Notices
Results 1 to 72 of 72

Thread: A new possibility for Mercury precession

  1. #1 A new possibility for Mercury precession 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Please take a look at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...Precession.htm

    A new interpretation is possible!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    This idea is not consistent with the behaviour of stars.

    You are proposing that in some undefined way the distribution of mass within the sun is uneven. Further, this uneveness is constant. Given that the sun is a gaseous body, with extensive convective processes, what is preventing those mass inequalities from evening out in an astronomically very short period?

    Unless you can offer a plausible mechanism to achieve this, which I doubt, your speculation is seen to be unworkable.


    ______________
    Wright Brothers: probably the best bicycle fixers on the planet.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I don't believe stars are "gaseous bodies".
    Even if they were composed by Hydrogen an Helium only the huge pressure inside due to their huge mass and huge gravitational field the nucleus of them must be solid!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    My response here is the same as elsewhere. Demonstrate why the interior must be solid. Show us the math that proves this to be a plausible explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    It is possible and very probable, demonstrate you that it is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The current view is wholly against your position. In science, those introducing a new concept have to demonstrate its validity. The established view does not have to be constantly restated for the benefit of those who chose not to accept it.
    Your speculation may be valid. So far you have offered nothing in support of it. Here is your opportunity to do so, and win some converts in the process.
    If you chose not to make this demonstration we can only assume that your speculations are idle and valueless. It is your chance and choice. Over to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    As I said a really huge pressure inside the stars would turn any material solid in the nucleus. Although I don't know the value of the real pressure inside and the "table" for the state of the materials at that pressure and their temperature is very reasonably to supose them solid. Is much more probable to be solid than to be in a gaseous state.
    The speculation is valid and it deserves the opportunity to be considered seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    In other words you know nothing about stellar astrophysics. You have studied none of the research about the subject. You are incapable of delivering a mathematical justification for your assertions.
    All you are doing is expressing opinions. Please provide a single scrap of evidence or mathematical analysis to justify your claim.
    We are prepared to consider your speculation seriously. Go ahead. Give us the mathematical justification for a solid interior. Alternatively, give us the evidence. We are ready to be convinced, but once again you will not do that by simply stating an opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Demonstrate why the interior must be solid. Show us the math that proves this to be a plausible explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Martillo
    demonstrate you that it is not.
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s2.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Astronomy Notes
    The Sun's core is about 16 million K and has a density around 160 times the density of water. This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water. However, the Sun's interior is still gaseous all the way to the very center because of the extreme temperatures. There is no molten rock like that found in the interior of the Earth.
    The accepted explanation is above. If you are going to suggest otherwise, you'll need to show the math. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant.

    You might be right. But it doesn't seem probable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water.
    I can't believe something in this conditions could be "gaseous".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Extreme temperatures

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    We must consider that the mass of the Sun is "huge"!
    The graphic does not reach the possible pressure present in the nucleus of a star. At huge values the line of the solid state seems to encounter the line of the gas state and then: which will be the state far ahead? Which will predominate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    The presented "classical" interpretation of the orbit of Mercury is possible and considering that the precession has been observed invariantly for many many years it indicates that the nucleus of Sun remains invariant in shape and mass distribution what is a strong indication that the nucleus must be solid!

    I will add this comment to the page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    No, it is a strong indication that Einstein was correct and you are wrong. Go away, study some basic physics. Then, come back and explain how you were mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water.
    I can't believe something in this conditions could be "gaseous".
    Until you learn never ever to express an opinion on a scientific topic being derived from disbelief or incredulity, you will never ever be a real scientist. If your entire thesis that Einstein's Relativity is invalid is simply based on your inability to believe in differing time rates for different observers, then it really isn't worth debating you. Science is based on evidence, not the human brain's inability to completely grasp the very very small, the very very large or the very very hot.

    In the real world of science, you would have to provide a full mathematical model that represents your theory. In fact, prior to Einstein there were many theories which attempted to explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion, including the greatest orbital mechanics and gravitational perturbation mathematician of all, Pierre-Simon Laplace. There may well have be an "asymmetric distribution of solar mass" model. No classical model succeeded in completely explaining the whole precession without introducing unobserved perturbations in the other planets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    @martillo:


    I think that you're mistaking two different concepts. One is density, and the other the states of aggregation of matter.

    See, solid substances use to be more dense than gaseous substances. Yet being a solid or a gas is not a matter of density. Density tells us what amount of matter (mass) is packed in a certain volume. But solids aren't solid because they are dense -they are dense because they are solid! The same as all horses are animals, but not all animals are horses.

    Solid matherials have got their atoms bind together by a linking force. Usually, this force is powered by the rapid exchange of electrons. An atom which "loses" an electron becomes electrically loaded and is attracted by the neighboring atom who has "got" an extra electron. Also, the exchange of electrons also binds atoms together. I won't enter in further detail, but the idea I want to convey is that solids are solid because their atoms are bind together by forces that also rpevent them from "drift away".

    Some substances have got a weak kiner kind of link between the atoms. They're liquid as the bind between atoms is hard enough to keep them more or less together, but it can't prevent them from moving away from their initial position. If the atoms (or mollecules) lose enough energy, they may lose the ability to "go away" from other atoms/mollecules, and the liquid may change its phase to solid.

    A gas is a different matter. A gas is made of atoms or mollecules whose interaction is too weak to keep them together. No matter how close they are hold, they just can't keep together. Only when they lose enough energy, the weak interaction between atoms may bin the gas' atoms together and unable to go away. So a gas may change its phase to a liquid, or even a solid, as long as the temperature is low. Yet it keeps beign a gas -give it its tempereature back, and bye bye.


    And now to the point. A solid substance is such solid when it haves the property to bind atoms together and are unable to drift away from their position. A gas is a gas because its atoms don't "feel" any affinity between them and will depart the others ASAP. Changes in temperature and/or pressure may alter, temporally, the behavior of a substance. Too much heat may allow a solid's atoms to drift away -but they will aggregate as soon as temperature goes below a threshold. While a low temperature may prevent a gas' atoms from drifting away -yet only until the temperature raises beyond a certian point. The inherent properties still are there. A solid won't go away, a gas won't stay together if they're left to their own "initiative".

    The Sun is made out of gas. Pick a handful of atoms from its core, take them away, and as soon as you release the pressure on them they will go away. A "real" solid never does this.

    Actually, being nitpicking, the core of the Sun isn't in gaseous phase. It's in a "plasma" state of aggregation, a state of matter were electrons can't hold together with the nucleus long enough to build atoms. A plasma can be terribly dense and terribly hot, but anyway whatever it's made of, as soon as the temperature normalizes, the substance will behave as what it is. In the case of the Sun, gas.


    Concerning Mercury's precession, Einstein tamed it and no alternative is needed. 8)
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Today's model of stars can be discussed.
    Even Gods can live in the nucleus of the stars and planets!

    Not only Einstein was wrong, some others too.

    Open your mind, take a look at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
    Physics can be different.
    "Modern Physics" is wrong sometimes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Today's model of stars can be discussed.
    Even Gods can live in the nucleus of the stars and planets!

    Not only Einstein was wrong, some others too.

    Open your mind, take a look at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
    Physics can be different.
    "Modern Physics" is wrong sometimes!
    Words, words, words.

    The field to defeat Einstein are Mathematics, not rethoric.

    Any boludo can claim to have discovered a "new physics", yet usually the only discovery is that there are a thousand ways to misunderstand Physics... and thousands of fools to think that they really outsmarted Einstein without not even knowing the Mathemathical basis of Relativity.

    I've tried to understand your point, and have seen a misconception in it, and have demonstrated such miscocneption & have tried to clarify the concepts implied. Now you ignore what I wrote and suggest me to "open my mind", which sounds weird as currently you don't even seem able to grasp the difference between density and state of aggregation, between "being dense" and "being solid"... :wink:


    BTW, the foundations of Relativity are four concepts:

    - The speed of light in vacuum is constant, only light (EM waves) can travel at the speed of light and light can't travel at any other speed than c. Checked and confirmed.

    - Time and space are a continuum and anything distorting one affects the other. Checked and confirmed.

    - Gravity is a geometrical distortion of space-time. Checked and confirmed.

    - Energy and matter are mutually equivalent and convertible. Checked and confirmed.

    As matter of principle, distrust any "refutal" of Relativity which doesn't STARTS debunking one of this four concepts, but focus directly on some best-seller story like the Twins Paradox or the like. Likely the author just got something wrong with the basic concepts and developed them wrongly...
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Lucifer,
    ...yet usually the only discovery is that there are a thousand ways to misunderstand Physics...
    I agree with this, today's "Modern Physics" is just another way to misunderstand Physics.
    Any boludo can claim to have discovered a "new physics"
    I claim to have discovered new laws of "Real Physics"!
    That's true and we will see which is "boludo", me with the new laws or you without being unable to understand that today's Physics is inconsistent, that new theories are needed, that what I'm presenting is an important good advance in Physics and that you stubbornly couldn't "get it"!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Lucifer,
    ...yet usually the only discovery is that there are a thousand ways to misunderstand Physics...
    I agree with this, today's "Modern Physics" is just another way to misunderstand Physics.
    Any boludo can claim to have discovered a "new physics"
    I claim to have discovered new laws of "Real Physics"!
    That's true and we will see which is "boludo", me with the new laws or you without being unable to understand that today's Physics is inconsistent, that new theories are needed, that what I'm presenting is an important good advance in Physics and that you stubbornly couldn't "get it"!
    Duh, you can't even convince us, and I guess here the level demanded to evidences is quite low... I mean, it's not as if we where talking of the real stuff, the mathematical and experimental basis of Physics, but just of how we understand them in non-technical terms. As I said, in this thread you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "being dense" and "being solid", and this makes a poor foundation to agree to your claim that millions of scientists around the world are worng whereas you are right...

