# Thread: A New Light in Physics!

1. In this topic im gonna go through each of martillo's new ideas on his website and attempt to verify or disprove them. I will do this over time so that we can dispute my findings.

1.1 A:
Sorry, but this is a case of improperly applying the ideas of relativity. You say that the 2 spaceships will observe each other to be getting older slower than they are, and that is correct. That is also all that is correct. They simply observe the other getting older at a slower rate, that doesnt mean that it is actually happens!

1.1 B:
This is actually a very amusing accident on martillo's part. He pointed out that different observers will observe different wavelengths if one applies the lorentzian transfroms. And he is right! but this doesnt mean relativity is wrong. Even without relatvity, different observers still see different wavelengths occur.

1.1 C:
You say that the law of conservation of angular momentum require a fixed frame. That is completely inaccurate. Angular momentum is conserved with respect to any one point, even if it is moving.

1.1 D/E:
Nothing to say anything about here.

2.

3. You forgot to mention what site are you talking about. Let me remind it: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

They simply observe the other getting older at a slower rate, that doesnt mean that it is actually happens!
So what actually happens and why Relativity gives those inconsistent predictions?

1.1 B:
This is actually a very amusing accident on martillo's part. He pointed out that different observers will observe different wavelengths if one applies the lorentzian transfroms. And he is right! but this doesnt mean relativity is wrong. Even without relatvity, different observers still see different wavelengths occur.
You haven't got the right point of the problem. I'm not discussing that different wavelenghts are seen in different frames of course! The problem is that there are two ways of calculate the different wavelenght and they give contradictory results.
Please take a little more attention, the subject is not so fool...

You say that the law of conservation of angular momentum require a fixed frame. That is completely inaccurate. Angular momentum is conserved with respect to any one point, even if it is moving.
You confuse the velocity of the point with moving referentials!

I'm sorry but I think the subjects are much more complicated than what you can handle in such a quick way...

4. Originally Posted by martillo
So what actually happens and why Relativity gives those inconsistent predictions?
Time moves at the same rate for both spaceships, they observe each other moving slower. The motherships observe both ship's times moving slower, and that is what is actually happening, since the mothership was at rest at the beginning of the experiment and has remained so the whole time. No inconsistency here.
Originally Posted by martillo
You haven't got the right point of the problem. I'm not discussing that different wavelenghts are seen in different frames of course! The problem is that there are two ways of calculate the different wavelenght and they give contradictory results.
Please take a little more attention, the subject is not so fool...
They both yield seperate results, and the results of the that have been observed with relativity's corrections are the accurate ones.

Originally Posted by martillo
You confuse the velocity of the point with moving referentials!
It doesnt matter. Angular momentum is conserved aroun EVERY point. There is no need for a fixed referential!

5. Time moves at the same rate for both spaceships, they observe each other moving slower. The motherships observe both ship's times moving slower, and that is what is actually happening, since the mothership was at rest at the beginning of the experiment and has remained so the whole time. No inconsistency here.
So everybody sees different things and you arbitrary determine that the mothership sees the right thing...
You don't see inconsistencies here but I see.

I will not say anything else. I will wait for what others have to say.

6. Originally Posted by martillo
t' = t/k
:? how did you get that?

7. wallaby,
martillo wrote:
t' = t/k

how did you get that?
Time relativistic Lorentz Transform.

8. You forgot to mention what site are you talking about. Let me remind it: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

They simply observe the other getting older at a slower rate, that doesnt mean that it is actually happens!

So what actually happens and why Relativity gives those inconsistent predictions?
what acctualy happens is that both the one on the ship and the other one says that the other ones clocks is moving slower that his/hers. wich is right. but why one of them end up older, wich is the one on the space ship, is becuase it under goes great acceleration wich slows down time even more.

this problem is solved by GENERAL RELATIVITY. its a common paradox for special relativity but not for general relativity. martillo, go deeper into the problem and read more about problems before saying they are wrong then

9. Zelos,
You didn't even read the problem and you are confusing with the common twin paradox. Here both have a symmetric movement and you cannot distinguish between them by their acceleration.
I don't need to get deeper to state Relativity is a wrong theory. You should get deeper into the new theories before dennying them but please don't do that because I really don't like to discuss with you!

10. Originally Posted by martillo
wallaby,
martillo wrote:
t' = t/k

how did you get that?
Time relativistic Lorentz Transform.
what you mean this:

Originally Posted by wikipedia
i still don't see how you derived t' = t/k

11. Originally Posted by martillo
Zelos,
You didn't even read the problem and you are confusing with the common twin paradox. Here both have a symmetric movement and you cannot distinguish between them by their acceleration.
I don't need to get deeper to state Relativity is a wrong theory. You should get deeper into the new theories before dennying them but please don't do that because I really don't like to discuss with you!
i bet you dont, becuase im capable to take your little idea and threw into the trash can MOHAHAHA

so then there isnt really a problem, they can both say its the other once that should age slower than themselves. wich is compadeble by the fact that they are having different referensframes and by that measure different. In this case both will by experimental data get the same result, its the other one that ages slower than themselves. Nothing wrong with that, no paradox, nothing

12. HAHA, this is exactly what Schutz said would happen. Simply looking at the equations for relativity causes paradoxes to arise. This is because you are only looking at different parts of the journey, not the entire journey as a whole. If you take the time to analys this problem with spacetime diagrams, everything checks out fine. To put it simply, this is what happens: when the ship flies past the earth, then both observers on the earth and on the ship observe time to be going slower for the other, and thus "relativity is inconsistent." But if you look at spacetime diagram, you find that the observer who stops observes time on earth to pass very quickly until he finds that the calculations of the observer on earth was correct (if the earth stopped relative to the ship, then time pases quickly on the ship as the earth observes it, until the ship's calculations are correct). Your example is just the twin paradox with another, third twin moving in the opposite direction. Try it for yourself.

Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.

(p.s.- If you cant draw spacetime diagrams, then claiming relativity is wrong is like claiming trigonometry is wrong without knowing what a triangle is.)

13. Vroomfondel,
Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.
A theory is determined by its principles (postulates) and its statements.
Relativity has two main postulates. I will not write them here, you can find them with all the accuracy you need in the web. If you want to know I have an Einstein's book about about Special and General Relativity as reference.
How I disprove Relativity? Then look at Section 1.1 of my manuscript at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
You will also find how all the phenomena that only Relativity seem to explain have a new interpretation.

14. Originally Posted by martillo
How I disprove Relativity? Then look at Section 1.1 of my manuscript at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
You will also find how all the phenomena that only Relativity seem to explain have a new interpretation.
For the disproof of these ideas, see the rest of this thread.

Originally Posted by martillo
Vroomfondel,
Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.
A theory is determined by its principles (postulates) and its statements.
Relativity has two main postulates. I will not write them here, you can find them with all the accuracy you need in the web. If you want to know I have an Einstein's book about about Special and General Relativity as reference.
I didnt want the two axioms from which all of relativity. The correct answer to my question was as follows: Any observer moving at a constant velocity in a spaceship (inertial fram) can not determine how fast he is moving without looking outside of the spaceship.

15. You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
are you refering to wavelenght = h/mv?
the thing is that it isnt, De Broglie came with the formula wavelenght = h/p wich is completly consistent with relativity. it you who then derivate p to mv according to classic to fool ppl so they think you have the slithest chance of bieng right

16. Originally Posted by martillo
How I disprove Relativity? Then look at Section 1.1 of my manuscript at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
You will also find how all the phenomena that only Relativity seem to explain have a new interpretation.
you tried disproving the theory by showing an inconsistancy that arose from this

Originally Posted by martillo
t' = t/k
which you still have not explained as to how you got there.
please show your full working, einstein took that time to build the theory you can at least put the effort into disproving it without solely relying on a thought experiment.

17. wallaby,
Apologize for not answering before.
There was an error corrected in the last version of the manuscript. Actually the right formula is t'=kt=t/s.
It is derived from the Lorentz transform with the formula you presented above (I cannot copy it here) for x=0 and considering that k= gamma.
k was the original character given to the factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) by Einstein.

18. and we are still waiting for a derivation of classic physics that results in E=MCÂ²

19. and we are still waiting for a derivation of classic physics that results in E=MCÂ²
I have already done this in the thread "Matter Waves" in the Physics Forum:
In the new theories particles (included photons) have an electromagnetic structure and an associated energy which is called the Electromagnetic Potential "Pem" of the structures and represent the electric and magnetic potential energies accumulated in them.
Now, the Pem for the particles' structures is Pem=mc2/2 and the total energy of a particle is always:
E = mc2/2 + mv2/2
where mv2/2 is the classical kinetic energy.

For the photons:
E = mc2/2 + mc2/2 = mc2

You can take a look at the page:http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin..._structure.htm
You must take care since in the new theories the velocity of light is Ã§ = c + u where u is the velocity of the source (the "Emission Theory" of light) and the formula works in a referential at rest in the Universe only.

20. Sorry, but that only works for photons. Can you please derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> for all matter? Also, you have failed to respond at all to my last post:
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
HAHA, this is exactly what Schutz said would happen. Simply looking at the equations for relativity causes paradoxes to arise. This is because you are only looking at different parts of the journey, not the entire journey as a whole. If you take the time to analys this problem with spacetime diagrams, everything checks out fine. To put it simply, this is what happens: when the ship flies past the earth, then both observers on the earth and on the ship observe time to be going slower for the other, and thus "relativity is inconsistent." But if you look at spacetime diagram, you find that the observer who stops observes time on earth to pass very quickly until he finds that the calculations of the observer on earth was correct (if the earth stopped relative to the ship, then time pases quickly on the ship as the earth observes it, until the ship's calculations are correct). Your example is just the twin paradox with another, third twin moving in the opposite direction. Try it for yourself.

Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.

(p.s.- If you cant draw spacetime diagrams, then claiming relativity is wrong is like claiming trigonometry is wrong without knowing what a triangle is.)

21. Originally Posted by martillo
wallaby,
Apologize for not answering before.
There was an error corrected in the last version of the manuscript. Actually the right formula is t'=kt=t/s.
It is derived from the Lorentz transform with the formula you presented above (I cannot copy it here) for x=0 and considering that k= gamma.
k was the original character given to the factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) by Einstein.
i'll accept that for now, thank you.

22. Vroomfondel,
Sorry, but that only works for photons. Can you please derive E=mc2 for all matter?
For all matter the equation is Em=mc2/2.
In the theory is proposed Pem=mc2/2 and Em=Pem for all particles.
see: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin..._structure.htm

Also, you have failed to respond at all to my last post
You can use space-time diagrams if you prefer that but the inconsistency is the same: Each observer sees a different thing!

Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.
I have already answered:
A theory is determined by its principles (postulates) and its statements.
Relativity has two main postulates. I will not write them here, you can find them with all the accuracy you need in the web. If you want to know I have an Einstein's book about about Special and General Relativity as reference.
How I disprove Relativity? Then look at Section 1.1 of my manuscript at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
You will also find how all the phenomena that only Relativity seem to explain have a new interpretation.

23. Originally Posted by martillo
Vroomfondel,
Sorry, but that only works for photons. Can you please derive E=mc2 for all matter?
For all matter the equation is Em=mc2/2

Also, you have failed to respond at all to my last post
You can use space-time diagrams if you prefer that but the inconsistency is the same: Each observer sees a different thing!

Martillo, I may have posted this somewhere else, and if i have tell me. If you can tell us exactly WHAT relativity is in your own words and consequently disprove your description, then i will endorse your new laws of physics. The only condition is that your description must be accurate.
I have already answered:
A theory is determined by its principles (postulates) and its statements.
Relativity has two main postulates. I will not write them here, you can find them with all the accuracy you need in the web. If you want to know I have an Einstein's book about about Special and General Relativity as reference.
How I disprove Relativity? Then look at Section 1.1 of my manuscript at www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
You will find there how the theory is inconsistent, how the first principle is not valid for De Broglie law of Physics, etc.
You will also find how all the phenomena that only Relativity seem to explain have a new interpretation.
havent u said it were E=MCÂ²? but also where do you get E=MCÂ²/2 from?

24. where do you get E=MCÂ²/2 from?
Meanwhile is a proposed law in the new theories. It remains to be totally demonstrated valid yet (I cannot do it all!).
Section 4.1: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin..._structure.htm
[/quote]

25. so u got that formula by applieing the classic Ek on photon then use it on all the particles? that math doesnt make sense, especialy to good physicists, they would laugh at you

26. Originally Posted by Zelos
so u got that formula by applieing the classic Ek on photon then use it on all the particles? that math doesnt make sense, especialy to good physicists, they would laugh at you
I already have

Martillo, there are no inconsistancies in relativity. The problem is the fact that two different observers seeing two different things doesnt work for you. Think of this: If a car drives by and a kid inside throws a ball up, he sees it go up and down. But what do you see? you see the ball move in a parabola. Uh-oh. Two didfferent people see 2 different things. Does that mean that life is inconsistent? All relativity does is correct these observations at near-light speeds.

And your explenations fro the energy of a particle ONLY WORK FOR PHOTONS!! You have completely failed to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> for any other form of matter.

27. Zelos,
that math doesnt make sense, especialy to good physicists, they would laugh at you
May be at a first look...
Wait for some future and you will see.

Vroomfondel,
And your explenations fro the energy of a particle ONLY WORK FOR PHOTONS!! You have completely failed to derive E=mc2 for any other form of matter.
It works for photons, electrons, neutrons and all the basic particles of nature but with a new physical meaning and you would have to read more inside the new theories for example:
http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...nihilation.htm
[/url]

28. Mass Energy = Em = Â½ meÃ§2

You are now just pulling equations from your ass. Your physics are wrong. You cant even reply to everything i say.

29. martillo, explain how you can use E=MCÂ²/2 on normal matter where does it come from to make it work on matter?
May be at a first look...
Wait for some future and you will see.
first, second, third, forth.......and last look, if your theory goes out to scientific community it will go under the phrase "bad theories" they will look in a dictionary and there your theory will be saying "this is an exemple of a theory that were bad, stupid, and uderly wrong, it couldnt explain its own mathematic and just took formulas from nowhere and used it, even formulas from theories it tried to replace"

atleast you are a good magicision, you pull things from nowhere.

30. You are now just pulling equations from your ass.
No, from my mind.

martillo, explain how you can use E=MCÂ²/2 on normal matter where does it come from to make it work on matter?
You should study the new theories deeper...

Your physics are wrong.
and
if your theory goes out to scientific community it will go under the phrase "bad theories" they will look in a dictionary and there your theory will be saying "this is an exemple of a theory that were bad, stupid, and uderly wrong, it couldnt explain its own mathematic and just took formulas from nowhere and used it, even formulas from theories it tried to replace"
You have been luckily adviced that new theories are possible and may be coming on now. If you disregard them without analyzing them properly is your choice and I cannot do anything more.
It's your decision...

31. No, from my mind.
so you just make up formulas in your mind? thats not allowed in science, you have to either use current formulas and rewrite them in a allowed and proper way, or do experiments and draw conclutiuons from it and by that formulate a formula. making formulas up arent allowed and foolish

32. I have discovered those formulas on my own way and they complete a very consistent new theory in Physics. They are available now to be analyzed and proved/disproved scientifically by the Scientific Community. I have no time and no resources to make it all.
I think the new theories are a great discovery in Theoretical Physics and are waiting to be finally proved and developed further.

You want ot have them totally proved and available at Physics' Journals? Then just wait for some future. Now is time to work on them!
You could participate actively in the construction of a new Physics or you can just wait... It's your decision.

If you don't believe, fine, you have your arguments isn't it? It's your decision on what to believe and on what not.

33. then explain mathematicly how you discovered those formulas, else they are good for nothing but a computer universe that you programmed. and your theory will enver get any hold in the science comunity

34. The new theories will setup a new Physics that will be constructed now by intelligent physicists, not people like you.

35. if i, who are strictly mathematical and sceptic but only one part of what real physicists, then how can u expect other physicists who are really sceptic and mathematical accept it? if you cant even convince us who arent that good, how are you supposed to convince real physicists.

36. Just because there are others more intelligent and with better knowledge (than you and me)...

37. yes, and they are even mroe harsh than me, guess waht then, if you cant even convince me, you have no chacne with them, + i bet i have a higher IQ than you

38. It will be easier for them to understand the new theories are right and to develop them further!

39. Martillo, read the friggen thread. My first post already disproved your complaints about relativity, and you have failed to refute my proof.

40. Martillo, if I am to believe your ideas, can you please explain this to me?

How did you get from: for each twin, t'=t/k
to: therefore, for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself

It seems like there may be some steps missing in the derivation. (That doesn't mean it's wrong, I just can't see it myself. I'm a mathematician by the way, so I'm trying to understand the math behind this.)

41. dont try it MagiMaster, its useless he is using somekinda wierd math that isnt known to humanity

42. MagiMaster,
How did you get from: for each twin, t'=t/k
to: therefore, for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself
The point is that we must substitute x=vt in the Lorentz Transform for time since for an observer in referential R the origin of referential R' is at the point x=vt:
k=root(1-v2/c2)
Lorentz Transform for time:
t'=k(t-vx/c2)
now:
x=vt
then:
t'=k(1-v2/c2)t=(root(1-v2/c2))t=t/k
t'=t/k

This is for Wallaby too since he also asked about this and I quicly answered it could be an edition error but it isn't, is right.

43. Well, back to the point of the thread. Having successfully disproved all of section on of martillo's new physics (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/index.htm), i will move on to section 2.

Everything you do here is exactly the same as the classical theory, which is very widely accepted. The one problem is that the magnetic field cannot be with reference to an absolute frame. Earth would have to be moving with respect to the absolue reference frame. This means that a charge not moving with respect to us will ALWAYS have a magnetic field, which is simply not true. And you cannot claim that the earth is not moving with respect to the absolute referential at all, since the earth is constantly changing it's direction of movement.

The absolute referential has been disproven again!

44. Having successfully disproved all of section on of martillo's new physics...
In your mind only, you haven't disproved anything, you posted your arguments and I posted mines, you believe in yours and I believe in mines, the problem is who is really right...

45. This means that a charge not moving with respect to us will ALWAYS have a magnetic field, which is simply not true.
The movement of Earth relative to an absolute frame is unknown since that frames haven't been determined.
The movement can be slow enough to produce a neglihible magnetic field and so nothing can be concluded.

46. Originally Posted by martillo
MagiMaster,
How did you get from: for each twin, t'=t/k
to: therefore, for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself
The point is that we must substitute x=vt in the Lorentz Transform for time since for an observer in referential R the origin of referential R' is at the point x=vt:
k=root(1-v2/c2)
Lorentz Transform for time:
t'=k(t-vx/c2)
now:
x=vt
then:
t'=k(1-v2/c2)t=(root(1-v2/c2))t=t/k
t'=t/k

This is for Wallaby too since he also asked about this and I quicly answered it could be an edition error but it isn't, is right.
Ok. That's a little clearer. Now, how do you go from "t'=t/k" to "each twin is getting younger than himself"?

47. Originally Posted by martillo
MagiMaster,
How did you get from: for each twin, t'=t/k
to: therefore, for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself
The point is that we must substitute x=vt in the Lorentz Transform for time since for an observer in referential R the origin of referential R' is at the point x=vt:
k=root(1-v2/c2)
Lorentz Transform for time:
t'=k(t-vx/c2)
now:
x=vt
then:
t'=k(1-v2/c2)t=(root(1-v2/c2))t=t/k
t'=t/k

This is for Wallaby too since he also asked about this and I quicly answered it could be an edition error but it isn't, is right.
interesting result, i myself got something different and if i can successfully represent its complexity on a web forum i invite you to check it. i'm not the best mathematican i know.

k= (1- <sup>v<sup>2</sup></sup>/<sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)<sup><sup>-1</sup>/2</sup> (i hope you can read that cause its a friggin mess)

and the lorentz transform for time is ofcourse

substituting vt for x in the lorentz transform:

t'= k( t - <sup>vvt</sup>/ <sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)
t'= k( t - <sup>v<sup>2</sup>t</sup>/ <sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)

expanding:

t'= kt - k(<sup>v<sup>2</sup>t</sup>/ <sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)

now is where i get sick of HTML:

t'= [(1- <sup>v<sup>2</sup></sup>/<sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)<sup><sup>-1</sup>/2</sup>] * t - [(1- <sup>v<sup>2</sup></sup>/<sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)<sup><sup>-1</sup>/2</sup>] * (<sup>v<sup>2</sup>t</sup>/ <sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)

hmm... perhaps other methods are needed to represent this better.
stay tuned for the next installment of my maths.
that is if you don't find flaws first, then i just might not bother.

48. WAIT A MINUTE!

its not really ment to be that complicated is it.

t'= k( <sup>vx</sup>/<sub>c<sup>2</sup></sub>)

thats the lorentz transformation for a time vector and hence all that fancy crap above only shows that i still don't know how you derived t'= t/k.

49. he have not only disproven your theory, he and i have toghater uderly crushed it

50. MagiMaster,
Ok. That's a little clearer. Now, how do you go from "t'=t/k" to "each twin is getting younger than himself"?
t'=t/k and k>1 always then t'<t always.
This means that while t time passed for twin1 in referential R time t'<t passed for twin2 in referential R'.
This means age of twin2 < age of twin1.
In other words twin2 gets younger than twin1.
But the basic referential of observation can be interchanged, the primed an unprimed referential can be interchanged by the twins and you would have the opposite situation and in this case it would be concluded that twin1 gets younger than twin2.
This represent two contradictory observations since they cannot represent the same reality.
So: INCONSISTENCY!

Note also that since both twins made a perfect symmetric travel they both should have experimented the same effects and there is nothing that can decide which one could make "the right observation" as in the traditional twins' paradox.

51. he have not only disproven your theory, he and i have toghater uderly crushed it
In your minds only.

For me all of your arguments are not actually applicable, out of place or just wrong.

52. i guess some ppl block out what they dont want to hear, they are often called religius ppl.

its not inconsistent, why that worx is becuase they measure time different. your problem is that your mind is closed and cant get outside gallilean concepts, have u tried to go to a university and ask some physicists there how the twin paradox thing work?

53. guess u havent been here right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

54. Originally Posted by martillo
But the basic referential of observation can be interchanged, the primed an unprimed referential can be interchanged by the twins and you would have the opposite situation and in this case it would be concluded that twin1 gets younger than twin2.
This represent two contradictory observations since they cannot represent the same reality.
So: INCONSISTENCY!
It seems that you are trying to inject notions of Special Relativity into General Relativity, and voila, your misunderstanding creates INCONSISTENCY!, which you expect others to recognize as evidence overthrowing both SR and GR?

55. no, hes strategy is simple, he gives some formulas that is incorrect derivate incorrect, uses it incorrect and witht hat seems smart and ppl listen, while real scientists see the errors and wont accept it, even smarter person does, as many on this forum

56. Originally Posted by martillo
MagiMaster,
Ok. That's a little clearer. Now, how do you go from "t'=t/k" to "each twin is getting younger than himself"?
t'=t/k and k>1 always then t'<t always.
This means that while t time passed for twin1 in referential R time t'<t passed for twin2 in referential R'.
This means age of twin2 < age of twin1.
In other words twin2 gets younger than twin1.
But the basic referential of observation can be interchanged, the primed an unprimed referential can be interchanged by the twins and you would have the opposite situation and in this case it would be concluded that twin1 gets younger than twin2.
This represent two contradictory observations since they cannot represent the same reality.
So: INCONSISTENCY!

Note also that since both twins made a perfect symmetric travel they both should have experimented the same effects and there is nothing that can decide which one could make "the right observation" as in the traditional twins' paradox.
Ok. So since t' < t, one twin should be younger than the other. How did you get k > 1? You said k = sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) right? And v < c, and c is constant right? Am I just misunderstanding something here?

57. gamma, or k in his case, is allways > 1 when youre moving, if youre at rest its 1

58. Originally Posted by Zelos
gamma, or k in his case, is allways > 1 when youre moving, if youre at rest its 1
I assume that when you say moving here you mean accelerating.

59. MagiMaster,
Ok. So since t' < t, one twin should be younger than the other. How did you get k > 1? You said k = sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) right? And v < c, and c is constant right? Am I just misunderstanding something here?
You are right, since v<c always, k>1.

60. Hermes,
It seems that you are trying to inject notions of Special Relativity into General Relativity, and voila, your misunderstanding creates INCONSISTENCY!, which you expect others to recognize as evidence overthrowing both SR and GR?
GR has nothing to do here!

I assume that when you say moving here you mean accelerating.
No I mean moving at constant high velocity.
Of course some intervals of accelerations are needed to accomplish the experiment but they are irrelevant in the same way Einstein didn't considered the acceleration needed by his train to reach a high velocity.

61. for once martillo is correct, its not depended on acceleration its the velocity.
i guess there is a first time for everything

62. Zelos,
I have seen you in many threads and you don't contribute with anything good to anybody!
You just bother and bore!

63. and that comes from you? you have absolutly no right to say that, i have said more things that makes sense than you ever will.

you come with your idea over and over with nothing but ideas and wishes, no proof, no mathematic, instant of trying to convince ppl to go your crazy idea why not leave this forum for a few month and keep working on your idea to see if you can make any sense of it. maybe then can we take your idea more serius

64. Originally Posted by Zelos
you have absolutly no right to say that, i have said more things that makes sense than you ever will.
What person in his right mind would not think this of himself?

65. ...why not leave this forum for a few month...
Actually this is what seems you really want: me to go away.
I understand...

66. Originally Posted by martillo
Having successfully disproved all of section on of martillo's new physics...
In your mind only, you haven't disproved anything, you posted your arguments and I posted mines, you believe in yours and I believe in mines, the problem is who is really right...
Are you that dumb? I have posted disproofs that you have failed to respond to. All you can do is use your weak arguement against SR, which only work because you dont even understand relativity.

Originally Posted by martillo
The movement of Earth relative to an absolute frame is unknown since that frames haven't been determined.
The movement can be slow enough to produce a neglihible magnetic field and so nothing can be concluded.
Nice try, but i thought about this already, and went through the calculations. since the earth is orbiting the sun, and the absolute referential cant be orbiting with the Earth, the Earth must, at some time, move at .00000001c with respect to the absolute referencial. this is enough to cause a significant difference on the atomic scale, since the amount of magnetic repulsion between like charges, according to you, is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>r<sup>4</sup></sub>. this will cause a significant difference in the half lives of atoms at different times of the year. This does NOT happen. Thus there is an inconsistancy in your theory.

I have thus applied your theory to the real world, found a prediction, and shown that it is not true. you must now correct your theory.

Originally Posted by martillo
t'=t/k and k>1 always then t'<t always.
This means that while t time passed for twin1 in referential R time t'<t passed for twin2 in referential R'.
This means age of twin2 < age of twin1.
In other words twin2 gets younger than twin1.
But the basic referential of observation can be interchanged, the primed an unprimed referential can be interchanged by the twins and you would have the opposite situation and in this case it would be concluded that twin1 gets younger than twin2.
This represent two contradictory observations since they cannot represent the same reality.
So: INCONSISTENCY!

Note also that since both twins made a perfect symmetric travel they both should have experimented the same effects and there is nothing that can decide which one could make "the right observation" as in the traditional twins' paradox.
This is not an inconsistancy. Two observers see conflicting results. Just because you see it doesnt mean that its actually happening. The fact of the matter is that whichever twin stops is the one that observes time to speed up. The only reason that you cannot accept this is because you dont even know how to draw a spacetime diagram.

For the sake of the intelligent community, could you please learn SR before you try and disprove it?

For future reference, here is some of my arguements you havent failed to disprove:
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
1.1 C:
You say that the law of conservation of angular momentum require a fixed frame. That is completely inaccurate. Angular momentum is conserved with respect to any one point, even if it is moving.
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
HAHA, this is exactly what Schutz said would happen. Simply looking at the equations for relativity causes paradoxes to arise. This is because you are only looking at different parts of the journey, not the entire journey as a whole. If you take the time to analys this problem with spacetime diagrams, everything checks out fine. To put it simply, this is what happens: when the ship flies past the earth, then both observers on the earth and on the ship observe time to be going slower for the other, and thus "relativity is inconsistent." But if you look at spacetime diagram, you find that the observer who stops observes time on earth to pass very quickly until he finds that the calculations of the observer on earth was correct (if the earth stopped relative to the ship, then time pases quickly on the ship as the earth observes it, until the ship's calculations are correct). Your example is just the twin paradox with another, third twin moving in the opposite direction. Try it for yourself.
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Martillo, there are no inconsistancies in relativity. The problem is the fact that two different observers seeing two different things doesnt work for you. Think of this: If a car drives by and a kid inside throws a ball up, he sees it go up and down. But what do you see? you see the ball move in a parabola. Uh-oh. Two didfferent people see 2 different things. Does that mean that life is inconsistent? All relativity does is correct these observations at near-light speeds.
I hope someone lights you on fire.

67. this will cause a significant difference in the half lives of atoms at different times of the year. This does NOT happen. Thus there is an inconsistancy in your theory.
If Earth have always moved the same as today how could you know the differences in half life of atoms? How do you know the half time of a "Rest Frame" if they haven't been determined yet?

You say that the law of conservation of angular momentum require a fixed frame. That is completely inaccurate. Angular momentum is conserved with respect to any one point, even if it is moving.
I haven't said that exactly that way. You are misinderstunding what is wrote.

I have already refuted those other arguments. I don't want to stay repeating things.

68. well, i dont want you to leave, but you are constantly complaining of not having time to develop ur idea, and this forum probebly takes sometime, i suggest that isntant of going here and write stuff you work on ur idea. if you dont you choose not to work on your idea

69. the Earth is moving in circulare motion. Abosute rest frames cannot move in circular motions, because they are absolute. The difference that i calculated with is the difference between different times of the earth's orbit.

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
HAHA, this is exactly what Schutz said would happen. Simply looking at the equations for relativity causes paradoxes to arise. This is because you are only looking at different parts of the journey, not the entire journey as a whole. If you take the time to analys this problem with spacetime diagrams, everything checks out fine. To put it simply, this is what happens: when the ship flies past the earth, then both observers on the earth and on the ship observe time to be going slower for the other, and thus "relativity is inconsistent." But if you look at spacetime diagram, you find that the observer who stops observes time on earth to pass very quickly until he finds that the calculations of the observer on earth was correct (if the earth stopped relative to the ship, then time pases quickly on the ship as the earth observes it, until the ship's calculations are correct). Your example is just the twin paradox with another, third twin moving in the opposite direction. Try it for yourself.
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Martillo, there are no inconsistancies in relativity. The problem is the fact that two different observers seeing two different things doesnt work for you. Think of this: If a car drives by and a kid inside throws a ball up, he sees it go up and down. But what do you see? you see the ball move in a parabola. Uh-oh. Two didfferent people see 2 different things. Does that mean that life is inconsistent? All relativity does is correct these observations at near-light speeds.
I just went through th entire thread, and you havent disproved either of these.

(p.s.- If you think you know relativity, then tell me what the Axis of simultinaity is, what it represents, and how it affects what people see.)

70. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
the Earth is moving in circulare motion.
Since when? Certainly not since Kepler.

Abosute rest frames cannot move in circular motions, because they are absolute.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

71. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
the Earth is moving in circulare motion.
Since when? Certainly not since Kepler.
sorry, not circular. Roughly circular. The error doesnt really matter in thought experiments.

Originally Posted by Hermes
Abosute rest frames cannot move in circular motions, because they are absolute.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
How can a frame, which is simply a coordinate system imposed by our feeble minds, orbit around a physical object? It cant.

There Is always the chance that the universe is moving in just such a way that we are at rest relative to the "universal frame." But atoms are still just as stable on mars and on the moon, and at least one of these must be moving with respect to any absolute frame.

72. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
How can a frame, which is simply a coordinate system imposed by our feeble minds, orbit around a physical object? It cant.
I see, I think. You mean that circular motion involves acceleration, which is incompatible with the SR notion of absolute rest frames.

73. Yep.

74. Just two other predictions of your theory that is inconsistant.

A.) An electron flying around a particle accelerator will constant ly be changing its direction with respect to the absolute reference frame. THis means that it will have a constantly have a fluctuating magnetic field. This means that the electron will have a non-circular movement, which is not the case.

B.) Your theory predicts that things can move faster than the speed of light. why is it, then, that as an electron's velocity approaches c its mass approaches infinity?

75. Going back a little bit here, can anyone tell me why k < 1?

If 0 <= v < c, then 0 <= v/c < 1.
If 0 <= v/c < 1, then 0 <= (v/c)^2 < 1.
If 0 <= (v/c)^2 < 1, then 0 < 1 - (v/c)^2 <= 1
If 0 < 1 - (v/c)^2 <= 1, then 0 < sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) <= 1
If k = sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2), then 0 < k <= 1

Sorry if that's long-winded, but did I miss something?

Edit:

Sorry, it's supposed to be k=1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) right? Then 1 <= k < inf?

76. That looks good to me.

77. Ok. Let me know if I mess anything in this next step up.

k = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
x = vt
t' = k(t - vx/c^2)

Then

t' = k(t - vvt/c^2)
t' = k(t - t*(v/c)^2)
t' = kt * (1 - (v/c)^2)
t' = k * t * k^-2
t' = t * k^-1
t' = t/k

Seems alright to me. Can someone tell me what t' is?

78. Vroomfondel,
For the two first post you mentioned answered I have found:
You can use space-time diagrams if you prefer that but the inconsistency is the same: Each observer sees a different thing!
You wrote that this is not an inconsistency for you but it is inconsistent for me and for rigorous Physics and Math.

the Earth is moving in circulare motion. Abosute rest frames cannot move in circular motions, because they are absolute.
Where is the problem? Nobody have said an "absolute frame" could be at Earth.

A.) An electron flying around a particle accelerator will constant ly be changing its direction with respect to the absolute reference frame. THis means that it will have a constantly have a fluctuating magnetic field. This means that the electron will have a non-circular movement, which is not the case.
That kind of effects are neglihible in the done experiments.

B.) Your theory predicts that things can move faster than the speed of light. why is it, then, that as an electron's velocity approaches c its mass approaches infinity?
In the new theory mass is constant with velocity and what vary with velocity are the electric and magnetic fields. You haven't reached Section 2.2.
See: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...xperiments.htm

79. MagiMaster,
You should search for "Lorentz Transform" at the web and a good first reference is at wikipedia site.

80. Originally Posted by martillo
the Earth is moving in circulare motion. Abosute rest frames cannot move in circular motions, because they are absolute.
Where is the problem? Nobody have said an "absolute frame" could be at Earth.
That is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the notion of the earth being a rest frame.

81. Can someone rephrase the equations in the form used here?

Like, is t'=t/k supposed to be t<sub>2</sub> = t<sub>1</sub>/k? (k = gamma)

If so, where did x = vt come from and which x and t are they supposed to be?

82. This is so annoying. Its like nobody is listening to me. Ill keep going for a bit longer to see if i can knock some sense into you guys...

Originally Posted by martillo
You can use space-time diagrams if you prefer that but the inconsistency is the same: Each observer sees a different thing!
You wrote that this is not an inconsistency for you but it is inconsistent for me and for rigorous Physics and Math.
This is just proof of how closed minded and uneducated you are. You seriously think you can disprove relativity, when you cant accept two people seeing different things. And maybe when you are finally proven wrong, you will realize that you cant disprove something that you dont know. For fuck's sake you can't even draw a spacetime diagram!

Originally Posted by Hermes
That is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the notion of the earth being a rest frame.
Fine, make earth the rest frame, because it doesnt matter. Other planets and galaxies are moving at very high velocities with respect to the earth. These velocities are high enough to cause all atoms to be ripped apart by the magnetic repulsion, and thus cannot exist. If any area of the universe is the rest frame, then there anything moving relatively fast with respect to that frame would instantly have its atoms ripped apart. And I did the math, I dont wanna hear any bullshit about negligible velocities.

83. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
This is so annoying. Its like nobody is listening to me. Ill keep going for a bit longer to see if i can knock some sense into you guys...
You sure do seem touchy and upset about my comment. I did not realize that I was challenging some major point of yours about how the world must be ripping itself apart simply by us making an assumption. Anyway, I don't care, and you do, so I will leave you to go yell at others about whatever you are yelling about.

84. LOL, i didnt mean to be yelling at you. I am really mad at martillo at the moment, and i thought I was quoting him. Sorry.

85. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
I am really mad at martillo at the moment, and i thought I was quoting him. Sorry.
OK. It could happen to any of us.

86. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
This is so annoying. Its like nobody is listening to me. Ill keep going for a bit longer to see if i can knock some sense into you guys...

Originally Posted by martillo
You can use space-time diagrams if you prefer that but the inconsistency is the same: Each observer sees a different thing!
You wrote that this is not an inconsistency for you but it is inconsistent for me and for rigorous Physics and Math.
This is just proof of how closed minded and uneducated you are. You seriously think you can disprove relativity, when you cant accept two people seeing different things. And maybe when you are finally proven wrong, you will realize that you cant disprove something that you dont know. For fuck's sake you can't even draw a spacetime diagram!
his problem is that he cant see outside what is known as "common sense" therefor does this inconsistens accure in his mind. But as we all know this inconcistens doesnt exist and is merly a human minds incapability to comprahend relativity

87. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Ok. Let me know if I mess anything in this next step up.

k = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
x = vt
t' = k(t - vx/c^2)

Then

1) t' = k(t - vvt/c^2)
2) t' = k(t - t*(v/c)^2)
3) t' = kt * (1 - (v/c)^2)
4) t' = k * t * k^-2
5) t' = t * k^-1
6) t' = t/k

Seems alright to me. Can someone tell me what t' is?
i took the liberty of numbering the steps for my own convienience.

step 1: fine
step 2: didn't think of that
step 3: woa what? where did 1- (v/c)<sup>2</sup> come from?

i don't kno what operation you used in step 3 but heres what i would have done.
correct me if i'm wrong but

t'=k( t - t*(v/c)<sup>2</sup>
t'= kt - k*t*(v/c)<sup>2</sup>
from here i can't be stuffed its friday night and i'm doing maths, geez.

i'll leave by telling you that t' is the transformation of the time vector relative to an observer travelling at a constant velocity, thats why they say that time slows down for observers travelling close to the speed of light.

88. Vroomfondel,
These velocities are high enough to cause all atoms to be ripped apart by the magnetic repulsion, and thus cannot exist.
EDITED:

In the new theory protons, neutrons and electrons are made by rings in an equilibrium state of the interacting forces at a distance equal to the De Broglie "wave-lenght" (This is a basic proposition in the new theory) λ.
You are right that this distance λ varies with velocity meaning the structures of the particles varies with velocity but it is predicted the to be compressed, not ripped apart! λ=h/mv wich diminishes with velocity.

In the equilibrium states between protons and neutrons in the nucleus the magnetic forces decreases and a separation happens but the atoms are not ripped! The bonds between atoms are due to equilibriums between electric and magnetic forces and they will contract. So a change is predicted in the structure of matter but not a rip.

I don't know which can be the consequences of this effect on the different substances of matter and if this causes a difference in the life-time of the atoms as you propose.
I don't know if this can be observed in the images obtained by telescopes of stars and galaxies moving at high velocities ...

89. Vroomfondel wrote:
I am really mad at martillo at the moment...
and Hermes followed:
OK. It could happen to any of us.
Vroomfondel created this thread with an expressed intention to discuss some points of the new theory and my point of view would be important.
I will assume you are still interested in that and so I will try to answer your questions. If this is not the case and actually you don't want to discuss anything with me just tell me and I will not post anymore.

90. Hermes,
That is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the notion of the earth being a rest frame.
Yes it is wrong. As Vroomfondel said Earth orbits around the Sun which at its time orbits aroun the center of the galaxy and there's no way for Earth to to have an "absolute frame" on it.
An absolute frame has no motion and must be a frame at rest.

91. Originally Posted by martillo
Hermes,
That is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the notion of the earth being a rest frame.
Yes it is wrong. As Vroomfondel said Earth orbits around the Sun which at its time orbits aroun the center of the galaxy and there's no way for Earth to to have an "absolute frame" on it.
An absolute frame has no motion and must be a frame at rest.
inertial rest frame, INERTIAL REST.
acted upon by no net force and not accelerating.

earths orbital and rotational velocity remain as damm close to constant as a mass such as it can.

Originally Posted by magimaster
Can someone rephrase the equations in the form used here?

Like, is t'=t/k supposed to be t2 = t1/k? (k = gamma)

If so, where did x = vt come from and which x and t are they supposed to be?
sorry didn't see this so i didn't rephrase above, i'll try to remember next time.

x = vt is a rearrangement of the equation for instantaneous rate of change of displacement with respect to time, v = s/t, it has been rearranged to give the formula for change in displacement.

92. Well, if you define an absolute frame as any inertial frame the same conclusion is valid since no acceleration must be present and any rotation implies a centripetal acceleration.

93. is the acceleration low enough it can be considered a rest frame. Its not as accurate but it worx with a accepteble % error

94. Originally Posted by martillo
Well, if you define an absolute frame as any inertial frame the same conclusion is valid since no acceleration must be present and any rotation implies a centripetal acceleration.
angular velocity?

95. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Ok. Let me know if I mess anything in this next step up.

k = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
x = vt
t' = k(t - vx/c^2)

Then

1) t' = k(t - vvt/c^2)
2) t' = k(t - t*(v/c)^2)
3) t' = kt * (1 - (v/c)^2)
4) t' = k * t * k^-2
5) t' = t * k^-1
6) t' = t/k

Seems alright to me. Can someone tell me what t' is?
i took the liberty of numbering the steps for my own convienience.

step 1: fine
step 2: didn't think of that
step 3: woa what? where did 1- (v/c)<sup>2</sup> come from?
To get step 3, factor out t. (You expanded k instead.)

Ok. So x = vt is just change over time. My question now is, since there are two positions and two times, which one is this?

96. Originally Posted by martillo
In the new theory atoms are made by protons, neutrons and electrons in an equilibrium state of the interacting forces but all the forces are affected by the same factor "s" wich is velocity dependent. This means that the factor cancels out in the equilibrium and no variation in the distance of equilibrium happens for any variation of the velocity of the atoms.
For example if we call Fe and Fm the classical electric and magnetic force in the new theories the forces are respectively sFe and sFm and in the equilibrium sFe=sFm wich gives the same relation Fe=Fm of zero velocity and so determining the same equilibrium state with no variation in the structure of the atom nor of those basic particles themselves.
That doesnt work, sorry. The forces of magnetism and electricity between comoving protons are both repulsive. There is absolutely no way for there to be a balancing force between 2 comoving protons. Such a force would make energy increase far more than observed as velocity increases. So, either there is a balancing force and observed phenomena contradicts your theory, or there is no balancing force. No balancing force causes atoms to be ripped apart in other galaxies.

There is seriously no reason to believe in the existence of an absolute rest frame.

If you say this is wrong, then your theory fails to predict magnetism, because then magnetic force would have to remain constant

97. [quote]
That doesnt work, sorry. The forces of magnetism and electricity between comoving protons are both repulsive. There is absolutely no way for there to be a balancing force between 2 comoving protons. Such a force would make energy increase far more than observed as velocity increases. So, either there is a balancing force and observed phenomena contradicts your theory, or there is no balancing force. No balancing force causes atoms to be ripped apart in other galaxies.
I think there is a way.

The equilibrium states are described in Chapters Three and Four and it is possible to have an equilibrium with the "Ultimate Force" predicted in the new theory which comes just from the observation that for any particle in high energy collission to not be destroyed or fussionated with other ones a very strong repulsive force must exist.

Your question leaved me to review a post above and I found I have made a mistake and I edited it. That post is related to this and I repeat the post here:
In the new theory protons, neutrons and electrons are made by rings in an equilibrium state of the interacting forces at a distance equal to the De Broglie "wave-lenght" (This is a basic proposition in the new theory) λ.
You are right that this distance λ varies with velocity meaning the structures of the particles varies with velocity but it is predicted the to be compressed, not ripped apart! λ=h/mv wich diminishes with velocity.

In the equilibrium states between protons and neutrons in the nucleus the magnetic forces decreases and a separation happens but the atoms are not ripped! The bonds between atoms are due to equilibriums between electric and magnetic forces and they will contract. So a change is predicted in the structure of matter but not a rip.

I don't know which can be the consequences of this effect on the different substances of matter and if this causes a difference in the life-time of the atoms as you propose.
I don't know if this can be observed in the images obtained by telescopes of stars and galaxies moving at high velocities ...

Of course a right balance of energy must be accomplished while the velocity varies and the structure varies correpondingly to accomplish that. I haven't made this yet.

Your point is a good one but I doubt if it can be observed in the images of far galaxies...

There is seriously no reason to believe in the existence of an absolute rest frame.
I don't know what do you mean by "an absolute frame".
Sections 1.2 shows that "fixed directions" must exist what implies frames at rest in the Universe and Section 1.3 shows "Rest Frames" with no movement in the Universe must exist.
May be some property of the Universe can decide if one of the infinite possible "Rest Frames" could be "The Absolute Frame" of the Universe. I don't know if it exist.

If you say this is wrong, then your theory fails to predict magnetism, because then magnetic force would have to remain constant
Please explain more your point here.

98. I'm still stuck at the first page here. I'm trying to work the math out myself, but I'm not getting anywhere. Can someone tell me how t' < t implies that each twin is getting younger than himself?

99. MagiMaster,
I have already answered this:
t'=t/k and k>1 always then t'<t always.
This means that while t time passed for twin1 in referential R time t'<t passed for twin2 in referential R'.
This means age of twin2 < age of twin1.
In other words twin2 gets younger than twin1.
And I said to you to make a simple search at the web (wikipedia) for Lorentz Transform basics to get the proper meaning of t, t' and k.

What don't you understand?

100. Originally Posted by martillo
Please explain more your point here.
When you said that the forces of electricity and magnetism decrease with an increase velocity, thus causing the atoms to not be ripped apart. But the magnetic field cant stay the same or get weaker as velocity increases, because the above has been observered.

101. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
To get step 3, factor out t. (You expanded k instead.)

Ok. So x = vt is just change over time. My question now is, since there are two positions and two times, which one is this?
so why do that instead of expanding the brackets like the distributive law says?

x isn't any one position it's the change in position between the start and finish. displacement.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement