an argument is called a strawman, and it is the very opposite of what a real truth-seeker would do. Truth-seekers do not argue against a weak interpretation of an opponent's argument, they argue against the strongest interpretation of it, and they accept the results however they come out.

    And this is why I do not delve into your website: You have been unable to make even a prima facie case against the theories you mean to supplant. Such a case is a necessary condition for any serious reviewer, and necessarily so. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he can be a scientist on the Internet. With so many independent theories around, one has to have a filter by which to strain out the serious work. For me, and for many people I know, the first filter is the aforementioned prima facie case.

    And about Special Relativity:
    I corrected you on the non-necessity of regarding mass as a function of velocity.
    So now in your "Relativity" mass doesn't vary with velocity???
    It's not my relativity, it's Einstein's. And as I said it does not obligate us to accept that mass varies at all. The Lorentz transformation only necessarily applies to spatial and temporal measurements. The whole of relativistic dynamics can be interpreted in such a way that particle masses are invariant, and that is exactly how modern particle physicists interpret it. But that is a choice. Some physicists do not make that choice, and there is in fact nothing wrong with choosing to view mass as a function of velocity. But my point is that it is not required.

    You really need a course on Logic.
    Remarks such as these make it even more clear to me that you are incapable of sustaining your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    And this is why I do not delve into your website: You have been unable to make even a prima facie case against the theories you mean to supplant.
    I'm right!
    It's your bline logic that cannot see this.

    Anyway I would not like to discuss my theories with you. I don't like the way you discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I'm right!
    Right about what? I showed you why you are wrong about a number of points. In fact, of all the "challenges" you have made to modern science, you have not been right once.

    It's your bline logic that cannot see this.
    Why is it so difficult for you to accept that you do not know what you are talking about? Why is it so difficult for you to consider the possibility that you could be wrong?

    Anyway I would not like to discuss my theories with you.
    Then by all means stop.

    I don't like the way you discuss.
    LOL, that's what I should be saying to you. Whenever I present a valid argument against you, you say that I need to study logic instead of telling me what is wrong with my argument. Your debate tactics are underhanded, to put it mildly.

    As for me, all I've done is explain why you are in error. Any real truth seeker would be grateful. Your recent posts speak volumes about your sincerity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,


    I showed you why you are wrong about a number of points.
    You haven't. Your arguments are not valid:

    1) About De Broglie wave-lenght:
    It does not transform as a length, and if you read the thread at Physics Forums you will see why it should not be the case.
    This is the same as to say that the wave-lenght is not a lenght.

    2) About mass variation with velocity:
    It's not my relativity, it's Einstein's. And as I said it does not obligate us to accept that mass varies at all.
    Yes it obligates. The mass variation of velocity by the factor root(1-v2/c2) is a direct consequence of Lorentz Transforms in Relativity Theory.
    If you assume a theory where Lorentz transforms apply but mass do not vary with velocity you are inventing a new theory. That is not Eintein's Relativity!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    martillo, you quoted out of context:
    Quote Originally Posted by quantumdude
    It's not my relativity, it's Einstein's. And as I said it does not obligate us to accept that mass varies at all. The Lorentz transformation only necessarily applies to spatial and temporal measurements. The whole of relativistic dynamics can be interpreted in such a way that particle masses are invariant, and that is exactly how modern particle physicists interpret it. But that is a choice. Some physicists do not make that choice, and there is in fact nothing wrong with choosing to view mass as a function of velocity. But my point is that it is not required.
    Interestingly, this was certainly news to me. But the difference between you, and I, martillo, is that I can see that quantumdude very evidently has credibility which backs up what he says, and you do not. When you claim
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    If you assume a theory where Lorentz transforms apply but mass do not vary with velocity you are inventing a new theory. That is not Eintein's Relativity!
    you are a) misinterpreting what quantumdude said, and b) making unwarranted presumptions about what Einstein's Relativity is.

    It seems to me that your views on Physics are predicated on the idea that it can all be wrapped up in the simplest of equations, and therefore you view Relativity theory as totally encompassed within the Lorenz transformation and E = mc<sup>2</sup>. If that is really what you believe, then you are lacking in knowledge. I am myself lacking in knowledge to that extent, but at least I can acknowledge where my ignorance is, and defer to someone eminently more qualified than I. You are claiming to know what is and what isn't "Einstein's Relativity", but unless I'm much mistaken you have not yourself read a single one of Einstein's works, let alone understood them.

    quantumdude was not denying that relativity can interpret mass as a function of velocity, what he was saying was that in the real world of relativity calculation, that is not the most useful way of thinking about it or treating it, mathematically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Here is some real "new physics" being developed, as described by one of its originators:
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard P. Feynman
    It reminded me of something I had done a long time ago with left and right unsymmetrical equations. Now it became kind of clear, when I looked at Lee's formulas, that the solution to it all was much simpler: Everything comes out coupled to the left. For the electron and the muon, my predictions were the same as Lee's, except I changed some signs around. I didn't realize it at the time, but Lee had taken only the simplest example of muon coupling, and hadn't proved that all muons would be full to the right, whereas according to my theory, all muons would have to be full automatically. Therefore, I had, in fact, a prediction on top of what he
    had. I had different signs, but I didn't realize that I also had this
    quantity right.

