The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

But I only wondered if then γ and m aren't actually defined quite right.
Click to expand...

m is defined to be the rest mass (i.e. a frame-invariant mass). I'm not aware of any other obvious frame-invariant quantities with dimensions of mass.

γ is derived from the postulates of relativity. If the theory is right, so is the derivation of gamma. Redefine gamma and you have a new theory.
 
James R,

If you assume the mass of a photon is m=hf/c^2, then you can use Newton's laws to predict how much you would expect light to be bent by a massive body, such as the Sun.

The problem with this is that the Newtonian calculation gives you a value for the bending angle which is exactly half of the actual bending angle, as measured by observations.

General relativity explains the discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that is true, I remember reading that long time ago...
Is a weak point for the proposition of photons with mass.
I forgot that, I'm sorry, my memory is not too large...

I believe Newton's Gravity Law works at far distances and I wonder if it should be corrected for very near interactions. This is a subject for a future research since I believe mass can have an Electro-Magnetic origin but I haven't concluded anything, that's why I don't talk too much about mass in the text.
 
Last edited:
I believe mass can have an Electro-Magnetic origin
Click to expand...

Hmm...

But all electromagnetic phenomena seem to be generated by charge, not mass. So, are you saying that mass is really the same as charge, in some sense? It certainly seems to behave rather differently.
 
James R,

So, are you saying that mass is really the same as charge, in some sense?
Click to expand...

No.
If you can see the structure I propose for the elementary particles you'll find that magnetism has a very strong effect (I even propose the magnetic force applied to special current varying rings the real strong nuclear force).
Even is defined the "Mass Energy" related to the Electro-Magnetic Potential "PEM" between the rings what suggest a strong relation between mass an Electric and Magnetic Forces.
But the problem of what really mass means needs further research.
I believe mass can have a more magnetic origin, but as I said I haven't concluded anything and the electric force can also have effect on the mass.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
m is defined to be the rest mass (i.e. a frame-invariant mass). I'm not aware of any other obvious frame-invariant quantities with dimensions of mass.

γ is derived from the postulates of relativity. If the theory is right, so is the derivation of gamma. Redefine gamma and you have a new theory.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know - I was just posing a what-if I guess.
 
And there's another phenomenon that can introduce a variation in the calculus made for the deflection of the photons:
It is proposed that photons ,in general, don't travel alone, they link between them and form trains of photons! The calculus may give a different result because of this.

We should consider also the precession on the orbit of Mercury, this is also not explained by Classic Physics and Relativity seems to explain well.


This questions haven't been already solved for the new theories but this doesn't mean they can't give a good explanation for them. New possibilities are open and many phenomena can have a different interpretation now.


Still much work remains to be done...
 
Last edited:
martillo said:
And there's another phenomenon that can introduce a variation in the calculus made for the deflection of the photons:
It is proposed that photons ,in general, don't travel alone, they link between them and form trains of photons! The calculus may give a different result because of this.

I don't know exactly. What I have to say is that there are some other possibilities opened to be considered now.
Click to expand...
...there are always other possibilities to explore.....such is the journey of discovery.....however the journey can get bogged down if one is not receptive to the discoveries of other people......and able to apply critical thought to what you propose that is different to those discoveries of other people.
 
I am probably calling the kettle black hey?
But in my defense I have always qualified or at least attempted to qualify my interests in physics as abstractions and pure hypothesis....

Possibly Martillo a better definition of the distinction between theory, hypothesis and abstraction is needed....
 
QQ,

Not calling any cookware any colors! I liked your statement. It reflects my own approach very well. Nicely said. Highly rational.
 
Sorry, I edited some change on the last post and it changed a little.

We must consider the discoveries of other people, we must also consider that the other people can make mistakes the same way we do.

Believe me, I considered them a lot before publicating the new theories but I didn't stop. Sometimes I thought wrong propositions and had to go back and think different and go forward again, many times!

But I didn't stop and that's why there are new theories now. They are not proven right yet. They are just another possibility to be considered now and I'm defending...
 
Oh good. Because I thought you gave up defending quite early. I'd at least like to see 3 or 4 more knockouts.
 
UnderWhelmed said:
Of course there is a time difference, but there is no contradiction and no problem with relativity as Martillo has stated.
Click to expand...

Ya, but there is another problem.

1) In the twins paradox experiment, whenever twins meet, they are of same age. But not in case of satellites, why ?

2) There is no acceleration involved in case of satellites, yet they are ageing faster, why ?

3) Matrillo said that only incase of accleration time dialations occur, did I hear him wrong ?

4) Space is streched more near earth or less compared to the satellite space orbits ? and why should time be faster there ?
 
martillo said:
Anomalous,



Please take a look on my web page: "A New Light in Physics"
You will have my answers to these questions and more!
Click to expand...

I did look at your stuff. Sorry, but your reasoning is so convoluted and full of flaws that it would take too much effort to explain them all. Besides, after reading your presentation it's obvious you would not understand the explanations anyway. What a tremendous waste of effort! (Reading your stuff, I mean.)
 
Light,

I did look at your stuff. Sorry, but your reasoning is so convoluted and full of flaws that it would take too much effort to explain them all.
Click to expand...

Tell me one flaw you have found on the text.
But take care, if there is something you don't understand or is difficult to believe this is not a flaw. Flaw means contradiction with something else.
 
Last edited:
Anomalous,

a) I want to know what makes U think Light is ElectroMagnetic.
Click to expand...

The new theories give all the basic particles: the photon, the electron, the neutrino, the proton, the neutron and their anti-particlres a structure based on two elementary particles, They are charged rings that hold together by the equilibrium between the electric and magnetic forces between them.
They are all "electro-magnetic particles" with a special structure.


b) How does electric or magnetic fields affect light ?
Click to expand...

photons are made by two rings of opposite charge and with a very closed magnetic field so at far distance they are seen as neutral. At small distances interactions can happen. This need further research.


3) Matrillo said that only incase of accleration time dialations occur, did I hear him wrong ?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say that. For me time dilation doesn't exist!
 
It is proposed that photons ,in general, don't travel alone, they link between them and form trains of photons! The calculus may give a different result because of this. photons are made by two rings of opposite charge and with a very closed magnetic field so at far distance they are seen as neutral. At small distances interactions can happen. This need further research.

What about all the research thus far that does not, in any way, agree with your flawed assumptions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top