Thread: A New Light in Physics: start-point towards a Real Physics

This topic is for discussion and debate of a new set of theories in Physics that can make "Modern Physics" tremble in its foundations.

The theories are presented in a very precise and concise style at the site:
http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

Structures for photons, electrons and neutrinos are proposed to explain the "wave-like" behaviour of the particles so that the "wave-particle duality" mystery is finally solved!

It's not easy, many great theories of Modern Physics had to been slightly corrected and others radically replaced.

It can be the begining of a new "Real Physics" where no inconsistencies and paradoxes should be found.

The "dirty job" was done finding the errors and correcting them. Now is time to develop it more and you can contribute and be a key participant in the process towards that "Real Physics"!

The links don't work on your website.

(Q),

Thanq you very much for the warn. There was an error in the last update of the main page.

I felt the following post from other topic should also be here:

Silas,

I cannot make it all!
I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definetly proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Many new theories and experiments must be done.

My work is a guide to new theories. If they are right a totally new Physics can rise.
For example a new model of the nuclear particles must be inevitable derived. (Now there are positrins and negatrins and no quarks).
A new interpretation for the atomic quantum numbers must surge(now exist the special value gamma).
Computational methods can verify the behavior of the particles. (With the new definitions of the forces).
The new definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields can have very interesting mathematical consequences.

Aren't you interested in participate or you will stay just viewing what happen.
I believe there are a lot of very interesting things to be done.

Of course to begin you have to think first in the possibility that the new theories can be right.

I cant open your site!

Anyway, I am interested from the phrase you used:

"Structures for photons, electrons and neutrinos are proposed to explain the "wave-like" behaviour of the particles so that the "wave-particle duality" mystery is finally solved!
"
You cant imagine how right you are! What do you means by "Structures" ? I would add that there are particles which do not have wave properties, like the graviton. What about them?

But, anyway, I agree that particles structures determines theirs properties - charge, EM interactions, mass , everything. I wish you luck with your theory.

Xgen,

Why can't you open my site? I have checked the URL and it works properly. Please tell me what's the problem.

You wrote:

What do you means by "Structures" ?

I mean for example that electrons are not "point charges" as assumed in Classical Physics.
If you visit the site you will see that the proposed structures are a composition of charged rings in equilibrium with their electric and magnetic forces at the lambda distance (the De Broglie wave-lenght).
I can't explain it better here. In the site you can also see images of them.

Let me know if you have any doubts about.

sorry,
I finally opened it, maybe my Flash had been older

I pass through your book. I tender to agree that Relativity Theory is incomplete (not wrong!). Yes, indeed it is needed what you had called Absolute Referential of the Universe. I am calling it Absolute Frame of Reference or just Absolute Space. In the web-forum - www.sciforums.com we had discussed very extensively the need from this absolute reference.

I also totally agree that particles are not points. I also think that String Theory is a very initial and incomplete step in the right direction. So yes, there is a need from new theories.

However I dont think that what you had proposed is reasonable. I can explain why here, but it would be a long discussion which will repeat my older discussions with other people in sciforum. Generaly what you are saying:

"It is proposed that there exist a pair of elementary particles in the nature and they are called the positrin and the negatrin. Both are rings of continuous and linear distributions of charge. One made of positive charge and the other with negative charge."

is nothing new, the most elementary particles are not the charged particles, it is the graviton. You had not sayed what is the graviton. And that is where everything starts. Accually your approach is meta-classical, some kind of extension of EM and ED theories.

Anyway, it is good that there is people that are trying to find different way. Maybe, your next attempt will be more successful.

Xgen,

I'm not an expert in subatomic particles but I think that your "graviton" is not a recognized particle in Particle Physics. If I'm not wrong is an attempt to explain gravity as an exchange of particles between massive objects.
If this is the correct interpretation of the graviton I must say that I believe it is a wrong approach to gravity. I believe gravity is instantaneous as Electric and Magnetic fields are in my theories. There's no delay in the action between the origin and the target of the forces.
My theories don't talk about gravity. It is something that needs further research with a new approach.

I will take a look on the forum you cited.

Could gravity infact be a purely EM longitudinal wave, a vaccum potential, which might go a long way to explaining how its manifested effects are around us yet it's not actually physically detectable as a normal wave form.

Originally Posted by martillo

I'm not an expert in subatomic particles .

With respect martillo, if you are not an expert in subatomic particles is it not presumptuous to propose a theory that will make "Modern Physics" tremble in its foundations. ?

Ophiolite,

I think presumptuos is to pretend to be an expert in all areas of Physics at the same time.

To make "Modern Physics" tremble is easy: there are many wrong theories in it. Relativity Theory is only one of them.

Not being a physics major, I'm left to conclude that the reason for this paper being offered for "sale" at amazon for $13.95 or for download via .pdf is because American Physics, Annals of Physics, and Letters in mathematical physics didn't find it compelling?

I mean, if you didn't present this paper to the peer-review process, why should we think you really care about it?

Originally Posted by martillo

I think presumptuos is to pretend to be an expert in all areas of Physics at the same time.

Surely publishing a theory that will make modern physics tremble is presumptuous unless you are an expert in all areas ...etc. In particular I find it difficult to understand how you can justify an attack on the present theories and hypotheses relating to sub-atomic particles when you are not an expert in this area.
Martillo, I suspect I know only a fraction of the physics you do, so I cannot comment in any meaningful way on technical aspects of your hypothethis - except for this. What testable predictions does your theory make that would distinguish it from current theory? How do you intend to test these?
Thank you.

SkinWalker,

Your reasoning could make you miss important things...
Take attention on the signature at the bottom of my posts: Who finally made humans fly? Who invented the plane? Were them highly instructed Physicians? Were them well paid Engineers?
They don't! They were just bycicle fixers with a big idea in their minds and the obsession to spend their time and resources in it, may be with some dreams...

And do you know how it cost $13.95 only? I fixed the price, I have the freedom to put the price and I selected the minimum possible so that anyone, even a student with no economical resources (as I was) could study it.
But you believe that the value of the things is in their price isn't it?
Sorry but I think you are not thinking in a good positive manner...

I never read any of the magazines you cited but I know they only accept short papers and my theories can be explained that way. I had to make a book!

I mean, if you didn't present this paper to the peer-review process, why should we think you really care about it?

My work is not a paper.

I understand, you don't want to loose time in unrelevant or even wrong literature.
This case you just need to wait for some years untill others develop a New Physics and you only have to sit and read about it. It's your choice.

Ophiolite,

In particular I find it difficult to understand how you can justify an attack on the present theories and hypotheses relating to sub-atomic particles when you are not an expert in this area.

I have made a theoretical work about the basic particles and forces of nature taking into account some well known results of Experimental Physics as Electrodynamics, Optics, the "wave-like" behavior of particles and basic Quantum Physics. I reached the conclusion that some of today's theories are wrong and I present the proposed new ones.

One of the main results is the apparition of two elementary particles, the "positrin" and the "negatrin" that are totally different from the theoretically proposed "quarks" in today's Particle Physics.

I have presented in my new theories the structures of photons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos, protons and neutrons with the new particles that can explain all their behaviors. I finally suggest how a very large number of possibilities for the short-life sub-atomic particles can easily be derived from the new elementary particles and the possible inestable structures for them. But I haven't studied any one of them and their experimental properties and so I'm not able to define models for them. This is something I expect others to do, I have no time, no resources and may be actually I'm not interested in entering this branch of Physics.

What testable predictions does your theory make that would distinguish it from current theory? How do you intend to test these?

I have made a theoretical work and the main significance of it is to present new interpretations for well known experiments based on new definitions of what are the elementary particles and the basic forces of nature.
The new theories are totally consistent with all the most known experiments of Physics but many must be interpreted in a different way as they have been interpreted in the past.
Experiments are real data that cannot be denied, but they can be INTERPRETED in a different way!
I believe I have found the TRUTH, I mean WHAT really exist in nature and WHY it behaves as it does.

How I intend to test and verify all this? Well, actually I need HELP. I believe I have made the dirty job in finding the theoretical errors and finding the real solutions. Now I'm presenting the results for anyone that can be interested to go on further.
I cannot make it all!!

Originally Posted by martillo

SkinWalker,

Your reasoning could make you miss important things...
Take attention on the signature at the bottom of my posts: Who finally made humans fly? Who invented the plane? Were them highly instructed Physicians? Were them well paid Engineers?
They don't! They were just bycicle fixers with a big idea in their minds and the obsession to spend their time and resources in it, may be with some dreams...

The Wright Bros. weren't scientists. They were inventors. But I assure you that every bit of success they had ended up in the pages of peer-reviewed journals. Appeals to the glory of inventors notwithstanding, if your work is as ground-breaking as you suggest, wouldn't a test be in order? If you can't fly your hypotheses off of a hill at Kitty Hawk, wouldn't you wish to test them in the pages of a peer-reviewed journal?

Originally Posted by martillo

And do you know how it cost $13.95 only? I fixed the price, I have the freedom to put the price ...

Yeah, yeah... I was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by martillo

I never read any of the magazines you cited but I know they only accept short papers and my theories can be explained that way. I had to make a book!

They aren't 'magazines,' they are scientific journals. And you're serious? You haven't read them? I assure you, that your paper, only 85 pages via the free pdf download, would better serve being submitted to a peer-reveiw journal rather than using the pseudoscience method of self-publication and attempting to appeal to the public directly. Science isn't done that way. I need not be a phsicist to understand that.

Of course, you would have to polish your work a bit. Okay, a lot. You need to get a co-writer that understands technical writing. I can't believe you actually printed the references in the manner you did. No real citation of work, no literature review, etc. Yes, there is much work you would have to do to get your paper to the standard of peer-review publication.

Originally Posted by martillo

I mean, if you didn't present this paper to the peer-review process, why should we think you really care about it?

My work is not a paper.

Dude. It was only 85 pages long. It's far too short for a dissertation... by the way, why not use your idea for a Ph.D. dissertation or Master's thesis? You're manner of publication appears to be classic pseudoscientific method. Rather than approach the established peer-review and be rejected (if you haven't already) or publish a dissertation for a Ph.D. (assuming you are involved in academics); you chose a direct appeal to those least likely to offer criticism to your work: members of internet forums and the like.

Eventually, you will run into someone, even here, with enough knowledge in physics to point out the problems in your work; you'll defend it briefly; then disappear to find yet another internet forum to announce to the world your ground-breaking opinions of new physics.

But, then, I could be wrong. You could be a true luminary of phsyics that has yet to be discovered and understood. Should that happen, I'll gladly print this page and eat my posts.

SkinWalker,

I appreciate your comments. They show me you took a look on them and in the deep they show a little possibility that my theories could in fact be right and that they deserves a more common scientific approach.

But you know, I'm not a scientist, I don't work in an University, I don't want to make a Master or PHD...

I have sent a copy of my work to the unique Physical Institute in my small far country and they answered like you that I should sent it to some journal for peer review.
I have sent a few copies of my work to some Universities around the world. I have sent a lot of e-mails to people working in Theoretical Physics that, for me, could be interested. I put it available at the internet for anybody interested could "review" it.
So I believe my work is under "peer review" now but I know it can took a lot of time, may be years to somebody emitt a formal and really concient opinion (positive or negative).
I also put it to be seen at Physics Forums (only those who allowed!) for online discussion (this is what you have seen)...

You ask for a Physics Journal Article but as you noticed I don't have any other reference to cite except those little already mentioned in the text. I have no experimental proof of my propositions. They just verify LOGIC. They agree with all major experiments already done in Physics but I can only suggest an experiment that can prove it (see section 6.4 "The experiment as aproof"), I don't have the resources to make it...
I cannot even try to think this work could be published in Journals! It's no time to this now. It's not this text that will be published in journals. I believe, in the future, many articles could appear citing the text... Do you think I'm being too presumptuos on this? I believe not, I'm just being optimist and realist: if the theories are right many real physicists will surge producing high scientific articles and papers and tesis citing my work and I'll be glad!

I agree with you, it's not a normal academic course for a scientific development but does everything in our real world happen in the normal routes?

If you can't fly your hypotheses off of a hill at Kitty Hawk, wouldn't you wish to test them in the pages of a peer-reviewed journal?

If you know somebody I could send my work to be reviewed please let me know!
But there's a condition: no "poolish", not a text rewritten by somebody else. I want the text to remain in its authentic form, with my own words, with that foreign style.

I know it is not a "good english" but we live in a planet with many languages and people of many countries may read it. I believe is an english that will be well understood by all of them with high precision in the meaning of each wroten word.

It is acceptable english: I wrote it with the automatic ortographic and gramatic corrector of WORD XP!

NOTE:
The thread appears in the pseudo-science category because it is the only place were the moderator allowed me to post it, but is fine, other forums don't allow even mention the web site!

Thank you for your comments.

What is your native language?

My language is Spanish from Uruguay, South America.
Why?

There are a great many peer-reviewed journals of physics that are published in Spanish. I would recommend a visit to a local library and review some. You could easily submit your manuscript in Spanish.

Martillo, I'm only part way through reading your web site, but so far, I;m not buying into your theories, I have to admit.

I appreciate you have put a lot of effort into formulating these ideas, and have a fairly good grasp of physics, but you are reaching too far.

Also;

"I have no experimental proof of my propositions"

concerns me greatly. I think instead of tackling such a broad spectrum of accepted theories, and trying to reinterpret them all, you should concentrate on one topic, and prove yourself there. Devise an experiment, gather data, publish, and start a revolution. Once you have one success under your belt, people will listen to what else you have to say.

You do get a lot confused however. You state;

"c) The velocity of light is not the same in every referential, it follows the vector additive classical law described above:

ç2 = ç1 + u"

but later utilise;

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2

Now, have you considered the effect on the latter, and the ramafications, if the former is true

Phlogistician,

You do get a lot confused however. You state;

"c) The velocity of light is not the same in every referential, it follows the vector additive classical law described above:

ç2 = ç1 + u"

but later utilise;

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2

Now, have you considered the effect on the latter, and the ramafications, if the former is true

There should be no confusion but if it is not clear in the text it should be considered:

c : physical constant.

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 a new factor in the Electric and Magnetic fields.

ç = c+u the velocity of light from a source with velocity u.

NOTE:
ç = c only when u=0!

Does this clarify the confusion?

I think instead of tackling such a broad spectrum of accepted theories, and trying to reinterpret them all, you should concentrate on one topic, and prove yourself there.

That is against the aim of the text. The new propositions form a New Theory where all already done experiments in Physics are perfectly explained and without any contradiction or inconsistence!

I haven't finally proven the new theories but I suggest that a modified version of the Davisson-Germer experiment can prove them! I don't have the resources to make it, someday somebody will do it, meanwhile what I can say is that the new theories suites perfectly with all Experimental Physics.

Originally Posted by martillo

There should be no confusion but if it is not clear in the text it should be considered:

c : physical constant.

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 a new factor in the Electric and Magnetic fields.

ç = c+u the velocity of light from a source with velocity u.

NOTE:
ç = c only when u=0!

Does this clarify the confusion?

Martillo, you don't see it, even though I put it under your nose!

Look, in;

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2

it would be possible to a 'v' > 'c' if your ç = c+u assertion was correct! What would that imply!!!!!???????

Phlogistician,

OK, I didn't understood your point but you must read more carefully at the definition of the factor "s" in the text.
In section 2.2 "s" is precisely defined as:

when v<c : s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2
and
when v>c : s = 0
where v is the relative velocity between the source of the field and
the velocity of the particle where the force is applied.

The factor s is null for velocities greater than c what means that the forces will be also null (zero).

All this is present in section 2.2, may be you haven't read it.

Martillo, how does that miraculous transition occur???????

If your additive velocities assertion is correct, the relativistic equation produces irrational results. That is what I'm driving at. But I would love to know why you assume;

v>c : s = 0

when that's certainly not what is predicted from;

s = (1 – v2/c2)1/2

so, why does s suddenly not behave according to the formula?

Phlogistician,

Physical magnitudes have a behavior we can express through mathematical formulas.

In this case the factor s represents how the Electric and Magnetic Forces depend on the velocity between the source of the fields and the particle they act on.
The factor varies accordingly to that function untill v=c where s=0.
After that s=0 because the forces are null for particles travelling at velocities greater or equal than c. It can be said that the Electric and Magnetic Fields cannot act on those particles.

That's the real behavior of the forces and so that's the proper definition of the factor s.


To ask WHY it is that is the same to ask why the laws of nature are the way they are.
I understand this thinking that this is our Universe, guided by these laws, functions and equations.
Just that.

Originally Posted by martillo

The factor varies accordingly to that function untill v=c where s=0.
After that s=0 because the forces are null for particles travelling at velocities greater or equal than c.

Restating it doesn't make any more sense. It's flawed! You cannot abandon the output of a formula past a certain input range! If the formula holds true for values of v < c , it holds for v> c! You cannot pick and choose!

Phlogistician,

Why not?

Is not my choice, is the reality!

This is a typical of our own thought limitations to overcome to go forward.
Be prepaired, you may encounter more of this "difficulties" on going on.

Originally Posted by martillo

Is not my choice, is the reality!

No, it's not reality, it's a bunch of assertions you have made without any experimental support.

Your assertion about additive velocities breaks another formula, so you just abandon the results of that formula when they become problematic. You cannot do this!

Sorry but you are wrong.
The definition is right.

Originally Posted by martillo

Sorry but you are wrong.
The definition is right.

Martillo, look, it's simple, if your assertion about additive velocities is correct, we can obtain velocities of v > c.

Put a velocity of v > c into

s = 1 - sqrt(v^2/c^2)

and we get a negative value of s.

The formula predicts this, but t doesn't make sense. So you just assert that s = 0 when v >= c. But you cant just abandon the outcome of the formula. What this tells us is that your additive velocites statement is incorrect.

If you want to prove your position, show me a proof. A mathematical proof, a corrected formula + graph, something!

Phlogistician,

First of all the right formula of s when v<c is not that you have wroten, is:
s = root_sqr(1-v2/c2) that would give complex values for v>c!

Second, I'm sorry but I don't have the definitive proof you ask. The only way to prove this is experimental looking at particles travelling at velocities greater than c and today's Physics believe this is impossible!...
What I can say to you is that the new propositions agree with all the major experiments already done in Physics and so they deserves the opportunity to be considered as possible now.

I can see you are considering the possibility of particles travelling at velocities greater than c. You don't denie it. That's good and shows you have the mind open. But you are having a problem in accepting that the factor s could be zero for velocities greater than c. I would like to have the right words to help you to jump over this "mind stone" to go on forward.

I can tell you at first that the definition I gave to the factor s is continuous, I mean the transition is continuous on v=c: the function have the same value and the same derivatives (zero) and so it determine a continuous line.

But may be this is not enough for you and I can only say that the definition is mathematically possible and consistent. You should not see it as a "abandoning the formula for v>c" but as the right extrapolation of the factor s for v>c. At v=c s reachs the value zero and remains zero for greater velocities.

Probably you are good in Mathematics and you perceived a transition point at v=c. That's OK, it is possible!

Don't let this stop you!

I made a theoretical work that should be taken as a guide to new theories in physics. If they are right a new spectacular Physics will rise. But it is only at it's begining! Still many things remains to be proven, many things remain to be developed. Still much work remains to be done...

Originally Posted by martillo

,

First of all the right formula of s when v<c is not that you have wroten, is:
s = root_sqr(1-v2/c2) that would give complex values for v>c!

Yes, you are correct, I typoed the formula when I was graphing it, ... A complex result for a sqrt of a negative number is even more fucked up!

But at least you DO see the ramafications of your assertions. Shame it's taken so long for you to admit the problem! How do you explain it away!??????

Second, I'm sorry but I don't have the definitive proof you ask. The only way to prove this is experimental looking at particles travelling at velocities greater than c and today's Physics believe this is impossible!...

It is impossible! Cosmic ray muons show that relatavistic time dilations occur, and therefore relativity largely correct. Speeds > c therefore, are not possible, despite your pet theories!

What I can say to you is that the new propositions agree with all the major experiments already done in Physics and so they deserves the opportunity to be considered as possible now.

No they don't.

I can see you are considering the possibility of particles travelling at velocities greater than c. You don't denie it. That's good and shows you have the mind open. But you are having a problem in accepting that the factor s could be zero for velocities greater than c. I would like to have the right words to help you to jump over this "mind stone" to go on forward.

The formula does not predict this, not do you have a formula which does. All you have is an assertion. That's dogma, not science!

The formula does not predict this, not do you have a formula which does. All you have is an assertion. That's dogma, not science!

Theories are made with assertions. Physics is full of assertions: Principles and Laws!

You just cannot believe in my "assertion" now and I cannot definetly prove it now.

I'm just exposing new possibilities that deserves the opportunity to be analyzed but if you don't want to I cannot do nothing, is your choice.

Originally Posted by martillo

Theories are made with assertions. Physics is full of assertions: Principles and Laws!

Theories are built on the foundations of tested hypotheses.

Ok, you'll have them.
Is on the way.
I just need some help now from someones that decide to participate.
You just have to wait some time to get it ready.

This comes from discussions on another forum But I want to post here.

What I'm blowing away are some not good interpretations of some experiments and very bad unlucky coincidences that made everyone think wrong for a century.
The worst unhappy one is the DeBroglie's proposition of a wave associated to matter that derived in the Wave Mechanics theory and seemd to support Bohr's atom.
It was a very bad coincidence that the formula he proposed seemed to be confirmed by a later experiment and seemed to prove the theory while the formula is valid because of another physical phenomenon!

If this didn't happen the history of Physics would have been totally different.

That's what I'm blowing away, very bad, unlucky and unhappy coincidences that make everybody think wrong.


I have discovered those unlucky and unhappy errors and I suggest some corrections to fix them, but I'm not a physicist and I will not be. Is up to you real physicists to take my work and develop a New Physics. That's why I'm posting here.
My work should be understood as a guide for the possibility of a New Physics that you must develop.
I have no more time, no more resources and no capability to develop it further.

I'm just trying to make you see another door.


I want to point now that I did had "formal training". I made Electrical Engineering where I learned about the formalities that must be applied particularly in Mathematics, Physics, Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism.
My theories are all about Electricity and Magnetism!


My theories haven't been proven yet!

For now is only a very consistent theory that explain quite all the main experiments already done, even those which Relativity explains except the gravity problem of the Mercury's orbit precession. For me MASS is something that can have a Magnetic origin and Newton's Gravity Law can be corrected to take into account some magnetic effects. But I couldn't conclude anything yet. Is something for further study.

That's what I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that.

The theory have very strong and consistent arguments. It deserves the opportunity to be analyzed by more expert minds. This is what I'm claiming.

I also want to post here these other comments:


A) About paricles' decay time:

I believe two main kinds of experiments have been made to verify if time dilation really exists:

1) accelerated muons lifetime.

2) atomic clocks travelling at "high" velocities.

I will repeat here what I posted about in another thread:

"What I can say about time dilation is that the experiments of muon's lifetime (decay time) that augments with the velocity of the muons is not a proof for time diation anymore!
In the new theories all internal forces in the particles structures are electric and magnetic and they decreases with velocity. If the forces are weaker the time for the decay to happen is expected to be larger.

Something similar can happen with atomic clocks!

If there is another possible interpretation for the same experiment it is not a proof anymore. Not anymore."



B) About the difference in the clocks at a mountain and at sea level:

I haven't concluded yet about Gravity. This is why Gravity is not mentioned in the manuscript. I mean I haven't concluded if the gravity force is an independent force or if it is a consequence of the electric and magnetic forces between the elementary particles as proposed in the new theories.

The new theories strongly suggest a more electro-magnetic origin for mass and gravity but this is under study now.

If gravity do have an electro-magnetic origin I can easily think it has an effect on individual atoms and it could change their properties. This way we would expect variations in atomic clocks frequencies at different altitudes.

May be this variation on the atomic clocks can be taken as a strong indication about the electro-magnetic nature of gravity!
I mean, if gravity is an independent force it should not affect atomic clocks isn't it? (without relativistic issues of course...).

(EDITED):
The difference could also happen because of the different tangential velocities due to Earth's rotation...

This is where relativity actually comes into its own. Before Copernicus and Galileo, the best model of the Solar System was that of Ptolemy. To explain the retrograde motion of the outer planets, Ptolemy postulated that in their larger orbit around the Earth, each planet had a smaller orbit around a point on the large orbit, called an epicycle. Think of it as one of those windmills on a stick you used to get - twirl the stick around and the windmill spins on its own orbit. This model worked, but the mathematics of it was fiendishly complicated and difficult to work through.

Then Copernicus postulated that if all the planets were orbiting the Sun, including the Earth, then the whole need for epicycles disappeared, and the retrograde motion of the planets could be clearly seen as the natural result of the Earth in its orbit overtaking the outer planets in their slower orbits. The planets would then naturally appear to be going backwards for a while, but the motion of the planet itself is unaffected. This made everything a lot easier. In order to determine the position of a planet in the sky it was only necessary to know where it would be in its (fairly) unchanging (almost) circular orbit, where the Earth was in its orbit and do a bit of triangulation.

In the same way, the relativistic view of the four-dimensional space time continuum wherein gravity causes a distortion, causing everything including light to follow curved paths (geodesics) and where the passage of time is different for the traveller and an observer elsewhere, is the system which provides the simplest explanation for what we see and allows calculation of paths, velocities, apparent masses, expended energies, etc, far easier than whatever complicated mathematical model you would require if you were to consider gravity as some form of electromagnetic activity.

That is what relativity is for. It may seem to be counterintuitive, but relativistic effects are undeniable and the General Theory is by far the simplest way of explaining it and calculating the results.

In the same way, the relativistic view of the four-dimensional space time continuum wherein gravity causes a distortion, causing everything including light to follow curved paths (geodesics) and where the passage of time is different for the traveller and an observer elsewhere, is the system which provides the simplest explanation for what we see and allows calculation of paths, velocities, apparent masses, expended energies, etc, far easier than whatever complicated mathematical model you would require if you were to consider gravity as some form of electromagnetic activity.

That is what relativity is for. It may seem to be counterintuitive, but relativistic effects are undeniable and the General Theory is by far the simplest way of explaining it and calculating the results.

First, do you really find that the simplest explanation? I don't think it is simple.

Second, I don't care if reality is simple or complex, I want the truth!

Third, I deny relativistic effects as not real and false effects.

martillo, u seem to go against everything that in someway goes against classical physic, classical physics worx only when its not extreme things we talk baout, realise it and accept it

Zelos,
Now, with some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it works in any conditions!!!