Vroomfondel,
Do you mean that an increase of the magnetic force is observed with an increase of the velocity of atoms?But the magnetic field cant stay the same or get weaker as velocity increases, because the above has been observered.
I don't understand how this is concluded. Can you explain it more or give a link to see this?
wow, good work martillo starting to research things, good, very good
Zelos,
You bore.
F=q(E+v x B). As velocity of an atom increases, the magnitude of the magnetic field observed from that electron increases.Originally Posted by martillo
Most of the time you guys are keeping this to the physics and the maths. Thank you for that. Lets try to keep it that way.
I know there is frustration on all sides, but lets not let an interesting discussion descend into bickering: try to avoid the ad hominems. I have no intention of wading through the entire thread to see who was rudest, or who fired the first salvo (probably me, anyway). Let's just focus on the facts, don't rise to any bait you think the other party has laid out and things will go swimmingly.
Thank you.
Vroomfondel,
In Section 2.3 (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...xperiments.htm) two experiments are analyzed and a new interpretation gives as a result that the formula you wrote must have the factor "s". Of course this interpretation disagrees with the interpretation of Relativity Theory which put the "s" factor into the mass determining a mass variation with velocity.F=q(E+v x B). As velocity of an atom increases, the magnitude of the magnetic field observed from that electron increases.
In Section 1.1 - part D is proposed a feasible experiment to finally decide if mass really vary with velocity or not. I don't have the resources to do it.
Someday someone will do it and we will not discuss anymore whatever the result could be...
Ok. So t and x are from twin 1, and t' is the observed time of twin 2?
In that cast t' < t means twin 1 sees twin 2 getting older slower than himself. By symmetry, twin 2 also sees twin 1 getting older slower than himself. How does this cause a contradiction? These are just observations by each twin. If they turn around and return to the starting point, won't they be the same age when they arrive? (Assuming they turn, accelerate, etc. in synch.)
They are the observations of two differential frames of reference and cannot be contradictory since only one reality is possible.How does this cause a contradiction? These are just observations by each twin.
The reality composed by all the phenomena happening in some place at sime time is independent of the frame chosed to observe it. Some properties or variables like velocity, etc have a value that is frame dependent but there are intrinsic properties (like the age of living organisms) that must be the same whatever the frame could be. As I said photographs can be taken and sent to each other to see what is really happening elsewhere. Only one reality is posible, there cannot be two contradictory realities.
define reality.
because simple observation frequently provides contradictory results.
thats just the nature of the universe.
since light travels at a finite velocity any star you observe in the night sky is not at that position and yet you observe such position, an observer closer to the star will measure a different position.
are you saying that all the laws of physics break down because two observers don't agree on something?
relativity tells how an observer in an intertial reference frame will measure something with respect to a stationary observer, measurements are dependant on your reference frame and will ALWAYS lead to disagrement. contradiction means nothing because we have two very different reference frames.
really they wont disagree, they both agree they have right becuase they use different ways of measuring becuase of their relative movement, cant someone paint a spacetime diagram to show why this dont contradict?
Working on it!
Why do you get to decide what is and is not frame dependent?
On what basis do you arrive at this startling conclusion?
Is it because it is common sense? The Universe does not yield to common sense.
Is it because you are uncomfortable with the idea of multiple realities? The Universe has little interest in your comfort.
Is it because your imagination is incapable of contemplating two realities? The Universe does not depend upon your imagination.
Vroomfondel and Ophiolite,
The reality of each twin is unique. You cannot change the reality by changing the frame of observation.
What do I understand by reality?
Reality is the conjunct of phenomenons happening at some specific time at some place (If we refers to the entire Universe that will be the reality of the Universe at some specific time).
You ask what I mean by phenomenon. I think it can be understood as the collection (conjunct) of the properties of a system and how it develops in some interval of time.
Now you will ask what I mean by "system" and "properties". I assume you have some background in those terms.
The question is then which is the reality of the twins at the cross time. They can have only one reality determined by all the phenomena happened to them in their history and they do not depend on the frame of observation. The question "How old are them?" involves all the physiological phenomena happened to them in their travel which don't depend on the frame of observation and is so an intrinsic property. Intrinsic property is by definition a property that does not depend in the referential of observation and age is then an intrinsic property.
The relativistic predictions for age are different in different frames and that's the inconsistency of the theory treated in Section 1.1
how can u be so sure youre right? every observer have its own so called reality. if 2 events happen it might be simuntanesly to you, but for me they are not becuase i am closer to the other one etc. already there is there a different reality by only gallileo relativity. relativity from einstein takes this one step further and gives both physical evidence, by experiement, that matches the mathematics behind it.
When you talk about the universe you cant have common sense,put it in the closet(how is it spelled?) leave it there go do some physics. then when you come home you can go get common sense again. but not until youre done with more advanced physics can you do that
Finally. I think i got you on your own words! Consider the following: Two trains ride past each other. One decides to throw a ball up right when the other flies by. The person who threw the ball up into the air says that the ball moving in a straight line up and down is the one and ONLY reality that there is. But the person in the other train observes a completely different reality. He sees the ball move in a parabola! If the observer in the train tries to calculate where the ball will land, he will never get the same result as that of the person who threw the ball. Thus there are two realities. One that is observed by the person watching the ball from another train, the other being the one that is observed by the person who throws the ball. This situation fails in all of the same ways that your situation with relativity fails. One twin says that a few more seconds pass for the twin on the other train, in exactly the same way that one person sees the ball move a distance in the x direction and the other doesnt.
Now, for clarity, lets use martillo's logic on the same situation as his twin paradox, only this time we will use a more familiar vector than the timevector : the velocity vector. Lets see what happens by considering the following situation:
There are two parrallel train tracks with trains going in either direction. There is also a person standing still in between the two tracks. As the two trains pass where the person is standing, the people in both of the trains throw a ball into the air at the same velocity, as measured by themselves.
Martillo claims that both twins in the spaceships will see the other ageing slower than himself. Also, the mothership will observe both twins to be ageing slower than himself. Since there can only be one reality, relativity must be inconsistent.
Using this same reasoning, we get a very funny situation with the trains. Both observers see the other's ball to be moving at some velocity in the horizontal direction. Also, since both trains are moving with respect to the person on the ground, the person on the ground must also observe the balls to be moving with some constant velocity in the horizontal direction. But, according to martillo, there can only be one reality! Does this mean that reality is inconsistent? Certainly not! Also, does mean that there has to be multiple realities? Again, no! The fact of the matter is that there is only one reality. The reason that this "inconsistency" occurs is that even though there is only one reality, this reality is VERY dependent on how one observes it. Things like position, velocity, angular position, angular velocity, time, length, mass, etc. are all very much dependent on how you observe them.
Thus, just because you see something happen differently than someone else doesnt mean that there has to be multiple realities.
Movement is not an intrinsic property, it depends of the referential of observation even by definition and even in Classical Physics.
Age is an intrinsic property (does not depend of the referential) specially for living beings.
What makes you think that? Did you even read what i typed? I would love to see you quote one reliable source that states that anything, aside from an event's existence, is completely intrinsic.
brief stop and a few things to add.
this is called an assumption, you cannot build a theory on an assumption without first proving that your assumption is correct. i see no proof of this statement and so it is still an assumption, in fact a wrong one.We are going to consider the results in different frames and compare it. Any phenomenon of Nature is independent of the referential we choose to observe and describe it so the results should be consistent (no contradictions should exist).
it is this point where the the 'theory' remains a hypothisis.
after all this time the biggest problem i have with your hypothisis is this.t' = t/k
t' is time measured by the observer in motion. a stationary observer will get this same measurement when the lorrentz transforms are used.
hence to the moving observer a contraction of the time vector takes place in the direction of the motion, forwards, relative to the stationary observers measurement of the time vector. the moving observer will record that it took less time to get from one point to the other.
however for one twin to get younger than himself the twin must travel faster than light, i assume (although i can't prove) that this makes the lorrentz factor negetive and the vector contraction will mean that an object will arrive at its destination before it left.
surely your not putting this notion forward?
thats the major flaws in the hypothisis that i see and they will have to be rectafied before it becomes credible. keep in mind that some theories undergo much revision before they are finally complete, so yours is no different.
I myself have developed the concept of age as an intrinsic property (does not depend on the referential of observation) of living beings in the new existent problem (also developed by me) that Relativity will confront now and is a well thought one. I think Relativity defenders will have a real trouble with it.I would love to see you quote one reliable source that states that anything, aside from an event's existence, is completely intrinsic.
I wrote:
Can you say that what is wrotten is wrong?The reality of each twin is unique. You cannot change the reality by changing the frame of observation.
What do I understand by reality?
Reality is the conjunct of phenomenons happening at some specific time at some place (If we refers to the entire Universe that will be the reality of the Universe at some specific time).
You ask what I mean by phenomenon. I think it can be understood as the collection (conjunct) of the properties of a system and how it develops in some interval of time.
Now you will ask what I mean by "system" and "properties". I assume you have some background in those terms.
The question is then which is the reality of the twins at the cross time. They can have only one reality determined by all the phenomena happened to them in their history and they do not depend on the frame of observation. The question "How old are them?" involves all the physiological phenomena happened to them in their travel which don't depend on the frame of observation and is so an intrinsic property. Intrinsic property is by definition a property that does not depend in the referential of observation and age is then an intrinsic property.
The relativistic predictions for age are different in different frames and that's the inconsistency of the theory treated in Section 1.1
If so how?
I believe there must be much more intrinsic properties but I don't know now.
Anyway as I said in the other thread may be I'm just a "foolish man" (as ophiolite said) and I'm taking away for a general review of what I have wroten.
That is where you go wrong. There is only one reality, but it is observed differently by different observers. You want to define reality as what is observed, but reality is what is actually happening. And what is happening can be different for two different observers.
The different observations of the same reality in different referentials must be consistent and cannot be anyway contradictory as they are in the problem I have presented.
as i understand it youre saying space can change with movement. like coordinates changes and such, am i right amrtillo?
but time is a dimension aswell that have more in common with space than you think. Therefor isnt it logical it aswell changes with speed somehow?
Simply not true. If you even read what i typed, you would understand WHY this isnt true. Thus, for good measure, i will post it again.
I perfectly read and understood what you have said and as you repeated it I will repeat my answer:
Your example involves movement, different movements are observed and it is obvious that it depends on the referential of observation.Movement is not an intrinsic property, it depends of the referential of observation even by definition and even in Classical Physics.
Age is an intrinsic property (does not depend of the referential) specially for living beings.
I disagree in one subject on the example:
For me the landing place calculated by any observer is the same although the coordinates are specific to the referential. Physically the landing place is the same. For example if that place is the last wagon of the train it will be the last wagon for any observer possible. If not the calculations are wrong.If the observer in the train tries to calculate where the ball will land, he will never get the same result as that of the person who threw the ball.
In the same way the age of the twins must be the same independently of the referential of observation.
As I said before:
The question is then which is the reality of the twins at the cross time. They can have only one reality determined by all the phenomena happened to them in their history and they do not depend on the frame of observation. The question "How old are them?" involves all the physiological phenomena happened to them in their travel which don't depend on the frame of observation and is so an intrinsic property.
Well, you cant seem to realize what im saying, so im just gonna use my ace in the hole:
Your theory fails to predict gravitational redshift and gravitational time dialation. You cannot claim these phenomena to be false, because they HAVE been observed.
lets not forget the time dilation due to MOVEMENT. and also your inability to explain the neutrinos reaction with other particles, cause it wont react with EM but with WNF wich acccording to you dont exist
I will not post anymore.
I'm away for a general review of all of what I have wrotten.
Thanks for your time.
good martillo
Science: 2
Maniacs: 0
Zelos,
See you in some future and we will see...
yes we will, if you show me somekinda papers saying you have somekinda psykological thing in the autism spectra then i would be worried. Until then i feel pretty safe
GL with your review martillo. Make sure to post when you have gone through everything.
Yepp, and that it worx with all current knowledge
| « quantum mechanics??? | Intelligent Life in the depths of the ocean. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
