Master Theory (edition 3)
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
martillo
Registered Senior Member
And how do you explain the difference? The principle of conservation of energy holds or not?
Yes (in Master Theory principle of conservation of energy holds site to be).
Master Theory is a small correction to Newtonian physics, which reconciles classical physics with the experiments of Michelson-Morley experiment.
In Master Theory there are two types of coordinates: real and visible.
Real coordinates are satisfy to Galilean transformations.
Relativistic effects are the visual effects.
Relativistic effects are physical phenomena.
In Master Theory are absolute: time, acceleration, strength and physical size of objects.
It does not depend on the speed.
Last edited:
Master TheoryLet us consider the light-clock with a pair of vertical mirrors (one on the left, the other - right) and photon between them:
$$L$$ - the distance between the mirrors.
Time's cycle:
$$T=L/c+L/c=2L/c$$
Suppose that we (the observer) has a motion with velocity $$v$$.
Îscillogram of this motion:
Speed of light in all cases is well-known-constant.
Hence the transit time of a photon from mirror to mirror in different directions will be different.
This is because: moving in one direction - the photon (in the view of the observer) meet-moving to the mirror (flight time is less).
In the other direction - in pursuit of the mirror (flight time is major):
$$T=L/(c+v)+L/(c-v)\neq 2L/c$$
Acceptably are three variants:
1. Happened a time-dilation $$T'\neq T$$
2. Happened a curtailment the visual of the longitudinal scale $$L'\neq L$$ (Master Theory);
3. Happened all (both of the above) (SRT).
We consider the second variant (corresponding Master Theory):
$$T=L'/(c+v)+L'/(c-v)=2L/c$$
The longitudinal scale of the rate is (for the second variant) calculated as follows:
$$L'/L=1-v^2/c^2$$
This SRT's formula looked so: $$L'/L=\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
Your theory assumes light is a constant relative to what?
In SR, c is constant relative to the frame.
So, what do you have?
COMMENT:
In the problem of the two travelers and the dog: L '= L.
This little problem only shows that dog's times (in different directions) will be different:
$$t'_1=L/(c+v)$$
$$t'_2=L/(c-v)$$
In the problem (with two mirrors, with a photon and with a moving observer) times will be different too, but to this added to the visual relativistic effect: the distance between the mirrors will become smaller (visual). Therefore:
$$L'=L(1-v^2/c^2)$$
$$t'_1=L'/(c+v)=L(1+v/c)/c$$
$$t'_2=L'/(c-v)=L(1-v/c)/c$$
TEST:
$$t'_1+t'_2=L(1+v/c)/c+L(1-v/c)/c=2L/c=t_1+t_2$$ - is true!
In the problem of the two travelers and the dog: L '= L.
This little problem only shows that dog's times (in different directions) will be different:
$$t'_1=L/(c+v)$$
$$t'_2=L/(c-v)$$
In the problem (with two mirrors, with a photon and with a moving observer) times will be different too, but to this added to the visual relativistic effect: the distance between the mirrors will become smaller (visual). Therefore:
$$L'=L(1-v^2/c^2)$$
$$t'_1=L'/(c+v)=L(1+v/c)/c$$
$$t'_2=L'/(c-v)=L(1-v/c)/c$$
TEST:
$$t'_1+t'_2=L(1+v/c)/c+L(1-v/c)/c=2L/c=t_1+t_2$$ - is true!
REMINDER:
Master Theory identifies two types of coordinates: actual (real) and visible.
In this topic discussed visual coordinates only.
The actual coordinates of a subjects obey to Galilean transformations and are calculated by double integration of acceleration over time.
In Master Theory are absolute (not depending on the speed of the observer): time, acceleration , strength, physical dimensions of objects, the speed of light.
Master Theory did a small corrections to Newtonian physics, which do reconciliation Newton with Michelson-Morley experiment.
Master Theory relieve many minds of physicists from rubbish, which Einstein (and his followers) generate one hundred years.
Master Theory identifies two types of coordinates: actual (real) and visible.
In this topic discussed visual coordinates only.
The actual coordinates of a subjects obey to Galilean transformations and are calculated by double integration of acceleration over time.
In Master Theory are absolute (not depending on the speed of the observer): time, acceleration , strength, physical dimensions of objects, the speed of light.
Master Theory did a small corrections to Newtonian physics, which do reconciliation Newton with Michelson-Morley experiment.
Master Theory relieve many minds of physicists from rubbish, which Einstein (and his followers) generate one hundred years.
Real and visual speeds
Let the observer moves with speed $$v$$ with respect to some IRF (inertial reference frame) (or IRF moves with speed $$-v$$ with respect to the observer). And let in this IRF there is a movement with speed $$\vec{\nu}=\nu _x\vec{i}+\nu _y\vec{j}$$.
QUESTION: How will look this movement from the perspective of an observer?
ANSWER is simple: since time is absolute, then (due to a change of scale, due to visual strain caused by relativistic effects), the rate will be less.
And the speed of along $$x$$ decreases in $$(1-v^2/c^2)$$ time less, and the speed of along transverse direction visual deformation of the scale is much smaller: $$\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$.
$$\vec{\nu\ '}=(1-v^2/c^2)\nu _x\vec{i}+\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\nu _y\vec{j}$$
No.
You meant it.
The main statement of Master Theory reduces to the assertion that Coulomb's force depends on the speed and tends to zero when the velocity of a charged particle approaches the speed of light.
This theoretical conclusion is confirmed experimentally.
COROLLARIES:
$$\Delta E\neq e\Delta U$$ for relativity.
$$m\neq \frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$ for relativity.
$$E\neq \frac{m_oc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$ for relativity.
$$TIME=absolute$$ for relativity.
$$SRT=rubbish$$ for relativity.
This theoretical conclusion is confirmed experimentally.
COROLLARIES:
$$\Delta E\neq e\Delta U$$ for relativity.
$$m\neq \frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$ for relativity.
$$E\neq \frac{m_oc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$ for relativity.
$$TIME=absolute$$ for relativity.
$$SRT=rubbish$$ for relativity.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
In my theory (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/) both the electric and magnetic fields vary with the "relativisic factor" s=sqrt(1-v2/c2) (decreasing with velocity approaching C velocity) and so there's no need to any space-time contraction/dilation at all! Time is absolute and space is just the Euclidean one. This factor in both fields perfectly explain for example the Kaufmann's and the "Strong magnet" experiments: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section2-3_New_interpretations_for_old_experiments.htm. The new definition for the electric and magnetic fields are given at the previous section: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section2-2_New_Electric_and_Magnetic_Fields_and_Forces.htm.
As for the question of przyk related to energy in the other thread which also applies here (for me also the classical formula K=mv2/2 is valid):
The answer in my theory is that actually what are accelerated are beams of particles what means "bunchs" of particles not isolated individual particles. In the theory, actually arrays of 3D parallel trains of particles would be produced in the accelerators. So 45 Gev of energy would be produced in a "bunch" of about 177000 electrons with 255KeV each.
So why in your theory time is absolute but still space dilation/contraction is proposed? Is that in your theory only the electric field decreases with velocity or is there some other consideration leaving to that space "distortion"?
Last edited:
Which we know to be false because such a bunch would have a charge of 177000e, which would show up pretty easily in detectors. When we pass them near one another the effect would debunch the bunch, making it clear they are a collection of particles. That many electrons would want to repel one another, yet the charges in accelerators don't spontaneously splitter into 17700 particles. Additional electromagnetic confining would be needed to keep the bunch so tightly compact they look like point particles.
Basic rationality disproves your 'theory'. This is why no one takes you seriously. I thought up all those problems immediately, while also watching a YouTube video as I type. It illustrates how your 'new light in physics' is just based on ignorance and a lack of simple understanding of experiments and demonstrated phenomena.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
The first argument is a serious point, I admit:
The rest is not:
Your argumentation follows from lot of considerations you make within your concepts of the basic particles belonging to current theories and totally ignoring what my theory could be capable to predict or explain (you never read it properly, I know).
But the first argument is a serious one. I need to think more about but also would need to analize deeper how the experiments are made. Can you give some links clarifying this point? You must take into account for example that the ratio e/m is mantained the same in a bunch of electrons than in a single electron and so the charge effect could be "masked" someway.
The rest is not:
In my theory the basic particles can have a very strong magnetic field which in some configurations has a stronger attractive effect than the electrical repulsion. This way a very "tighty compact" bunchs can be perfectly produced not splitting spontaneously and behaving as one "particle" within the precision that could be being considered.
Your argumentation follows from lot of considerations you make within your concepts of the basic particles belonging to current theories and totally ignoring what my theory could be capable to predict or explain (you never read it properly, I know).
But the first argument is a serious one. I need to think more about but also would need to analize deeper how the experiments are made. Can you give some links clarifying this point? You must take into account for example that the ratio e/m is mantained the same in a bunch of electrons than in a single electron and so the charge effect could be "masked" someway.
Except your 'theory' cannot reproduce accurately experimental results pertaining to such phenomena. And I have looked at your work, now and again over the last few years. It's still as backwards and vapid as it was half a deca
And now for more basic particle mechanics lessons involving phenomena particularly relevant to accelerator physics.....
An accelerating charge emits radiation. It's one of the fundamental limiting factors in the strength of the LEP accelerator and is why the LHC uses protons. The amount of energy dumped is related to the charge and masses in such a way as to not depend on $$\frac{q}{m}$$ along, thus allowing for something to be said about the charge and mass of the object in question. The behaviour of the radiation, as modelled by quantum electrodynamics, is extremely well understood and verified across a huge range of energies. Something having 177000 times the electron's charge and mass would be utterly different to anything we see in an accelerator.
Then there's the manner in which detectors work. Modern detectors use wire chamber detectors, which pick up ionisations produced by a particle as it blasts through the detector. Charged particles are much easier to detect as their electromagnetic charge causes ionisations more readily than a neutral particle. Older detectors used to use bubble or cloud chambers, where the ionised particles in the fluid would act as nucleation points for the supersaturated medium, causing a trail of bubbles or cloud which could be measured visually. All other things being equal the more charged a particle is the more ionisation and the thicker the trail due to more parts of the detector being affected. Something with a charge of 177000e would leave trail unlike that observed in detectors, due to the extremely strong interactions it would have to particles not in its immediate vicinity (on a quantum scale).
Again, these aren't highly convoluted concepts, they should be familiar to someone whose been banging on about quantum mechanics and relativity for the better (or worse!) part of a decade. The way in which detectors work I remember being taught in school and breaking radiation is mentioned a lot in even pop science stuff about the LHC or medical scanners. Perhaps this is part of the problem with your claims, you can't produce the details because you're blissfully unaware of what details are relevant/required.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
So your argument is all about the thickness of the ionisation trails... You know, is a rather vague argument. It assumes some kind of proportionally between charge and the thickness of the trail something that could be not so certain and cannot give accurate results. That thickness of the trails could also depend for example in the kind and density of "supersaturated medium". I cannot consider your argument as definitive. I think my proposition still have chance.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I think it can. Take a look at http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-2_The_photons_interference_and_diffraction.htm and http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-5_The_electron_diffraction.htm to see how photons and electrons can align to produce very compact parallel trains of photons and electrons. Similar approach but with shorter "bunchs" of particles are described to explain Feynman double-slit experiment in http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-6_About_Feynman_experiment.htm.
The same approach must be extended to high energy particle physics but this goes beyond my intentions and possibilities now. I leave this to real physicists to do it in the future.
To see how those "compact bunchs" are predicted or explained by the new theory you must know the structure of the model of the particles proposed what leaves to Chapter Three. I'm sorry but the more detailed description of the forces interacting between particles to accomplish the necessary equilibrium states for those compact configurations are in sections 3.3 and 3.4 not available on the site but only in the printed and kindle version of the manuscript only.
Last edited:
I like how you selectively quoted me. Firstly I gave a first problem, what you quoted of me was the second problem I gave so you obviously read the first problem and just decided to ignore it. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it go away.
Secondly, it's more than just strength of signal. That level of charge would cause a great deal of secondary trails to be produced because when a particle ionises some of the medium it typically does so by knocking electrons out of the orbitals of the atoms/molecules making up the medium. The collision between an electron and something with charge 177000e and mass 177000$$m_{e}$$ would knock the electron clearly out of the orbital much more than a single electron would. So the trails wouldn't just be thicker, they'd be throwing out side trails a great deal more. These are things we know how to predict and the predictions of QED match the observations. Something which is really 177000 electrons crammed together would not produce the trails we've seen.
Clearly you have selective reading skills when it comes to things which undermine your claims. That's probably why you don't know the various basic mainstream things I'm telling you, you've either not read them before or you're deliberately ignore them. Either way, they torpedo your claims easily.
You think those are explanations? I talked about reproducing experimental results. Drawing some pictures doesn't count, you have to show you can construct a mathematical formalism to go with them which outputs the quantitatively accurate behaviour of the systems in question. Anyone can come up with a few superficial vapid pictures and say "They explain the phenomenon!" but unless there's justification for it such a claim is completely worthless.
If you think your links provide what I asked for then you're showing just how little you know about physics or even the scientific method. The fact you're charging people to get the information in a printed or Kindle copy of your work is, to be quite blunt and honest, despicable. You con laypersons into thinking you might be saying something scientific through lies, misrepresentations and vapid pictures and then take their money. Your work has failed peer review, it fails even the review of someone with high school knowledge of science. To take people's money via clearly dishonest means is disgusting.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
You are very annoying (I don't know a better word to express my feeling in my limited english) in accusing dishonesty while I'm presenting what I really believe. And you know, someway I'm doing the same Science do because scientific works are available through paid sources like journals only or with a very restricted access. The only difference is that I'm doing the same in a more direct own way. And I give 90% of the manuscript freely available on the site for anyone have a very good idea what is presented before purchasing the complete versions. Usually scientific works offer just an abstract of few lines.
Shame on you!
Last edited: