Come on, REAL Physics please!

[martillo]

Forces cannot be unified at all.

This is just another silly paradigm setted by an Einstein's thought, the same as "particles' entaglement". Just silly and wrong statements.

And there are many physicists braking their minds, wasting time and money in such "paradigms"...

 

Not to say Relativity Theory is really a wrong theory.

But not only Einstein was wrong, also De Broglie's waves actually do not exist.(Actually there are no "waves associated to matter", only a wave-like behavior!).

 

To continue wasting brain, time and money?

Note also that from wrong theories only wrong predictions can surge...

 

Wake up! Open the eyes! There's an entire totally new big possibility in Physics!

 

Time to rethink it all!

 

Don't miss...

[Tormod]

This is nothing but spam.

 

Please post some example theories that are wrong, and explain why they are wrong and what the alternatives are.

[alexander]

Here is what i think about this. Unless he provides any evidence to support his claim, the thread should be frozen, or at least moved to strange claims, i mean this is sounding so bogus, it's not even funny. There are plenty of scientists that are wrong, and of a wrong notion about something, for many years in a row, etc. But claiming that the brightest, most supported by physical evidence theories of science are completely wrong without claiming your stake and backing it up with evidence, based on a badly done html page by an angry kid from high school who believes in every conspiracy theory out there, it's honestly unscientific, and rude, in the least.

 

here is the simplest and most mundane form of rudeness to scientist:

 

Today's Physics is stating that the Equation of Force is F = dp/dt.

 

We will analyze the equation of motion of rockets to see that the real Equation of Force is F = ma.

 

great statement, that whole page is written by a person without a slightest clue of what they are talking about.

 

Knowing simple calculus, or simply doing just a tad bit of research, you would have quickly realized that [math]F = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{dmv}{dt} = m\left(\frac{dv}{dt}\right) = ma[/math]

 

Such is the case for a constant mass

a, in newtonian physics stands for the acceleration at the center of the mass

 

Thus F=ma is merely a much more simplistic version of F=dp/dt, it just does not take into the consideration the fact that the center of the mass changes with respect to time, as the fuel burns off, thus it, just like most of the other Newtonian physics, it provides a close approximation of the force, it's just not exact...

 

your theory starts falling apart at these simple stages, i didn't even bother reading the rest of it, honestly....

[martillo]

Tormod:

This is nothing but spam.

 

Please post some example theories that are wrong, and explain why they are wrong and what the alternatives are.

No is not spam. I'm presenting new theories in the named ·Alternative Theories" forum so it's right.

The manuscript freely available in the site perfectly present why some current theories are wrong with perfect logic and the not too hard math needed.

The alternative is presented the best way the author have found to make it.

The problem is that all this cannot be reduced to a short post so the web link is posted to easily acess all the material needed.

 

I'm just looking for someones in the forum to take a look in the new theory and may be discuss something about.

[Moontanman]

Isn't this the book Pyro read?

[martillo]

alexander:

Here is what i think about this. Unless he provides any evidence to support his claim...

The evidence is in the manuscript with all the sections freely and easily availble at the site. They just don't fit in a post.

 

Thus F=ma is merely a much more simplistic version of F=dp/dt, it just does not take into the consideration the fact that the center of the mass changes with respect to time, as the fuel burns off, thus it, just like most of the other Newtonian physics, it provides a close approximation of the force, it's just not exact...

That's the current view but I present in the Appendix A a complete explanation on why I have found that the real equation of force is F=ma (even when mass varies) and not F=dp/dt based in a deep análisis of the motion of rockets and their movement's equation.

But you haven't understood it. Actually I think you haven't read it properly.

[martillo]

Moontanman:

Isn't this the book Pyro read?

I don't get it. Who is Pyro? Please explain.

[Tormod]

Tormod:

 

No is not spam. I'm presenting new theories in the named ·Alternative Theories" forum so it's right.

 

No. You're not posting your theories but a link to your site where you promote and sell your book. That is basically considered spam. Please read our rules here:

 

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

[alexander]

Moon, Pyro probably haven't read this thread yet, but i think you are right, i think i have read him mention this book before.

 

The evidence is in the manuscript with all the sections freely and easily availble at the site. They just don't fit in a post.

Well, i guess i can work with at least a reference, but you do have to agree that saying Appendix A is wasting our time to have to scroll up find a link, then search for the topic, sayind Appendix A makes one much more willing to follow the link and read it. and all you have to do is say Appendix A

 

Having that said, your site still seems to miss a few moments, in simple mathematics.

 

[math]F=ma[/math]

what is acceleration? change in velocity over change in time, expressed as

[math]a=\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math]

now lets substitute into the original formula:

 

[math]F=m*\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math]

 

you said it yourself: p=mv

[math]I=\Delta p = m\Delta v[/math], thus we can now simply conclude:

 

[math]F=\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}[/math]

 

and yeah, check my math, since i am not a math wiz, but i am fairly certain i am correct at this point...

[Karnuvap]

I haven't a clue what this is all about but I would just like to throw in this -

 

as you say for a steady mass - but don't forget that mass grows with velocity (according to relativity).

[Pyrotex]

Isn't this the book Pyro read?

I took a look.

No, it isn't "Null Physics".

For one thing, the document that Martillo links to is written just as badly as Martillo's posts. He probably wrote it himself. Of course, just having English as a "second language" is NOT a crime, and does not decrease the document's validity. Not much, anyway.

The "contradiction" error he purports to find in the Relativity Twin Paradox in his first chapter is pretty lame. If it was all that simple, his contradiction would have been discovered in Einstein's lifetime and Einstein would have been laughed into oblivion.

I mean, for crying out loud, if you propose a theory that concludes that +1 = -1, nobody is going to put you on a pedestal as the smartest human ever for almost a century.

 

If Martillo had spent as much time taking Physics courses at a good junior college as he did writing his "magnum opus", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sad, really.

[alexander]

yes, that is what newtonian equations don't show, but newton's law is still valid, because in this form (F=dp/dt) it accounts for relativistic mass with respect to velocity, p is Einstein's relativistic mass

 

i have to correct myself, p is not just mv, p, more correctly is [math]p=m \Delta v[/math]

 

i will change my post to reflect this

[alexander]

Pyro in the house :confused:

 

For one thing, the document that Martillo links to is written just as badly as Martillo's posts. He probably wrote it himself.

He did, apparently, he says he did, anyways.

 

If Martillo had spent as much time taking Physics courses at a good junior college as he did writing his "magnum opus", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sad, really.

Thank you, you literally ripped similar words out of my hands... I'm no scientist, thus if i can find inconsistency in someone's theory in it's most basic of forms...

 

The equation F = dp/dt would introduce other accelerations components (even transversal ones in non-linear movements) when the mass varies that seem to not be present in the movement of rockets!

one, define what kind of accelerations you are referring to

two, present the math behind what behaviors those accelerations predict the rockets to do

and three, present the evidence that the rocket without any external factors, exhibit no such behavior.

 

once you do this, we will consider your argument as possibly worth considering, for now, this still smells like either a strange claims discussion, or outright spam...

[martillo]

Tormod:

No. You're not posting your theories but a link to your site where you promote and sell your book. That is basically considered spam.

The site contains all sections of the manuscript freely available directly from the main page and even a complete .PDF file of the manuscript for direct and free download.The book as a printed version is just an option for those who prefer to read in a book rather than to watch in a monitor (some people do prefer books). Then it is not my intention to sell books but to present the theories ot otherones that could be interested and discuss some topics about them in this and other forums, that's why I'm posting here.

I don't think this is "spam".

[martillo]

alexander:

You don't understand that I'm considering the relation F=ma even when the mass varies (as a rocket's mass which diminues while expelling combustible) and here dp/dt is very different from mdv/dt.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by that site

The equation F = dp/dt would introduce other accelerations components (even transversal ones in non-linear movements) when the mass varies that seem to not be present in the movement of rockets!

 

one, define what kind of accelerations you are referring to

two, present the math behind what behaviors those accelerations predict the rockets to do

and three, present the evidence that the rocket without any external factors, exhibit no such behavior.

In relativistic dynamics it is well known that acceleration and force can have different directions because of the called transversal components originated in the acceleration by the variation in mass (F=dp/dt=mdv/dt+vdm/dt). You can easily "google" for "transversal mass" in relativistic dynamics.

Rockets don't reach relativistic speeds but they present a large and fast variation in their mass due to the expelled combustible and so should present a not neglihible transversal component in their acceleration and movement similar to the relativistic "transversal mass".

I have done extense searchs in the web and no transversal components appear for rockets.

[martillo]

Pyrotex:

The "contradiction" error he purports to find in the Relativity Twin Paradox in his first chapter is pretty lame. If it was all that simple, his contradiction would have been discovered in Einstein's lifetime and Einstein would have been laughed into oblivion.

Currently the Twins' Paradox is solved stating that the travelling twin suffers acceleration and is that why he is the one who age less.

I have thought in a situation where both twins suffers symmetric acceleration and so it cannot be decided which twin age less or more. This situation haven't been considered by Einstein since nobody has talk about this case before I thought on it (sorry but I can have really original ideas although you could think would be unprobable) which I think really demonstrates an inconsistency in Relativity Theory.

 

I understand your point because I have to turn over that kind of reasoning dismystifying "sacred personalities" as if they were infallible gods. We are all humans and we all make mistakes some times although some could be difficult to be detected by others.

I'm now asking for others to look for my possible mistakes because I have done many but I corrected them making the new theory more perfect and it seems a totally new Physics can rise...

[alexander]

You don't understand that I'm considering the relation F=ma even when the mass varies (as a rocket's mass which diminues while expelling combustible) and here dp/dt is very different from mdv/dt.

and thats your fault, go pick up a physics book, by any recent known scientist, read it, get over the fact that you are wrong, and start answering questions

 

By the way its transverse not "transversal" mass.

 

Lets start with basics, how do YOU define mass?