    I predicted a few things that nobody had experiments for yet, but when it came to the neutron and proton, I couldn't make it fit well with what was then known about neutron and proton coupling: it was kind of messy.

    The next day, when I went back to the meeting, a very kind man named Ken Case, who was going to give a paper on something, gave me five minutes of his allotted time to present my idea. I said I was convinced that everything was coupled to the left, and that the signs for the electron and muon are reversed, but I was struggling with the neutron. Later the experimenters asked me some questions about my predictions, and then I went to Brazil for the summer. When I came back to the United States, I wanted to know what the situation was with beta decay. I went to Professor Wu's laboratory at Columbia, and she wasn't there, [... text missing ...] spinning to the left in the beta decay, came out on the right in some cases. Nothing fit anything. When I got back to Caltech, I asked some of the experimenters what the situation was with beta decay. I remember three guys, Hans Jensen, Aaldert Wapstra, and Felix Boehm, sitting me down on a little stool, and starting to tell me all these facts: experimental results from other parts of the country, and their own experimental results. Since I knew those guys, and how careful they were, I paid more attention to their results than to the others. Their results, alone, were not so inconsistent; it was all the others plus theirs.

    Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, "The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they've established for years are being questioned -- such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It's so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A."

    I jump up from the stool and say, "Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!"

    They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting -- the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory!

    That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That's pretty close, 9
    percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.

    I went on and checked some other things, which fit, and new things fit, and I was very excited. It was the first time, and the only time, in my career that I knew a law of nature that nobody else knew. (Of course it wasn't true, but finding out later that at least Murray Gell-Mann -- and also Sudarshan and Marshak -- had worked out the same theory didn't spoil my fun.)

    The other things I had done before were to take somebody else's theory and improve the method of calculating, or take an equation, such as the Schrödinger Equation, to explain a phenomenon, such as helium. We know the equation, and we know the phenomenon, but how does it work?

    I thought about Dirac, who had his equation for a while -- a new equation which told how an electron behaved -- and I had this new equation for beta decay, which wasn't as vital as the Dirac Equation, but it was good. It's the only time I ever discovered a new law.
    This is the real thing. Without even writing the equations out, these guys were very clearly dealing with stuff that's on a whole other level than ½mv<sup>2</sup> and the like. "beta decay", "pions", "coupled to the left", "V and A instead of S and T". God only knows what these guys mean by all this, but I do know that they actually get stuff to work and have used it to predict real particles which were later detected in particle accelerator experiments.

    And all this was 48 years ago, incidentally!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    silas,

    You are claiming to know what is and what isn't "Einstein's Relativity", but unless I'm much mistaken you have not yourself read a single one of Einstein's works, let alone understood them.
    I have in my hands the book titled "Sobre la Teoria de la Relatividad Especial y General" (it means "About the Special and General relativity") of the author: Albert Einstein. Have you ever read it?
    I can also cite the book: Static and Dynamic Electricity of the author: William R. Smythe. He covers essential subjects about Relativity particularly he has a section where he theoretically derives the velocity mass variation based only in the Lorentz Transforms and the conservation of momentum law. Einstein derives the necessity of velocity mass variation in a different way: from Lorentz Transforms and energy considerations.

    I simply cannot cite the many web pages I study about.
    Does this means something to you?

    I can see that quantumdude very evidently has credibility which backs up what he says, and you do not.
    Backs up what? May be you mean you both have the same school and you understand him better...

    I have argumented my propositions very well . It seems to me you simply don't give my explanation enough attention. I speak in a simple way concentrating the discussion in what really matters but you may prefer "tensorial language" isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I showed you why you are wrong about a number of points.
    You haven't. Your arguments are not valid:
    Martillo, yes they are. And if they're not valid then certainly you would be able to tell me exactly where the reasoning goes wrong. But as we will see below, you can't. All you have ever countered my arguments with is denial of what I say, without explaining why you are in denial.

    1) About De Broglie wave-lenght:
    It does not transform as a length, and if you read the thread at Physics Forums you will see why it should not be the case.
    This is the same as to say that the wave-lenght is not a lenght.
    And this is a problem for my argument because...?

    Martillo, what you don't seem to grasp here is that just because something has units of length, it does not in any way imply that it is supposed to transform as the length of a stationary object. In this case it can't because the length of the "stationary" wave is infinite. This much you seemed to understand. But you aren't understanding the second part, which is that the deBroglie wavelength must transform as a reciprocal length because of the way it is formulated. That is because momentum transforms in exactly the same way as length, and the deBroglie wavelength depends on the reciprocal as momentum.

    2) About mass variation with velocity:
    It's not my relativity, it's Einstein's. And as I said it does not obligate us to accept that mass varies at all.
    Yes it obligates.
    No, it doesn't. You just aren't thinking about it very carefully.

    The mass variation of velocity by the factor root(1-v2/c2) is a direct consequence of Lorentz Transforms in Relativity Theory.
    If you assume a theory where Lorentz transforms apply but mass do not vary with velocity you are inventing a new theory. That is not Eintein's Relativity!
    This is totally wrong. Variation of mass with velocity is not a direct consequence of the Lorentz transformations. At a first look the Lorentz transformation obligates us to accept the transformation of spatiotemporal points and intervals. From there it can be deduced that momentum-energy must transform the same way. From this deduction we get that:

    p=gmv (g=gamma)

    The variation of mass with velocity is assumed (not deduced) by grouping (gm) together. The variation of mass with velocity is not a logical consequence of the Lorentz transformation, but an artifact of the associative property of multiplication. And if you had studied relativity in any depth, you would know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I have in my hands the book titled "Sobre la Teoria de la Relatividad Especial y General" (it means "About the Special and General relativity") of the author: Albert Einstein. Have you ever read it?
    I have. And I have also read (among many other works) Einstein's original work on SR, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In that work Einstein arrives at a completely different variation of mass with velocity than the one you cite in your book. Furthermore he acknowledges that:

    "With a different definition of force and acceleration we should naturally obtain other values for the masses. This shows us that in comparing different theories of the motion of the electron we must proceed very cautiously."

    That means that it is possible to arrive at different expressions for the mass as a function of velocity. And as has been shown in more modern literature, it is possible to leave it invariant and still be consistent with the postulates of relativity.

    I can also cite the book: Static and Dynamic Electricity of the author: William R. Smythe. He covers essential subjects about Relativity particularly he has a section where he theoretically derives the velocity mass variation based only in the Lorentz Transforms and the conservation of momentum law. Einstein derives the necessity of velocity mass variation in a different way: from Lorentz Transforms and energy considerations.
    You are misunderstanding what you have read. As I said in my previous post, the variation of mass with velocity is not deduced from the postulates of SR, but it is consistent with them.

    I can see that quantumdude very evidently has credibility which backs up what he says, and you do not.
    Backs up what? May be you mean you both have the same school and you understand him better...
    I back up what I say with well-known scientific knowledge and valid reasoning.

    I have argumented my propositions very well .
    No, you have not. In fact every single one of your considerations against relativity is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding that you hold. Any bright college sophomore who has studied relativity could pick out your mistakes.

    It seems to me you simply don't give my explanation enough attention. I speak in a simple way concentrating the discussion in what really matters
    Pot to kettle: You haven't absorbed a single thing I have written, and I am certain that it is because you have not paid attention to me.

    but you may prefer "tensorial language" isn't it?
    Not necessary for me. Einstein's original work in SR was written using nothing more than algebra and calculus, and that is all that is needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    martillo wrote:

    I have in my hands the book titled "Sobre la Teoria de la Relatividad Especial y General" (it means "About the Special and General relativity") of the author: Albert Einstein. Have you ever read it?


    I have. And I have also read (among many other works) Einstein's original work on SR, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In that work Einstein arrives at a completely different variation of mass with velocity than the one you cite in your book. Furthermore he acknowledges that:

    "With a different definition of force and acceleration we should naturally obtain other values for the masses. This shows us that in comparing different theories of the motion of the electron we must proceed very cautiously."

    That means that it is possible to arrive at different expressions for the mass as a function of velocity. And as has been shown in more modern literature, it is possible to leave it invariant and still be consistent with the postulates of relativity.
    Do you mean that today's Theoretical Physics do not know on how the mass of the electron varies with velocity or even if it constant?

    You must agree that only one possibility can be true. Mass cannot varies sometimes in one way and other times in other ways.

    You know what all this seems to me:
    That the original Relativity Theory predicted a mass variation with the factor "gamma" but the more experimental Particle Physicists know that mass does not vary with velocity and so they are trying to find another theory!

    I believe it would be important for them to take a look in the new theories I'm proposing. But I know I'm nobody isn't it? Just crackpot isn't it?

    I must say that then the modified version of the Davisson-Germer I have proposed is urgently needed!

    Note:
    It is good to know that even Einstein found some inconsistencies in his own theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Do you mean that today's Theoretical Physics do not know on how the mass of the electron varies with velocity or even if it constant?
    No I meant precisely what I said: One is free to adopt either interpretation. They are both consistent with the postulates of relativity, and neither interpretation is implied by them.

    You must agree that only one possibility can be true. Mass cannot varies sometimes in one way and other times in other ways.
    Whether mass varies with velocity or not depends solely on how one defines dynamical quantities (for instance momentum). If one chooses to define the 4-momentum of a massive particle as p=mv, then one is forced to say that mass varies with velocity as m=g(m_0) (g=gamma). But if one chooses to define the 4-momentum of a massive particle as p=g(m_0)v, then one is not obligated to say that mass varies at all. Under this convention the mass of a particle is the invariant norm of its 4-momentum.

    Modern particle physicsts are perfectly aware of both conventions, and they are equally aware that neither one is forced on us by the postulates of SR. They are also aware of the 3rd convention that appears in Einstein's original work. It just so happens that regarding mass as a Lorentz scalar is the most convenient convention under which to do modern particle physics.

    So no, I would not agree that only one convention may be used. The theory doesn't enforce either one of them. But I would agree that once a convention is chosen, it must be applied consistently. That's precisely what Einstein meant when he spoke of being careful in comparing different treatments of the dynamics of the electron.

    You know what all this seems to me:
    That the original Relativity Theory predicted a mass variation with the factor "gamma" but the more experimental Particle Physicists know that mass does not vary with velocity and so they are trying to find another theory!
    You are mistaken because you have not studied enough. It's as simple as that.

    I believe it would be important for them to take a look in the new theories I'm proposing. But I know I'm nobody isn't it? Just crackpot isn't it?
    I believe it would be important for you to take a look at the old theories which you have clearly not mastered yet. But I know they're just wrong isn't it? Just misguided old science isn't it?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: No one who knows what he is doing is going to waste his time looking at your theories because you cannot even make a prima facie case for them. People took a serious look at Einstein's theories because he (and many other prominent physicists) made a valid case against the prevailing views of the day. This is something that you have not done. Indeed you cannot do it without improving your knowledge.

    I must say that then the modified version of the Davisson-Germer I have proposed is urgently needed!
    It's not urgently needed by anyone who understands the physics of accelerators.

    Note:
    It is good to know that even Einstein found some inconsistencies in his own theory.
    Wrong. There are no inconsistencies in relativity. An inconsistency is when, for some statement X, it is possible to deduce both X and NOT X from the same set of axioms. That is not possible to do with SR. Better men than you have tried.

    It's obvious that you don't understand relativity, and that you are not even attempting to understand what I've written about it. So much for being a "truth-seeker".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    Whether mass varies with velocity or not depends solely on how one defines dynamical quantities (for instance momentum). If one chooses to define the 4-momentum of a massive particle as p=mv, then one is forced to say that mass varies with velocity as m=g(m_0) (g=gamma). But if one chooses to define the 4-momentum of a massive particle as p=g(m_0)v, then one is not obligated to say that mass varies at all. Under this convention the mass of a particle is the invariant norm of its 4-momentum.
    May be you can choose any of these possibilities and construct a particular theory with each one, the problem is that only one possibility is the true: that wich matches with reality.
    In reality only one is true, the others are false, wrong.
    The constancy or the variation and which variation of the mass is property of mass, it can be said is a law of nature.
    Nobody is able to "interpret" that! It is or it si not, is not a matter of choice.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: No one who knows what he is doing is going to waste his time looking at your theories because you cannot even make a prima facie case for them. People took a serious look at Einstein's theories because he (and many other prominent physicists) made a valid case against the prevailing views of the day. This is something that you have not done.
    You know, they become prominent physicist after developing their theories and putting them into consideration.
    I'm making a valid case and some peolple will look at my theories and will make developments in Physics. People like you will remain just criticizing with irony and sarcasm. You will simple wait watching what others do and in about 10 years will read all the books, articles and web pages we are constructing now.


    It's obvious that you don't understand relativity, and that you are not even attempting to understand what I've written about it.
    I do understand you but you are wrong, I'm sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    May be you can choose any of these possibilities and construct a particular theory with each one, the problem is that only one possibility is the true: that wich matches with reality.

    In reality only one is true, the others are false, wrong.
    The constancy or the variation and which variation of the mass is property of mass, it can be said is a law of nature.
    Nobody is able to "interpret" that! It is or it si not, is not a matter of choice.
    You still don't get it.

    Martillo, the reason we aren't obligated to accept one definition of mass over another is that they are experimentally indistinguishable. Don't you get it? The dynamical predictions for each one are exactly the same. Instead of simply denying what I say, why don't you look into it for yourself? You clearly have not done so.

    You know, they become prominent physicist after developing their theories and putting them into consideration.
    They also become prominent physicists because they have the character trait of humility, which is what enables them to accept results whether or not they agree with their own preconceived ideas.

    I'm making a valid case and some peolple will look at my theories and will make developments in Physics.
    You have not made a single valid case against the theories you mean to replace. You have given no good reason whatsoever to abandon them.

    People like you will remain just criticizing with irony and sarcasm.
    Martillo, all you ever do is tell me I'm wrong, without one iota of explanation. You are the one who has nothing to offer but unfounded criticism. And if you do have anything other than that, then why don't you present it already? I present scientific arguments to you. Why don't you ever answer in like terms? A great place to start would be to attempt to prove your assertion that the Lorentz transformation leads inexorably to a speed-dependent mass formula. I know you can't do it, but you just might learn something by trying.

    And by the way: I'm not just being critical for no reason, I'm explaining to you in great detail why you are mistaken. I wouldn't hesitate to give the same advice to any of my students who was making the same mistakes that you are. Unfortunately, your ego can't seem to handle it. This is evident from the extremely poor responses I receive from you, which are devoid of any actual argumentation and full of defensive posturing. I would expect much better of the architect of the next great revolution in physics!

    As much as you would like to believe to the contrary, you are not the better of any professional physicist. You aren't even the peer of any professional physicist. You don't have what it takes. And I'm not talking about your numerous misconceptions about currently accepted physical theories. That can be corrected with some schooling. No, I'm talking about your attitude, which is what is preventing you from learning anything that you don't want to hear. It's a shame really because as I've said elsewhere, you're obviously interested in doing physics. You have the potential to some work of consequence, but you're just not there yet. You aren't going to do anything worthwhile as long as your knowledge of physics is below that of a college sophomore and your attitude is such that you cannot be persuaded by evidence and reason.

    You will simple wait watching what others do
    Wrong. I study, conduct research, and teach every day.

    As for you, I can tell that you have run out of meaningful things to say by the fact that you have abandoned reason for cheap shots. Shame on you.

    and in about 10 years will read all the books, articles and web pages we are constructing now.
    As I've already told you several times:

    Present a solid prima facie case, and I'll read it now.

    The only reason I or any other competent reviewer would not read your book for 10+ years is if it takes you 10+ years to make just one decent argument against modern physics. Every theorist has to present a valid argument for abandoning the old theories before his new theory is even looked at. That includes you; you are not special.

    The onus is on you, Martillo.

    I do understand you but you are wrong, I'm sorry.
    You haven't understood a thing I've said to you, and you are obviously not trying to. If you had understood me then you would not still be posting the same basic errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    The only reason I or any other competent reviewer would not read your book for 10+ years is if it takes you 10+ years to make just one decent argument against modern physics. Every theorist has to present a valid argument for abandoning the old theories before his new theory is even looked at. That includes you; you are not special.
    When I was hard developing the new theories I made a choice, I invested the major effort in determining what should be right and not in demonstarting what is wrong.
    I believe if I waited to have total proves against the wrong theories I would never have developed the right theories.
    This phylosophy is present in my manuscript. The aim is to explain what is right and not what is wrong.
    If I waited to have a totally definitive and convincent proof for everybody that Relativity is wrong I would never wrote my text.
    I believe I was right in that choice. The result is a positive one: I perfectly know what is true, what is right.
    I believe for the readers this is also positive: They will learn much more about what is right and not about what was wrong.
    For example they will know what light really is in spite of knowing why Einstein was wrong.
    Knowledge occupies memory you know, is better to have the memory full of right productive knowledge rather than full of unproductive knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    When I was hard developing the new theories I made a choice, I invested the major effort in determining what should be right and not in demonstarting what is wrong.
    Certainly doing one entails doing the other. An explanation of why X is true is certainly an explanation of why NOT X is false. Besides, you are the one who claimed to find errors in modern physics. You were quite adamant about it, in fact. All I am asking you to do is to prove what you say, which you now say you aren't interested in doing. It just goes to confirm what I suspected all along: You don't know enough to prove your claims against modern physics.

    I believe if I waited to have total proves against the wrong theories I would never have developed the right theories.
    I did not ask for "total proves". I asked for substantiation of the errors you claim to have found. I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just stop the bullshit and admit that you can't do it, instead of doing all this evasive tapdancing.

    This phylosophy is present in my manuscript. The aim is to explain what is right and not what is wrong.
    Isn't the first chapter of your book devoted to explaining what is wrong with modern science? Isn't that precisely the goal of your thread, "de Broglie against relativity"? Isn't that the purpose of your remarks at sciforums, when you say that relativity doesn't agree with Newton's laws? Aren't you the guy who in this very thread said, "It is not easy, I have found many errors (not one)" and "Is like a puzzle that have to be dismounted and mounted again from the begining."?

    You have shown a clear interest in explaining what is wrong with modern science. If all you wanted to talk about was your new theories then you and I would never have interacted, because I don't care about your theories. I only respond to your numerous faulty attempts to explain what is wrong with modern science. And now you say that you don't want to get involved in that? Well, why didn't you drop it days ago then?

    It looks to me like you are very interested in explaining what is wrong with modern physics. Only now that you have failed, you are changing your tune.

    I believe I was right in that choice. The result is a positive one: I perfectly know what is true, what is right.
    Don't be absurd. No one has perfect knowledge of the laws of nature.

    Knowledge occupies memory you know, is better to have the memory full of right productive knowledge rather than full of unproductive knowledge.
    It's ironic that you say this, because this is precisely the reason you should not be taken seriously without a prima fascie case against modern physics. All of modern physics is "productive knowledge". In addition to being brilliantly successful in predicting the results of uncounted controlled scientific experiments, modern physics is also the cornerstone of modern engineering. Modern physics has a very solid track record of "productivity". If any theorist expects any reasonable scientist to abandon any part or parcel of modern physics, that theorist had better have a good reason for it.

    And you have none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    453
    quantumdude,

    You have shown a clear interest in explaining what is wrong with modern science. If all you wanted to talk about was your new theories then you and I would never have interacted, because I don't care about your theories. I only respond to your numerous faulty attempts to explain what is wrong with modern science. And now you say that you don't want to get involved in that? Well, why didn't you drop it days ago then?

    It looks to me like you are very interested in explaining what is wrong with modern physics. Only now that you have failed, you are changing your tune.
    Yes, it is necessary to talk about what is wrong, what I mean is that I dedicated much more time to find what is right, on which is the alternative rather to find the complete demonstrations, the definitive proofs on what is wrong.

    But at this time, after discussing with you, I'm sure now that I'm right and my consideration in Section 1.2 is a theoretical prove that Relativity is wrong. You presented your disagreement and I have shown wrong every argument you presented. And you say I didn't demonstrated?
    You have helped in finally demonstrating it theoretically!

    The manuscript is complete now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    But at this time, after discussing with you, I'm sure now that I'm right and my consideration in Section 1.2 is a theoretical prove that Relativity is wrong.
    You have all the faith of a religious zealot.

    You presented your disagreement and I have shown wrong every argument you presented. And you say I didn't demonstrated?
    You have yet to come remotely close to addressing any argument I made. You simply denied what I said, with no explanation. All you "demonstrated" is that you don't understand science or rational debate.

    You have helped in finally demonstrating it theoretically!
    No Martillo, I have shown your charges against modern science to be without basis. For you to ignore my arguments and then declare yourself successful in rebutting them is simply fraudulent. I can't believe you have the audacity to do it.

    The manuscript is complete now.
    As far as its critique of modern physics goes (I didn't bother reading anything else), the manuscript is garbage. It is nothing more than one strawman argument after another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    The manuscript is complete now.
    And for just another example of the nonsense in this completed manuscript, consider the following from Section 1.2 of the manuscript.

    Literally the original principle states that the "general laws of nature" must be invariant.
    No, it doesn't. "Literally" the postulate of relativity states that "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate".

    The quote is from Einstein himself, and is taken from his original work on Special Relativity, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

    This just proves once again that you do not know what you are talking about.

    The statement is imprecise because it seems to exclude some laws.
    Indeed, the statement you wrote is imprecise. But since SR was not derived from the statement you wrote, it makes not one whit of difference to relativity. To the contrary, Einstein's statement is very specific: It says that Maxwell's equations must retain their form in all inertial frames (that is, all frames in which Newton's laws hold). You can't get more precise than that.

    Also, your statement above is obviously a non-sequitur. Yes, the requirement of Lorentz covariance of physical laws excludes some laws of physics (such as the Schrodinger equation). But that does not in any way make the Postulate of Relativity "imprecise".

    Going back to the rudiments of logic (which I strongly suggest you revisit), a set or logical category is "well-defined" (that means "precise") if it is defined in such a way that any given object is either definitely a member of the set, or definitely not a member of the set. It cannot be said that a statement is ill-defined just because it excludes some objects from a set. Indeed, well-defined categorical statements are expected to exclude some objects from some sets. And since any candidate for a law of physics either definitely retains its form under Lorentz transformations or it definitely does not, it can be concluded that Einstein's Postulate of Relativity is well-defined, or precise, or whatever you want to call it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2
    a great website about physics Link Removed IS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by quantumdude
    Going back to the rudiments of logic (which I strongly suggest you revisit), a set or logical category is "well-defined" (that means "precise") if it is defined in such a way that any given object is either definitely a member of the set, or definitely not a member of the set.
    Ah, now. Seeing your reference to sets, maybe you can help with this one.
    My understanding is that a set is closed if the boundary is included in the set, open otherwise. Fine. But it seems that a set can be both open and closed ("clopen" - yuk!), or neither. I can't quite see it.
    Moreover, I have come across the following definition of a connected set: A set S is connected if the only (sub)sets that are both open and closed are S and &oslash; (did that show; empty set). I can't fit that with the more intuitive definition that a set is connected if it is not the union of two of more disjoint empty open sets.

    Thanks if you care to help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    But it seems that a set can be both open and closed ("clopen" - yuk!), or neither. I can't quite see it.
    A set that is neither open nor closed is the interval [0,1) on the real line (closed on the left, open on the right).

    Moreover, I have come across the following definition of a connected set: A set S is connected if the only (sub)sets that are both open and closed are S and &oslash; (did that show; empty set). I can't fit that with the more intuitive definition that a set is connected if it is not the union of two of more disjoint empty open sets.
    You mean "nonempty", right?

    Anyway, you would want to start from each definition and prove that each leads inexorably to the other. Or if you're just looking to obtain a feel for their equivalence think of a set S which consists of 2 closed circles in R^2. Let them be non-intersecting, so that their union is a disconnected set. Now try to find subsets of that set that are both open and closed, other than {} or S itself. You are already aware that you won't be able to do it, but by getting your hands in the dirt you might develop more of an intuition about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by quantumdude
    A set that is neither open nor closed is the interval [0,1) on the real line (closed on the left, open on the right).
    That's it? To think I've been fretting over this for days! Thanks.


    You mean "nonempty", right?
    Ooops, yes I do

    .....think of a set S which consists of 2 closed circles in R^2. Let them be non-intersecting, so that their union is a disconnected set. Now try to find subsets of that set that are both open and closed, other than {} or S itself. You are already aware that you won't be able to do it, but by getting your hands in the dirt you might develop more of an intuition about it.
    Actually, with this short post, all has become crystal to me.

    By the way, my source is a brief piece by Hanno Rund. Is he/she reliable?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    By the way, my source is a brief piece by Hanno Rund. Is he/she reliable?
    I would think so. I have a Dover book by Lovelock and Rund called Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles, and it is very good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by quantumdude

    I have a Dover book by Lovelock and Rund called Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles, and it is very good.
    I had a quick look at this, and was intrigued by one of their appendices, where they introduce the skew-symmetric algebra at the indentity of a manifold, without once referring to the group structure of the manifold.
    True, the existence of an identity implies the existence of an operation, but not, as far as I can see, of an inverse or closure.
    The algebra makes no use of these properties of course, but it's kind of fun to see the familiar groups appear after exponentiating.

    I think the rest of the book might be a bit advanced for me.

    EDIT: I may have gotten my notes muddled. As I said above, the notion of an identity implies a structure on the manifold, right? But, if you don't come right out and say that structure is such as to make the manifold a group, and then declare the tangent space T<sub>e</sub> M to be an algebra, you have to arbitrarily introduce a set of axioms for that algebra.
    Which of course you can do.
    But isn't it better to declare that, say, the set G is a topological space and in addition has both the usual properies of a manifod and a group?
    Then your claim that T<sub>e</sub>G is an algebra, requires no further qualification (other than that of skew-symmetry and of satisfying the Leibnitz law - both of which can be "relatively" easily shown)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    19
    In relativity there is something called closing velocity.
    If a spaceship takes off accelerating to near light speed
    in one direction and another taking off from the same
    place; let's say Earth; and accelerates to near light speed
    in the opposite direction how fast will the earthbound say
    they would see these spaceships are traversing space
    taken both together?

    Their closing velocity is near 2c.

    It would be exactly 2c for light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Their closing velocity is near 2c.

    It would be exactly 2c for light.
    You are correct, but it is important to note that this "closing velocity" is not the velocity of either of the objects. It is simply the rate of separation of the two objects, in a particular frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    If a spaceship takes off accelerating to near light speed
    in one direction and another taking off from the same
    place; let's say Earth; and accelerates to near light speed
    in the opposite direction how fast will the earthbound say
    they would see these spaceships are traversing space
    taken both together?

    Their closing velocity is near 2c.

    It would be exactly 2c for light.
    Of course, the Earth-bound observer can only make that judgement by doing the calculation. Of more relevence to relativity is the question, what would the crew of either space-ship say about the seperation velocity of the two craft?
    At the sort of speeds you are talking about, a special formulation of the law of addition of velocities is needed, and is such as to ensure that no two velocities, when added together, can exceed that of light. In case you're interested, here it is

    V = (v<sub>1</sub> + v<sub>2</sub>)/1 + v<sub>1</sub>v<sub>2</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    hey im new, be gentle, but perhaps this is food for thought..?

    the theory that time would go backwards or stop if you physically accelerated faster than light, isnt that obsurd when you think that we percieve 'time' through touch and feel aswell as light and sound, and touch and feel would infact indicate that time flow was normal at faster than light speed no matter what imagery we percieve, So the image your eyes recieves is infact an illusionary lag (perhaps seeing yourself externally?), or delay to such extremes that visually it appears your going back in time or everything slows to a crawl...

    If so then once you return to normal perceptionary speeds after this admitidly quite disorientating experiance you find that there is no temperal change and that light is external to the fundemental nature of the time frame. Are we infact forgetting to include perception (ourselves) in the equation?

    I also read in a very interesting record book, that the initial recording of the speed of light was derived from an average of measurements, each measurement being fractionally different, showing slight variation's in the speed.

    Also that the speed of light is subject to small velocity changes due to different seasonal conditions, so if we measured it today? over and over again would there be indication of the same marginal changes in speed?

    if this is true, did we purposefully ignore this to create a basis for certain popular theories of the time to work? effectively lieing to ourselves because it made the mathmatic's easier without the variation included.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    hey im new, be gentle, but perhaps this is food for thought..?

    the theory that time would go backwards or stop if you physically accelerated faster than light, isnt that obsurd when you think that we percieve 'time' through touch and feel aswell as light and sound, and touch and feel would infact indicate that time flow was normal at faster than light speed no matter what imagery we percieve, So the image your eyes recieves is infact an illusionary lag (perhaps seeing yourself externally?), or delay to such extremes that visually it appears your going back in time or everything slows to a crawl...

    If so then once you return to normal perceptionary speeds after this admitidly quite disorientating experiance you find that there is no temperal change and that light is external to the fundemental nature of the time frame. Are we infact forgetting to include perception (ourselves) in the equation?

    I also read in a very interesting record book, that the initial recording of the speed of light was derived from an average of measurements, each measurement being fractionally different, showing slight variation's in the speed.

    Also that the speed of light is subject to small velocity changes due to different seasonal conditions, so if we measured it today? over and over again would there be indication of the same marginal changes in speed?

    if this is true, did we purposefully ignore this to create a basis for certain popular theories of the time to work? effectively lieing to ourselves because it made the mathmatic's easier without the variation included.
    Well this really has nothing to do with "time", if you travel faster then the speed of sound then you could hear yourself leave. Traveling faster then the speed of light would have the same effect. It's not really time travel however. For that matter everything we see if always delayed, thus do we always live in the past? Time is just a measurement, no romance at all involved with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Guitarist,

    Hate to nit-pick but:

    V = (v<sub>1</sub> + v<sub>2</sub>)/1 + v<sub>1</sub>v<sub>2</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>

    should be:

    V = (v<sub>1</sub> + v<sub>2</sub>)/(1 + v<sub>1</sub>v<sub>2</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>)

    (parentheses added).
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas - US
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    The speed of light does not change. Through glass, light 'slows' down. Let me explain.

    As you know, matter is composed out of molecules. Now, in my view of the universe, these things act a little like pinball boards. Although in reality these things are much more complex than that, exchange of energy and all that, it does function a lot like the included image.



    Light does not actually slow down. It simply intersects with molecules, and thus it appears as if it is going slower, because it takes longer to the destination. Imagine the street system of the US. Although I have never been there, I have been told it is made out of 'blocks'. Now, you can take a straight route, driving about 100 mph, or you can drive around several blocks at about 100 mph. Now, your speed will be the same, yet your overall speed (seeing as you technically did the same distance; distance between your original location and your destination) is quite different.

    The same goes for light. It remains at the same speed, it simply has a different overall speed. Einstein is flawless :P (<- At least in this regard )

    Mr U
    Your drawing advocates light appears slower due to an altered path through molecules. That is not the case. Light travels straight. If it hits an atom it is absorbed and then re-emitted. But it continues to travel in a straight line.

    It is the number of absorbtions and re-emissions that produce a delay and hence a longer travel time through the medium.

    On further reading I see this has already been addressed.
    Time Will Tell
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •