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

[Aer]

They will still read the same time. You just don't understand the concept of relativity of simultanteity.

Note: I didn't require that the relativity of simultaneity make any sense. I just said it a result of Relativity and keeps Relativity consistent. You will not find an inconsistency except maybe when an experiment is actually done to test the relativity of simultaneity.

 

[martillo]

They will still read the same time.

No they will not, it got clear that they will not.

You just don't understand the concept of relativity of simultanteity.

Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do here.

 

[Aer]

It has everything to do here.

 

[martillo]

It seems we will never agree.
Somebody else (with good arguments) can comment his viewpoint?

 

[funkstar]

martillo,

I've already explained that those supposed inconsistencies are

1) You doing the math incorrectly
2) You interpreting the results incorrectly

I also explained very carefully how to do it correctly, and how the Lorentz transforms are coordinate system transformatioms, and what that means for the twin paradox (Specifically, the second t' you calculate has nothing to do with proper time for the second twin, because it's not a spacetime coordinate from his frame.)

You apparently took nothing to heart. So. Here's the upshot: Your math is wrong! Posting it again, when you've been told exactly why and where you are wrong, only exposes your ignorance of basic math, and the stubbernness marks you as a crank.

Go away. Take a course. Come back and apologise.

 

[Aer]

Go away. Take a course. Come back and apologise.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[James R]

Anomalous:

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

Not sure what martillo thinks, but standard physics knows light is electromagnetic from many different experiments. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory gives a precise mathematical description of light as electromagnetic waves.

b) How does electric or magnetic fields affect light ?

In lots of different ways.

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

Sorry, I don't understand. In the twin paradox, when the twins meet up again after their trip they are NOT the same age.

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

Again, not sure what you're talking about here.

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

It's a wrong statement. Time dilation effects occur with relative velocity as well as accelerations.

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

Time is always slower near massive bodies than in "free space".

If light has no mass then how can laser sails ever work ?

Solar sails rely on momentum transfer from the light, which does not require mass.

 

[martillo]

But I can propose now to start the clocks simultaneously when they take off the mother-ship and compare the results at the back cross point. It is clear that for each twin the other twin have passed all the time travelling at some speed and this makes its clock run slower and at the cross point it will give a smaller value. This will happen for both twins and the results are opposite.

Now that I don't post anymore Aer and Funkstar will say "Look, he doesn't post anymore, he was knocked once more!"

Once more wrong!

It became obvious that I won the debate.

The discussion got unproductive now.

The thread was highly positive, It gave me the inspiration to develop "The Perfect Problem for Relativity". Great!

See you another time.

 

[funkstar]

It became obvious that I won the debate.

In your mind, perhaps. Not in the real world. Being able to do the math actually matters, here.

The thread was highly positive, It gave me the inspiration to develop "The Perfect Problem for Relativity". Great!

Yes, I saw you post that at PhysicsForums. Didn't work out too well, did it?

 

[martillo]

Didn't work out too well, did it?

It worked!

The problem is that those who agreed with me don't post because they don't know what to do after agreeing.
You don't perceive this eh?

In PhysicsForum the thread was locked because "it conteins opinions against the view of current science". This was expected to happen there...

 

[PhysMachine]

I think it's a commentary on the nature of this forum that this thread has made it to page 16. It is also a mark of martillo's stubborness to accept that he's throwing away a century of experimentally verified science, and the stubborness of those around him that insist that he admit that he is wrong.

Reading this has turned into an exercise in beating my head against the wall. I just think everyone involved should be informed of how the uninterested reader sees this.

 

[Dilbert]

martillo, i can agree with you! there are some black holes in "modern physics", the only problem is that you are too damn stupid and you draw incorrect conclusions and therefore end up fucking it all up and pissing people off.

 

[martillo]

Physmachine,

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.

 

[martillo]

I have discovered those unlucky and unhappy errors and I suggest some corrections to fix them, but I'm not a physician and I will not be. Is up to you real physicians 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.

You see me as an enemy, but I'm not. Actually I would like to be your friend.

 

[PhysMachine]

What you need to realize is that, if there's a hole in one of these theories, you have the audacity to say that for one hundred years every physicist who has analyzed these results has been wrong, and that you have found them.

What you fail to appreciate is that these new theories were militantly opposed at the beginning of the century: Max Planck thought that quantization was completely wrong, Bohr and Einstein could not stand each other and thought that each others' theories were totally wrong, the scientific community as a whole scrutinized the hell out of every new experimental result. What eventually emerged was the fact that the classical theory didn't work, and these new theories were unbelieveably accurate in predicting these results.

Quantum mechanics did not just emerge overnight as the correct theory at the microscopic level. Schrodinger tried three times to come up with a differential equation that could duplicate the results seen experimentally in atomic systems, and only succeeded when he stopped trying to make the equation Lorentz invariant. Einstein's work was opposed by almost everyone until his prediction about bending the path of light was experimentally confirmed, as well as his accurate prediction of the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

There is literally a mountain of evidence supporting these theories, and they have been analyzed from every possible angle to find inconsistencies. I can assure you that you haven't stumbled across anything new.

 

[martillo]

you have the audacity to say that for one hundred years every physicist who has analyzed these results has been wrong, and that you have found them.

Yes I have.

I can assure you that you haven't stumbled across anything new.

You can't assure this.

 

[funkstar]

martillo,

Your problems with the twin "paradox" stem from ignorance of what reference frames are, how to switch between them, and how to interpret their parameters, specifically, the time coordinates. Very, very, basic errors, in a really simple theory. Even worse, you cannot even see that you are in error.

That you should somehow have stumbled across a fundamental error in something far more complex (quantum mechanics) is not very believable.

Your claim is analogous to claiming to having designed a quantum computer without understanding what a qubit is. Or having found a griveous error in Galois theory, without understanding what a group is.

I.e. not bloody likely.

 

[funkstar]

Yes I have.

No, you haven't.

I know that the idea of an underdog with no formal training beating the odds and showing the experts wrong, is both compelling to you, and sympathetic to those with a poor graps of the scientific process. But that that scenario is so rare that I can think of no instance in science in which this has been the case.

And it is not so in your case, either. When we reject your work, it is not out of malice, or jealousy, or closed-mindedness. You're just wrong about some very basic things.

 

[martillo]

Funkstar,

Your problems with the twin "paradox" stem from ignorance of what reference frames are, how to switch between them...

That switch of referentials cannot be made!
A frame of observation must be choused to analyze a phenomenon completely.
A switch in the middle cannot be made. You cannot change the referential of observation in the middle. That's not a rigorous approach.

But that that scenario is so rare that I can think of no instance in science in which this has been the case.

Not so rare...

 

[funkstar]

That switch of referentials cannot be made!

Of course it can. That's what the Lorentz transform equations are for!

You see, that's why nobody's taking you seriously. You just don't understand the basics.

A frame of observation must be choused to analyze a phenomenon completely.

Why?

A switch in the middle cannot be made.

Why not?

You cannot change the referential of observation in the middle.

Why not?

That's not a rigorous approach.

Why not?

Not so rare...

Name one case.

(Note: You don't qualify.)