    It is easier that you (one single man) are wrong (and at least you are wrong in ONE thing), than that the whole Physics community be wrong and don't see it, or know that they're wrong but just feel like it and cheat about it.


    And by the way, I wasn't calling you a boludo, rather reminding you what human stuff are made of the usual guys who claim that Science is wrong.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Lucifer,
    As I said, in this thread you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "being dense" and "being solid", and this makes a poor foundation to agree to your claim that millions of scientists around the world are worng whereas you are right...

    It is easier that you (one single man) are wrong (and at least you are wrong in ONE thing), than that the whole Physics community be wrong and don't see it, or know that they're wrong but just feel like it and cheat about it.
    You know, if so I will not be the first case to be lonely against the contemporary "whole Physics community".

    I don't like today's model of stars, particularly we can look at our Sun:
    It is said that is mainly composed by hydrogen (in a plasma state as you say) and that because of the very high temperature present it fussionates to helium producing the radiation energy but I don't understand two things of this model:
    1) The fussion produces gamma rays so why the spectrum of the radiation of the sun doesn't have a big gamma ray component in it? The crown can "dissipate" part of it to other frquencies but I don't believe it will disappear quite all the photons of that energy!
    2) What prevents the Sun to explode as huge hydrogen bomb? I guess you know that the hydrogen bomb has the same principle, the fussion of hydrogen. The difference is that the hydrogen bomb is initiated by a mini-atomic-bomb inside but in the present theories in the interior of the Sun the fussion has already been initiated and in a very large scale! Then why it doesn't explode as a huge bomb?

    Can you explain these?

    I have a different idea for stars...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Lucifer,
    As I said, in this thread you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "being dense" and "being solid", and this makes a poor foundation to agree to your claim that millions of scientists around the world are worng whereas you are right...

    It is easier that you (one single man) are wrong (and at least you are wrong in ONE thing), than that the whole Physics community be wrong and don't see it, or know that they're wrong but just feel like it and cheat about it.
    You know, if so I will not be the first case to be lonely against the contemporary "whole Physics community".
    Houm...

    "Some times some genius have been mistaken for fools, and some times some fools have been msitaken for genius; but most of the times those being called fools actually were fools"

    I don't like today's model of stars, particularly we can look at our Sun:
    It is said that is mainly composed by hydrogen (in a plasma state as you say) and that because of the very high temperature present it fussionates to helium producing the radiation energy but I don't understand two things of this model:

    1) The fussion produces gamma rays so why the spectrum of the radiation of the sun doesn't have a big gamma ray component in it? The crown can "dissipate" part of it to other frquencies but I don't believe it will disappear quite all the photons of that energy!
    I should check if nuclear fussion emits gamma rays, but as a first approach, the heart of the sun is REALLY dense and so we should expect that it blocked everything but thermal radiation. Astronomers do use neutrino detection as a way to check the core of the Sun; amongst other thigns, because radiation produced int hec roe fot he sun will take 1,000,000 years to reacht he surface, due to absorbtion and random re-emisison of photons. That is, they're absorbed and emitted in the "wrong direction" so many times that actually they need a million years to wade through the inner layers fot he sun. This also would explain why gamma rays just don't make it through, as (IMO) it shoud be easier that they were re-emitted as several x-rays than as a single gamma ray (here we would need someone with a thorough klnowledge of high enrgy Physics).

    2) What prevents the Sun to explode as huge hydrogen bomb? I guess you know that the hydrogen bomb has the same principle, the fussion of hydrogen. The difference is that the hydrogen bomb is initiated by a mini-atomic-bomb inside but in the present theories in the interior of the Sun the fussion has already been initiated and in a very large scale! Then why it doesn't explode as a huge bomb?
    That one is easy to answer. A explosion is a gas (or a plasma) moving at high speed. This means, it is very hot or very fast ot both thigns, so they spread at very high speed. That is, a explosion causes a pressure. Any pressrue higher than that of the epxlosion will prevent it from spreading further... and then, the core of a star is withstanding the pressure from the outer layers of it; in the case of the sun, that's 500,000 kilometers of gas, and the pressure from this outer layers overcomes the pressure from the hot plasma in the core. That's why they don't explode, their weight prevents them from doign it.

    Fussion and "weight" actually are in a delicate balance, where fussion "pushes out" and weight (gravity+mass) "pushes in". Whenever this balance is broken, things go shit, and go shit very fast. If the star losses too much hydrogen, it won't be abll to hold together all its outer layers, and will inflate like a balloon while mass slowly leaks from it. That's the "red giant" phase. Then, once all hydrogen is lost, the star will cool down and gas layers will fall on the core, causing the fussion of heavier elements. That's the "nova" phase. Once all fuel has been turned to iron, the star reaches a dead end and fussion stops, the loss of this "pressure out" causes the outer layers to collapse on the core, and the density raises to the point that it crushes electrostatic repulsion forces and protons and electrons are smashed together. This is the phase called "white dwarf". That is, in the case of a star like the sun. Bigger stars die mote violent deaths and face more grim fates, from neutron stars to the final collapse with the formation of a singularity and thus a black hole.

    All this is very basic astrophysics; any article about the life cycle of stars will give you further detail on how interact gravity and nuclear fussion from the start to the end of the life of a star.

    Once again, this seen, I think you're chewing too much with too few teeth.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Lucifer,

    I should check if nuclear fussion emits gamma rays
    Yes it does, check it.

    I think you're chewing too much with too few teeth.
    I agree that I don't know too much about astrophysics but give me the chance of the doubt.
    I had to doubt on many current theories to develop my work and is not new for me to discover that some have been only bad interpretations over some phenomenon that seemed to have logic at first and stayed for some time because of the lack of another interpretation of it but were wrong at the end.

    About the explanations you give me I consider the key subjects:
    1)
    ...radiaton produced in the core of the sun will take 1,000,000 years to reach the surface, due to absortion and random re-emission of photons.
    2)
    A explosion is a gas (or a plasma) moving at high speed. This means, it is very hot or very fast or both thigns, so they spread at very high speed. That is, a explosion causes a pressure. Any pressure higher than that of the explosion will prevent it from spreading further... and then, the core of a star is withstanding the pressure from the outer layers of it; in the case of the sun, that's 500,000 kilometers of gas, and the pressure from this outer layers overcomes the pressure from the hot plasma in the core. That's why they don't explode, their weight prevents them from doign it.
    Interesting theories but I can argue that this seem to be true if the nuclear fussion happens at the core only! I think the entire star is at very high temperature enough to initiate the fussion at any place of it! (even at the surface which is at enough high temperature). I believe is a matter of temperature not of pressure.
    The model can be discussed...

    I'm not giving an alternative model for the stars now, I'm not ready for this, I'm just giving arguments justifying that may be current theories are not totally right and some things could be different. I'm just trying that you can give me the chance of the doubt and that the new interpretation I give to Mercury's precession is just a possible one that can be considered by more expert minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Lucifer,

    I should check if nuclear fussion emits gamma rays
    Yes it does, check it.

    I think you're chewing too much with too few teeth.
    I agree that I don't know too much about astrophysics but give me the chance of the doubt.
    I had to doubt on many current theories to develop my work and is not new for me to discover that some have been only bad interpretations over some phenomenon that seemed to have logic at first and stayed for some time because of the lack of another interpretation of it but were wrong at the end.
    Your work? And what was your work, and what theories you found to be misinterpretaitons?

    About the explanations you give me I consider the key subjects:
    1)
    ...radiaton produced in the core of the sun will take 1,000,000 years to reach the surface, due to absortion and random re-emission of photons.
    2)
    A explosion is a gas (or a plasma) moving at high speed. This means, it is very hot or very fast or both thigns, so they spread at very high speed. That is, a explosion causes a pressure. Any pressure higher than that of the explosion will prevent it from spreading further... and then, the core of a star is withstanding the pressure from the outer layers of it; in the case of the sun, that's 500,000 kilometers of gas, and the pressure from this outer layers overcomes the pressure from the hot plasma in the core. That's why they don't explode, their weight prevents them from doign it.
    Interesting theories but I can argue that this seem to be true if the nuclear fussion happens at the core only! I think the entire star is at very high temperature enough to initiate the fussion at any place of it! (even at the surface which is at enough high temperature). I believe is a matter of temperature not of pressure.
    The model can be discussed...
    Martillo, calling them"theories" won't take you nowhere. As you know, a "teor*a" and a "hipótesis" are widely different things, specially in Spanish, which is gifted with a greater precission than English. A scientific theory is solid rock and you won't break it apart saying "break apart, break apart, I order you to break apart!!". you will need a throrugh knwoledge of the rock, a good hammer, lots of mathemathics and the agreement of scientists.


    This said, about nuclear fusion...

    Martillo, the surface of the sun is at only 6,000 ºC! This is not a very high temperature.

    I can't figure why you think it's just a matter of temperature; we are currently reaching temperatures like that of the core of the sun, but no fussion happens unless there is enough pressure. If pressure didn't matter, anyone could build a thermonuclear bomb, even without a nuclear device to trigger it. It is very easy to heat a gas to some 20,000 ºC, so if we added just some hydrogen (accordingly to you) the thing would start for sure a nuclear fussion. Do you know where's 20,000 ºC around you? Do you have any fluorescent light in your home? Each tiem you turn it on, a stream of electrons crosses it, and the gas being crossed reaches 20,000 º c of temperature. It is so hot that it emits ultra-violet light, which htis the fluorescent matherials on the walls of the pipe which in turn emit visible light. What diffcult would be to add some hydrogent to the mix, and, bang!, you got a thermonuclear device at home? That is, IF temperature was all what means.


    (And not to mention, lightnings. They heat the air to 50,000 º C, and thus they split the water mollecules present in the air... and all that hydrogen atoms just don't go fussion. Luckily!)

    I'm not giving an alternative model for the stars now, I'm not ready for this, I'm just giving arguments justifying that may be current theories are not totally right and some things could be different. I'm just trying that you can give me the chance of the doubt and that the new interpretation I give to Mercury's precession is just a possible one that can be considered by more expert minds. It is a completely new one that deserves attention!
    Yeah. And ignoring simple facts like the difference between "solid" and "dense" shouldn't be a handicap? Neither thinking that nuclear fussion just happens if the temperature si high enough, and that the surface of the sun which si at some mere 6,000º is hot enough... despite we HEAT deuterium at 10,000,000 degrees and it refuses to fussion unless it's been hit from every direction and subject to pressures of millions of pascals.

    I know you can think it is not probably at this time that someone can discover something totally new and why it haven't been discovered before with so many scientists that exists from long time ago working hard. I know, but it is possible, although unprobable it is possible...

    You are intelligent, I can see intelligent answers from you and so I will ask you to not neglect a new theory just because it is different from the current point of view, I will ask you to spend some of your time in the new theories at my site: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
    There is a possibility something could be true!
    One thing is to be "different" and another to ignore (not DEBUNK, but IGNORE) the essentials. Here I can't see much difference between you and the guy in this forum who said elsewhere that gravity doesn't exist, but only magnetism, or the other one who wanted to change the rotation speed of the Earth with jet engines.

    Science is not a free for all, it haves a entry fee, and this entry fee is paid through knowledge. You may learn everything that can be learned about the Sun and the stars, and find that this knowledge needs a fixing; but if you want to fix what nobody thinks it's broken and you don't even know what you are talking about, then all your efforts are put to waste...
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Lucifer,
    OK, I must agree I don't know too much about the current theories about stars constitution. I retire my criticism to your explanations.

    I can see now how difficult it could be to accept my interpretation of Mercury's precession.
    I agree that for it to be valid the nucleus of the Sun has to be solid and that this seems not possible if it is constituted by a not solid "plasma".

    I would need a completely different model for all the stars, isn't it?
    Impossible?, unprobable?... I will let time pass thinking more about this...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    martillo, ure one stuborn man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    From the same thread in other forum:

    Today's model of stars talks about "plasma". It is not gas, not liquid, not solid, it's "plasma" although a good definition of it is not found.
    Actually nobody knows how is the interior of stars since for example "X rays" cannot be taken, all that exist about it constitution are theories.
    Nevertheless I believe that even within today's model a "quite solid" core of stars hypotesis can survive as something that does not deformates easily.
    That's the essential hypotesis, something that doesn't deformates.

    At the huge temperatures of Sun's core atoms may have loosed quite all their electrons preventing them to stablish chemical bonds, I know, but I think that at its huge internal pressure matter is so dense that it would be really difficult for atoms to move between other atoms and this means a state of matter that not deformates easily; in other words it has solid properties. Sometimes the boundaries between solid and liquid are not discrete and the there is a continuous range of possible states. May be I can say that Sun's core is "quite solid" to define it better thinking in that it can deformate but slightly in hundred or thousands of years...

    This way my proposition of the non uniform distribution of the mass of the Sun as the cause of part of Mercury's precession (the other parts due to the effect of the other planets) stands as a possible one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    but there is a deffinition between solid/liquid and plasma
    plasma have lost all their electrons, or most of them.
    all lighter atoms is electron free, only heavier atoms may have some inner electrons left.
    bet there is at a certain temperature that it doesnt matter how big the pressure is, its still the same form, and thats where plasma is. Plasma is , if i am correct, not effected by pressure to change state of matter.
    but juist because the pressure increase doesnt mean something gets solid, ice becomes water at high pressure, already tehre is ur axiom of great pressure = solid ruined. But also solid means that the atoms/molecules are fixed at its positions, and if the atoms in the core were fixed at certain distance from each other they wouldnt be able to get close enough to join into a new atom, fusion would be impossible and the star would die. Youre model acctualy kills all the stars in the universe. so if its true i wonder how the hell sun burns and give us light

    and when it comes to density
    most liquids are about water density
    but mercery or quicksilver as its called osmetimes are about 13 times as dense as water but still a liquid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Fussion can happen in the outer layers of the star.
    I think the nucleus don't need to be too big to produce the little precession of Mercury.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    the probelm then is that the temperature decreases. at that point it might be to "cold" for fussion to happen
    so realise it, the core is plasma, not solid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Fussion can happen in the outer layers of the star.
    I think the nucleus don't need to be too big to produce the little precession of Mercury.
    I think the only signifcant fusion to be found in the outer layers of stars is your confusion.

    Cite a single peer reviewed document that supports your contention. Once again Martillo you are basing your suppositions and conjecture on what you would like to be the case, not what there is evidence for.

    And, once again, the core of the sun is not solid. It is a plasma. Wanting it to be different to defend your theory is very human, but very unscientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    and lets not forget its stupid.
    and also our sun is to small to support outer layer fusion, we need heavier stars for that
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    May be we have different concept about the "nucleus".
    That "nucleus" I'm talking about that can have "quite-solid" properties can be different from "nucleus" refered in current literature and it can be very small and some unknown shape.
    May be I wrongly called it "nucleus"...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You have still failed utterly to identify a single aspect of current stellar theory that requires a 'nucleus' as you describe it. It is quite superflous to explaining how stars work.
    Moreover, the characteristics you wish this 'nucleus' to have are at odds with those same well established theories.
    I do not know what it takes to get you to understand the difference between scientific thought and idle speculation. The latter can be a great source of amusement and even of inspiration, but it is not equivalent to proper scientific analysis, research, or hypothesising.
    Your idea is fundamentally flawed. You have persistently failed to address any of these flaws and have displayed an arrogance that is surprising given your ignorance of the fields that are pertinent to your theory.

    It is remarable that you have argued for page after page about the nature of plasma, which is known to schoolcholdren, or at the very least those in the first year of a physics course at University. Yet, despite this ignorance, you claim to have new insights into physics, that could revolutionise our understanding of the Universe. Truly incredible.

    Please note, Martillo, I am not doubting the possibility of someone outside the orhtodoc science community of coming up with some startling new insight. I am doubting that happening to someone who does not understand conventional physics at even an elementary level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Ophiolite,
    I do not know what it takes to get you to understand the difference between scientific thought and idle speculation. The latter can be a great source of amusement and even of inspiration, but it is not equivalent to proper scientific analysis, research, or hypothesising.
    My idea can be well called an speculation now. I agree.
    It could be approved by the Scientific Community later.
    Your idea is fundamentally flawed.
    It haven't been proven false. It's new!

    I am doubting that happening to someone who does not understand conventional physics at even an elementary level.
    Please Ophiolite, I know about Physics a bit...
    I was good on Physics and Math at School and the University...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    [quote="martillo"]
    It haven't been proven false. It's new!
    quote]

    it has been proven false, and its not new. there were early atempts to make classical physic go with the new ones, and they did the same as ur is, they failed.

    basacly all statements uve made about ur "theory" have been proven of the opposite, unlike relativity and quantum mechanic. even when they were new they hadnt been proven false, cause those were a bit out of reach then, but was soon proven right. unlike ur theory, u say suns core is solid, studies of plasma says its plasma. u say C+C = 2C, experiments says it equals C. every statment u have that invole quantum/relativity is failing so uderly. they are just as crushed as the ant i slammed with a 50kg weight.

    [quote="martillo"]
    Please Ophiolite, I know about Physics a bit...
    I was good on Physics and Math at School and the University...[/thats just alot of bullshit. if u had this topic and all this pages of ignorance from u would never have been written by u
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me
    This says it all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Martillo

    as well as basic physics I recommend working on the basic concepts of humour.

    Regards

    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Ophiolite is right martillo.
    its a funny thing i have on the net. I write on my sig something about domination and such for a laugh. the sig is rarly anything to do with reality if its extreme
    "there is 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those who dont"
    do u think this sig is for anything else but a laugh?
    then u need to not only go back to gymnasium but also to somekinda humor school where they teach u to see when its a joke and when tis not

    and to be honest do i think its kinda pathetic to go on the sig just for a pathetic atempt to hit someone
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    But that tells me you are a young one which sees mucv TV and that you don't care too much in what you say and listen.
    You don't take much time to see if I could be remotely right in something.
    Am I wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    ure not only wrong, ure so far away from bieng right that the distance between here and andromeda is less
    lets think logical, when relativity and quantum mechanic came dont u think scientists disliked it and rathered have a classic picture of it?
    even they gave up and accepted the fact classic simply cant explain this things
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Zelos,
    lets think logical, when relativity and quantum mechanic came dont u think scientists disliked it and rathered have a classic picture of it?
    even they gave up and accepted the fact classic simply cant explain this things
    It's you, with that reasoning, that give up on thinking more.
    They accepted Classical Physics couldn't explain many things but some are conscient that there are still not well solved problems in Physics even with those theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    of course there are some things they cant solve yet, thats natural for theories to have a limit. but classic have a lower limit for what it can do.´thats y the other theoriest exists.
    as people have said before, ur ideas arent based on mathematical models that have been proven, even thoe u r using conecpts that is possibly to varify today. its ur wish, not whats real
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    You know at the end all are based on Classical Physics. Relativity at low velocity turns Classic and QM at the "macro" world turns Classic so it is not the problem to choice between them. They are extensions of Classic Physics.
    The problem is that they have a non classical "feeling".

    I'm proposing a new one that can "replace" both and explain more succesfully many things and without strange paradoxes, "dualities" and inconsistencies and that do have a "classical feeling".

    But you don't want to analyze it, I'm sorry, it's your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    id love to analyse it, wich i partly have, and everything that have been shown on tests and such are acctuay saying against many of ur ideas.
    u say light have +/- charge, test shows it dont
    test shows the electron moves around the nucleus, ur theory says it dont
    etc etc etc
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Zelos,
    You are disregarding something that could be good with too fast and bad fundaments.
    You could be missing something good...

    Our mind has a natural reaction to everything new, how I know about that.
    Don't you think I had to fight my own reactions to develop something new?

    I can just warn you, I have made a great theoretical discovery that needs to be analyzed and improved further by real physicists and you could be one.

    It's your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    dream on
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    and also, 13,6 eV contain the kinetic energy of the electron, wich means its moving, wich it dont in ur idea
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    martillo, if you want i can give you a newtonian based gravity simulator where you acctualy can change the center of gravity within the body itself, if you succefully come up with a simulation there that creates the exact preccision of mercery we can begin talking, how about it? wanna give it a try
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    The center of mass of the Sun is not the question. You are not getting to the right point. Is a non uniform but symetric distributiuon of mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if its none uniform the center of mass have changed and isnt at the center of the sun
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    if its none uniform the center of mass have changed and isnt at the center of the sun
    Not at all. You don't understand properly what you are trying to refute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i can admit i dont understand your thinking, but atelast i understand real physics
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    doesnt seem to hard to program it so your kind of sun can be added
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Do it yourself. I already know it is possible and I'm not interested in detailed calculations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if you know it spossible dodetail calculations to prove it, else its just a guess. a real theorist with a real working theory dont hassitate to tkae a mathematical challange to see if his/hers theory worx
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I have already proved it possible in Appendix B - part A.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope, you have shown a idea, a model, there is absolutly NO mathematics that supports that idea and give the same exact predictions as einstein did. Just a model dont prove something, you need depper mathematical formulas that proves it. COME WITH MATHEMATICS
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    you need depper mathematical formulas that proves it
    I have used the math I needed, and is good enough.

    COME WITH MATHEMATICS
    You want more math on, do it yourself.

    give the same exact predictions as einstein did
    I will not take the same wrong path as Einstein did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    you need depper mathematical formulas that proves it
    I have used the math I needed, and is good enough.
    nope, develop it further if you want some reconissing in science community
    Quote Originally Posted by "martillo
    COME WITH MATHEMATICS
    You want more math on, do it yourself.
    why should i? its your theory you do the math
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    give the same exact predictions as einstein did
    I will not take the same wrong path as Einstein did.
    he did it right unlike you, he did good math and such that is accpetble, unlike you
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Leave me out of the arguments, but let me summarize.

    Martillo, you have a new theory. I won't argue that.

    Any new theory in physics, be it Gallileo's, Newton's, de Broglie's, Einstein's or your's must make at least one prediction that the existing theories don't. That one prediction can be used to prove which theory is right (to a fair degree).

    The key is that this prediction must predict something new. It can't simply be a reinterpretation of old data. It can predict a cause for a discrepancy in old data, but it's not enough to just reinterpret data.

    All anyone is asking is that you make a clear, testable prediction that no one else has made. If you do, and it works, then you have proven the validity of your theory.

    Now, I haven't read your work, but I don't need to. Everything I've said here applies equally to both you and Einstein, so I'll leave the arguing up to everyone else. (Note that Einstein made several such predictions which all came true. Also, please read up on confirmation bias to see why math and formal logic is so important in science. [This isn't criticism.])
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i agrewe with MagiMaster, let me add that you need valid math aswell
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Well, math is the standard way to make and test such predictions, but it's not entirely impossible to do it in other ways, as long as it's still well understood. For example, the statement, "All objects fall to Earth at the same speed, ignoring wind resistance." isn't mathematical, (even though there was a lot of math behind it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    MagiMaster,
    Any new theory in physics, be it Gallileo's, Newton's, de Broglie's, Einstein's or your's must make at least one prediction that the existing theories don't. That one prediction can be used to prove which theory is right (to a fair degree).

    The key is that this prediction must predict something new. It can't simply be a reinterpretation of old data. It can predict a cause for a discrepancy in old data, but it's not enough to just reinterpret data.
    You are referring to when something new is discovered.
    This is a different case since what I'm stating is that Relativity, Wave Mechanics, etc are wrong theories. I'm giving the right alternative to those theories.
    In this sense the new theory explain all the phenomena that those bad theories explain in a bad way, erroneously, mainly due to bad interpretations of several valid formulas like E=mc2 and λ=h/mv and bad interpretations of several experiments like Kaufmann, Hertz, Fizeau, etc.
    The new theory gives a new physical meaning for all them.

    Anyway I believe some new predictions will come when the theories will be developed further but I cannot do that, I have no more time and no resources for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    MagiMaster,
    Well, math is the standard way to make and test such predictions, but it's not entirely impossible to do it in other ways, as long as it's still well understood.
    Zelos personally want to see some particular subject developed further and ask for more math. Idon't have the time to do all that math and in some cases like Zelos' one is not so easy as he believe since a more detailed development of the effect of a non-uniform mass distribution will only have sense if a more accurate knowledge of the distribution of the mass of the Sun is needed. Some particular cases can be simulated but the number of possibilities is infinite! I don't have the time for that and so I told him to do it himself if he is so interested but his mind is so closed that he don't understand what I say, he simply try to refute everything I say just because he don't want to see Relativity Theory fall...
    I know very well this kind of reaction and I understand, is natural...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    MagiMaster,
    Well, math is the standard way to make and test such predictions, but it's not entirely impossible to do it in other ways, as long as it's still well understood.
    Zelos personally want to see some particular subject developed further and ask for more math. Idon't have the time to do all that math and in some cases like Zelos' one is not so easy as he believe since a more detailed development of the effect of a non-uniform mass distribution will only have sense if a more accurate knowledge of the distribution of the mass of the Sun is needed. Some particular cases can be simulated but the number of possibilities is infinite! I don't have the time for that and so I told him to do it himself if he is so interested but his mind is so closed that he don't understand what I say, he simply try to refute everything I say just because he don't want to see Relativity Theory fall...
    I know very well this kind of reaction and I understand, is natural...
    the only place i have heard more bullshit is on the tv serie BULLSHIT. some of your formulas are wroong, first E=MC² is the formula for ALL ENERGYm, including rest mass and kinetic energy, λ=h/mv is in reality λ=h/p

    dont want to see relativity fall? wonder why i study quantum mechanics thenn where relativity is mostly not possible to use. what i want is proof, give me proof that is valid and possible and mathetmatical and i shall take it into reconsidiration, but until then your idea is nothing but guesses and wishes. Also when famous physicits had the time to formulat etheir theories, you should aswell if you arent afriad to find that your idea is mathematicle invalid.

    No idea is impossible for me, aslongest its valid, mathematicle. But also your idea goes against experimental data thats another reason i dont think you have a clue about anything
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    some of your formulas are wroong, first E=MC² is the formula for ALL ENERGYm, including rest mass and kinetic energy
    That way within Relativity Theory only.

    λ=h/mv is in reality λ=h/p
    What is the same since by definition p=mv.


    Also when famous physicits had the time to formulat etheir theories, you should aswell if you arent afriad to find that your idea is mathematicle invalid.

    No idea is impossible for me, aslongest its valid, mathematicle. But also your idea goes against experimental data thats another reason i dont think you have a clue about anything
    Mathematicle invalid? False, is valid.
    Goes against experimental data? False, it agrees with all the main experiments and phenomena already analyzed in Physics although some of them have a new interpretation in the new theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    yes, it is invalid mathematics
    yes it goes against experimental data, explain what the W particle, and the gluon particle, and how quarks are kept toghater
    definition of p is p=mv where m=m<sub>0</sub>/sqr(1-(v/c)²)
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    yes, it is invalid mathematics
    The new theory have simple and totally valid mathematics.

    yes it goes against experimental data, explain what the W particle, and the gluon particle, and how quarks are kept toghater
    Quarks do not exist , they are simply hypothetical particles to match the Standard Model of the subnuclear particles.
    The new theories propose that just positrins and negatrins exist and all the basic particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos and their anti-particles are made with positrins and negatrins very easy.

    m=m0/sqr(1-(v/c)²)
    Within Relativity Theory only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    as i said before, your idea goes against experimental data, experiments show that protons/neutrons are made up by quarks
    what about the muon and taun particle? dont they exist? if you say they dont your idea is as dead as the dodo
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I will repeat what I said to you in another thread:

    In the new theories is pointed that a totally new subatomic model is needed. That remains to be developed. I can't do that. I have no time and no expertisse to do that.
    All the already experimentally detected particles will have a new category and some typical reactions will be interpreted in a different way.
    See: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...omic_Model.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    yes, you keep showing that, any other referenses? and that decay youre showing doesnt happen, exept the one that have been shown to happen wich you consider wrong
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •