PDA

View Full Version : A New Light In Physics

martillo
01-30-2006, 04:31 AM
The perfect challenge to all open minds:

"A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics)

Not only Einstein was wrong...

A very consistent new theory to be understood, validated and developed further!

Don't miss this!

Epsilon=One
01-30-2006, 08:53 PM
"A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics)

Not only Einstein was wrong...
I agree that the speed of Light is not an absolute constant.

However, too much of your theory seems to depend upon current standard models. How does your theory apply to a definition of gravity and observed accelerating, galactic recession?

I also agree that your statement, "final velocity is ç = c + u" is correct.

However, I contend that "u" is the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) and as such is so relatively minuscule in comparison to "c" that "ç," at the anthropoidal scale is indistinguishable from "c."

How do you arrive at your formula? What is the geometry that the formula relies upon? What is the source of energy that generates that additional “u”?

Is your “u” accumulative as light dissipates?

martillo
02-01-2006, 04:33 PM
Epsilon=one:
I appreciate your interest in the new theory.

How does your theory apply to a definition of gravity and observed accelerating, galactic recession?
Gravity is not treated in the text however as Relativity is considered wrong the Newton's definition applies: A central field given by Newton's Universal Gravity Force.
I don't know what is "galactic recession".

How do you arrive at your formula? What is the geometry that the formula relies upon?
The formula is that of the Emission Theory of light defended by Newton and Ritz in the years of Einstein.
The absolute velocity of light is the emitted velocity from the source plus the velocity of the source in the vectorial addition. Is the unique possibility rather than the relativistic approach that verifies Michelson Morley experiment.

What is the source of energy that generates that additional “u”?
Is the kinetic energy of the source, it is assumed that the mass of the source is much greater than the mass of the photons. It must be considered that an isolated atom has a mass much greater than the photons and so the formula applies also for gases.

Is your “u” accumulative as light dissipates?
Yes, the energy of the photons are totallly absorbed in photoelectric absorptions and the Source component "u" is absorbed as kinetic energy of the absorbing atom. The atom could have strong links to other atoms and so that energy could be distributed to many atoms and even an entire solid body.

Epsilon=One
02-01-2006, 08:14 PM
Gravity is not treated in the text however as Relativity is considered wrong the Newton's definition applies: A central field given by Newton's Universal Gravity Force.What aspect of “Relativity” do you consider wrong? How can gravity possible have been understood in Newton’s day when Feynman could never understand it?

Exactly what is your definition of a “field”? The best that I can ascertain is that a “field” is a mathematical, spatial contrivance to explain otherwise inexplicable effects.

An alternative theory, to appreciably advance understanding, must be explainable in terms of standard force concepts such that gravity is other than “action-at-a-distance” and light’s “force” must be explained in terms that are translatable to mass.

That is: how does gravity “push”?; and, how does light morph to mass?

I don't know what is "galactic recession".Observed “galactic recession” is an accelerating force akin to gravity that acts in the opposite direction of gravity's illusional attraction. I refer to this force as Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) (CI).

If there is no Big Bang, which there isn’t, then, all structure that is composed of mass depends upon CI.

The formula is that of the Emission Theory of light defended by Newton and Ritz in the years of Einstein.
The absolute velocity of light is the emitted velocity from the source plus the velocity of the source in the vectorial addition. Is the unique possibility rather than the relativistic approach that verifies Michelson Morley experiment.How does “Emission Theory” explain light’s particle/wave duality and the pulses of a light wave?

Why is the “emitted velocity” an absolute velocity?

…it is assumed that the mass of the source is much greater than the mass of the photons.How do you define a photon? What is its geometry?

It must be considered that an isolated atom has a mass much greater than the photons and so the formula applies also for gases.What is the mass of a “photon”? How do you define mass?

The atom could have strong links to other atoms and so that energy could be distributed to many atoms and even an entire solid body.What, actually, are atomic “strong links”? How do they work without referring to electromagnetic voodoo?

martillo
02-01-2006, 10:09 PM
Epsilon=one,
What aspect of “Relativity” do you consider wrong?
All aspects. The two main principles are both wrong and so "time dilation", "space contraction", "mass variation with velocity", F=dp/dt, etc, etc. Space-time deformation is a wrong proposition and so the "General Relativity Theory " also is. Only the equation E=mc2 is valid but with a new physical meaning in the new theory.

An alternative theory, to appreciably advance understanding, must be explainable in terms of standard force concepts such that gravity is other than “action-at-a-distance” and light’s “force”
"Action-at-a-distance" forces exist! It's a fact! And "sources of force" exist, is a fact! You can think in the experiments about electric and magnetic forces. The Fields of those forces determine simply the action of a source of force if a particle would exist at some point in the space.
The problem is not about the existence of those forces, the problem is the difficulty in our minds to understand them so is totally right to talk about "action-at-a-distance-forces" and their "fields"!
And all the basic forces forces of nature are forces of that kind: Electric, Magnetic, Gravitational and the "Ultimate Force" proposed in the new theory.
We can have difficulties to understand how they work and we must use our imagination to do that but this cannot leave us to stay they don't exist.

How do you define mass?
You mention several times about the meaning of mass and for me mass must be understood as a mathematical factor that appears in the Gravitational Field, in the E=mc2 and F=ma equations and in the De Broglie relation. It is a factor related to the "Special Value Gamma" in the new theory which is at its time someway related to current of the rings of the proposed "elementary particles" of nature. Mass can acquire a new physical meaning within the new theory but is not easy to be understood and it wasn't defined yet (the theory must be developed further).

How does “Emission Theory” explain light’s particle/wave duality and the pulses of a light wave?
How do you define a photon? What is its geometry?

These questions are answered in the presented theory and is better that you take a look on the corresponding sections rather to me try to explain it all here. I cannot explain the complete theory in a post. I just can answer doubts about it here

What, actually, are atomic “strong links”?
Sorry I should have said "chemical bonds" but actually they are electric and magnetic interactions as you have mentioned.

I agree that if the Universe is currently being expanding in accelerated manner another force must act (F=ma must be verified) but I don't have a proper answer to the cause of this force. Gravity is not treated in the text but the classical approach must be taken again.

Epsilon=One
02-02-2006, 04:52 PM
Your theory has too many postulates to be of much use in fundamentally understanding our environment.

To advance understanding from its present miasma of superstition and undefined gods a theory must reduce its postulates to, at most, a few simple concepts. Your theory reeks of standard model bias regarding mathematics, fields, action-at-a distance, etc.

The title of this forum seems apropos for your theory unless you can reduce the ludicrous postulates that “A New Light in Physics” depends upon.

The theory states that: “The real structure of light, photons, electrons, and neutrinos is revealed. I can find no such geometric structure that is clearly revealed.

Also, the theory states that: “The mystery of “wave-particle duality" is solved!” I can find no coherent solution to said duality.

I agree there are flaws in the theories of Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR). These flaws are generally due to the simplistic formulas and an unawareness of observations that have been made possible in the latter half of the century.

Regarding relativity, you stateThe two main principles are both wrong and so "time dilation", "space contraction", "mass variation with velocity", F=dp/dt, etc, etc. Space-time deformation is a wrong proposition and so the "General Relativity Theory " also is.I disagree, however, with your basic premise that the concept of relativity, itself, is wrong; particularly, regarding the particulars that you mention.

As I understand your contention, you are saying that speed does not have an effect on the four primary dimensions. This is ludicrous if you are saying that the relative “size” of the Universe does not vary if you are crawling on your knees or riding a light wave.

If this is your contention when you say that “all aspects” of relativity are wrong, you will have to have a much more persuasive argument than I have seen.

Only the equation E=mc2 is valid but with a new physical meaning in the new theory.The equation you give appears to be reversible. What is your “new physical meaning” that explains how light (radiant energy) becomes mass?

"Action-at-a-distance" forces exist! It's a fact!Saying so, does not make it so. Such forces are no more than voodoo science until you can explain the mechanism by which they “work.” Caltech has spent, on one experiment, in excess of half a billion dollars to date without success; and, is in the process of spending another half a billion dollars to discover this mechanism; all without any guarantee of rationalizing such a ludicrous concept.

"Action-at-a-distance," to date, defies all logic . . . as does particle/wave duality. These enigmas cannot be solved with incomplete theory and endless postulates . . . as you are proposing.

And "sources of force" exist, is a fact! You can think in the experiments about electric and magnetic forces. The Fields of those forces determine simply the action of a source of force if a particle would exist at some point in the space.You are relying on metaphysical assumptions.

A particle cannot “exist” at “some point.” A point is the infinitesimal; there is no existence at Infinity. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) Besides, what is a particle???

What exactly are “electric and magnetic forces”? What is fundamentally happening that creates them? Where do they come from? Where do they go? Why?

“Sources of force” may be a “fact,” as you state; but, where is the source? What is its geometry and etiology?

The problem is not about the existence of those forces,I agree.

…the problem is the difficulty in our minds to understand them so is totally right to talk about "action-at-a-distance-forces" and their "fields"!It is quite difficult to intelligently discuss something that has not been rationalized or defined. I would suggest that you begin with the motion that creates your "action-at-a-distance-forces" and their "fields"; and then, explain how this motion evolves to your seemingly illusional manifestations. Otherwise, your postulates are little more than superstition and metaphysics.

And all the basic forces forces of nature are forces of that kind: Electric, Magnetic, Gravitational and the "Ultimate Force" proposed in the new theory.How are these forces related? Or, is each its own assumption? What is your description of force. Conventional physics has several entirely different definitions. Which do you prefer. Do your forces all have mass? Do they all have acceleration? Do they “work” directly?; or through a “medium”?

Does the "Ultimate Force" create the other forces?; or, do the other forces create the "Ultimate Force"?

We can have difficulties to understand how they work and we must use our imagination to do that but this cannot leave us to stay they don't exist.Observing a force and explaining it are quite different propositions. A complete theory must not only explain observation; it must also explain the natural origin of the tools of logic that are employed in the explanation.

…for me mass must be understood as a mathematical factor that appears in the Gravitational Field, in the E=mc2 and F=ma equations and in the De Broglie relation.This says nothing unless you can define a natural source of mathematics and explain what a “Gravitational Field” is.

It is a factor related to the "Special Value Gamma" in the new theory which is at its time someway related to current of the rings of the proposed "elementary particles" of nature.What are “rings” and “elementary particles”? Where do they come from? If there is more than one such particle, how does it differ from others? If they are all the same, why do they bond? What is the bond?

Mass can acquire a new physical meaning within the new theory but is not easy to be understood and it wasn't defined yet (the theory must be developed further).Without first precisely defining mass, it is difficult to expect much from “further” development.

I see no way that a theory with so many postulates and a dependence upon contrived standard models can ever develop to a complete theory of the environment.

These questions are answered in the presented theory and is better that you take a look on the corresponding sections rather to me try to explain it all here. I cannot explain the complete theory in a post. I just can answer doubts about it hereMy questions derive from “the presented theory.” I do not expect all the answers in such a forum. You may pick and choose whatever of my “doubts” that you prefer to "answer."

Sorry I should have said "chemical bonds" but actually they are electric and magnetic interactions as you have mentioned.Chemical bonds are no better understood than what “electricity” and “magnetism” is. The “How” is well understood; the “Why?” is not.

I agree that if the Universe is currently being expanding in accelerated manner another force must act (F=ma must be verified) but I don't have a proper answer to the cause of this force. Gravity is not treated in the text but the classical approach must be taken again.The “classical approach” has no fundamental explanation for the “Why” of any accelerating force. Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124) of “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) nicely explains the phenomenon.

martillo
02-04-2006, 04:12 AM
Epsilon=one,

In summary the new theory seems "ludicrous" to you.

That's GOOD!
Many of today's main theories seemed that way at the first time.

Epsilon=One
02-05-2006, 02:59 AM
...the new theory seems "ludicrous" to you.

That's GOOD!
Many of today's main theories seemed that way at the first time.They still do all seem ludicrous.

Not one of them can reconcile with any of the others.

My supposition is that if one can't be right by another, than they are all probably wrong.

Do you have a better idea concerning these "main" theories, and your new theory, that don't reconcile with logic, observation, and one another???

martillo
02-05-2006, 09:10 AM
Do you have a better idea concerning these "main" theories, and your new theory, that don't reconcile with logic, observation, and one another???
So, what do you propose for Physics?
Do you have another theory?
What do you defend?

Epsilon=One
02-05-2006, 12:42 PM
So, what do you propose for Physics?
Do you have another theory?

martillo
02-05-2006, 03:09 PM
I took a brief look on your specially dedicated forum to your Pulsoid Theory. Now it seems to me that this forum is tours, is it?

You wrote in the "Definition of a particle" thread:
"A particle is defined as a spherical turbulence phenomenon that results from complex oscillations (waves) of Triquametric motion."

It is clear that you give a wave nature to everything and as waves need a medium to exist and propagate you inevitable fall in some type of aether-like theory.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this approach.
Now I understand why you totally disagree with everything!

Epsilon=One
02-05-2006, 05:28 PM
I took a brief look on your specially dedicated forum to your Pulsoid Theory. Now it seems to me that this forum is tours, is it?Not certain if you are using the word “tours” pejoratively, or not.

If you mean: do the various linked Threads try to explain in a “step-by-step” process with underlying information easily accessible, the answer to your question is, “Yes.”

You wrote in the "Definition of a particle" thread:
"A particle is defined as a spherical turbulence phenomenon that results from complex oscillations (waves) of Triquametric motion."

It is clear that you give a wave nature to everything and as waves need a medium to exist and propagate you inevitable fall in some type of aether-like theory.You are very perceptive as to my understanding of our fundamental environment. Can there possibly be anything that exists that is not comprised of a “wave nature”?

The problem is to explain what the “aether-like” is; not that fundamental waves (oscillations) don't exist.

The answer to the "medium" paradox is quite simple; and, should be apparent to anyone that applies a small amount of logic to the problem.

First, because the speed of light is, or appears to be, constant, it must be quanticized; and, its quantum must be the quantum of “space”; or, another way to look at it: The “fabric” of space is composed of radiant energy (Light) quanta that is the result of the complex oscillations of slide, swing, and vibrations (Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101)). Pomo theoretical physicists refer to this as "dark" energy (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=154). (Somewhat analogous to: Membrane/String theory (MT/ST), which is too close to standard models to be a complete theory.)

Second, Space (aether/Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151)) is not continuous. (Somewhat analogous to: Loop Quantum Gravity theory (LQG), which is too close to standard models to be a complete theory.)

The quantum of space/radiant energy is referred to as a Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) as in Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128).

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this approach.No need to be sorry. Though, I am very interested in why you “totally disagree.” Do you have another theory that is elegant and complete?; or, Do you disagree with part of the mathematics or logic of Pulsoid Theory?

Now I understand why you totally disagree with everything!I was hoping you would understand. However, your response leaves some doubt that you really do understand, totally, my disagreement with the metaphysical standard models of academic physics.

Current standard models suffice quite well within their limitations; however, to be fundamentally sound, the standard models must reconcile to an "overall" model that unifies Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

martillo
02-05-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by martillo
I took a brief look on your specially dedicated forum to your Pulsoid Theory. Now it seems to me that this forum is tours, is it?

Not certain if you are using the word “tours” pejoratively, or not.
Sorry, I should have wroten "yours", I'm asking if you are one of the owners of the forum.

No need to be sorry. Though, I am very interested in why you “totally disagree.” Do you have another theory that is elegant and complete?; or, Do you disagree with part of the mathematics or logic of Pulsoid Theory?
I disagree with the aproach that the elementary components of the Universe or Nature could be waves. As you have noticed I prefer to think in "action-at-a-distance sources of forces".
I haven't look into your Pulsoid Theory deep enough. It´s the first time I listen about. I will be honest, I don't have much time to study and criticize your theory. As I can see just from the wave approach I know it differs too much from my theories and I strongly believe in mine.
My theory has a smaller goal than yours, is not a TOE, it just try to make Physics consistent and without not paradoxes or mysteries (like the "wave-particle duality").
Do you have another theory that is elegant and complete?
I believe my theory is elegant although I believe it is a good theory that needs to be developed further reaching some untouched areas that even go beyond my expertise.

Epsilon=One
02-05-2006, 09:02 PM
Sorry, I should have wroten "yours", I'm asking if you are one of the owners of the forum.My mistake. After reading 1,000s of posts, I should have sensed your meaning.

No; I am not an owner or moderator. I am merely tolerated by management.

This tolerance is a true renaissance spirit that I hope will be infectious.

I probably am overexposed on this forum. Mostly because it is new. I hope you and others with alternative thoughts and open minds will participate and challenge; so that my posts will not stand alone and be so intimidating.

A forum is a place to ask questions and sound-out ideas; where, hopefully, an occasional consensus can be achieved.

I disagree with the aproach that the elementary components of the Universe or Nature could be waves.So I’ve noticed. Apparently, this means that your “elementary components” are particles???

How do your particles come into existence? Why, when we break apart a particle do we find “waves” of radiant energy? How do your particles have properties of non-locality?

I prefer to think in "action-at-a-distance sources of forces".What is the medium that "action-at-a-distance sources of forces" makes itself active with another “elementary component.”

I haven't look into your Pulsoid Theory deep enough. It´s the first time I listen about. I will be honest, I don't have much time to study and criticize your theory.Fair enough. My theory, in a sentence or so: 1.) Has never had its fundamental logic or mathematics disproved; 2.) Is dependent upon a Pulsoid for its “elementary component”; 3.) The Pulsoid consists of all the fundamental qualities of everything that exists including a proof of mathematics.

As I can see just from the wave approach I know it differs too much from my theories and I strongly believe in mine.Most laudable. I would like to limit a dialogue to wave vs. whatever.

My theory has a smaller goal than yours, is not a TOE, it just try to make Physics consistent and without not paradoxes or mysteries (like the "wave-particle duality").I agree that paradoxes (doubt and faith) must be minimized. I don’t know how to do this without at the same time uniting Science, Theology, and Philosophy as a by-product.

I believe my theory is elegantBy elegant I was referring to mathematical simplicity that reflects all that is complex. Such elegance requires relating: pi, Phi, Fibonacci sequences, “One,” geometry, numbers, arithmetic manipulations, Infinity, et cetera, et cetera.

…reaching some untouched areas that even go beyond my expertise.What are these “untouched areas”? Let’s explore your interests.

martillo
02-05-2006, 11:07 PM
A forum is a place to ask questions and sound-out ideas; where, hopefully, an occasional consensus can be achieved.
I totally agree. Some closed forums that try to get close to the established science only (this means just today's believed theories) don't agree with this simple basic phylosophy. If someone has a new idea they preconice to send it to journal's peer review and post in forums after it be aproved. I don't believe in that path, I will not follow that way. That way Physics is as it is where uncertainity and errors dominates.
I also believe in "worldwide peer review" where anybody with enough arguments can present his opinion freely and open forums are the unique places where this can be accomplished.
Physics today's state is so bad that this is the needed way to find the truth.

So I’ve noticed. Apparently, this means that your “elementary components” are particles???

How do your particles come into existence? Why, when we break apart a particle do we find “waves” of radiant energy? How do your particles have properties of non-locality?

This questions are answered at chapters 3, 4 and 5 in my manuscript, please take a look, is not easy to explain properly in a post.

What is the medium that "action-at-a-distance sources of forces" makes itself active with another “elementary component.”
There's no medium at all, just vacuum between sources of force. You have already asked how or why this can happen and I don't have the proper answer but I know that it do happen. I know those are questions that should be answered but they are like "what is the meaning of force" or "why the Universe exist" or "why we exist", etc. Sometimes we need some basic postulates from which we must start and we need a practical language to express a piece of knoweledge which in the majority of the cases start from definitions made by others. I hope I had presented the theory in concise and simple style that could be understood by many people interested in what "Physics" means.
This way I cannot answer why or how "action-at-a-distance forces" exist, I just believe they exist. May be my studies in electric and magnetic fields and the related math made me feel them as intuitive and this is not for others. I can only say that it has sense for me. You know, a "medium" must be made of some kind of substance and the inevitable question is what is it made of... and I cannot feel intuitively a medium where waves push other waves, for me waves interfere but don't exerts forces to other waves...

What are these “untouched areas”? Let’s explore your interests.
For example I only know the basics of the subatomic particles revealed in High Energy Physics that have been tried to be categorized in the "Standard Model". But may be just my lack of expertisse have let me think different and I could develop a new theory! And I'm not interested to get deeper in this. For now I'm interested in verify if the theory is right or wrong and for example in chapter 6 I propose an important feasible experiment that can be done to reach a conclusion but I cannot do it, I don't have the needed resources. It's very feasible and may be someone could be interested in making it...

ati3414
02-15-2006, 03:00 PM
Epsilon=one,

In summary the new theory seems "ludicrous" to you.

Many of today's main theories seemed that way at the first time.

Your theory is beyond "Ludicrous", it is irrelevant and full of mistakes.
You took a very old theory (the ballistic theory of Ritz, dead since 1903), you added your very own mistakes and you peppered this forum with your "chapters" of nonsense.

martillo
02-19-2006, 08:19 PM
Sorry but I don´t agree.
The new theory has sense, it is totally consistent and has no paradoxes.

I lament you haven't undestood it.

Albers
03-02-2006, 01:04 AM
MASS is an illusion we can be rid of. Charge is the quantization of available polar fields.

Epsilon=One
03-02-2006, 06:51 PM
MASS is an illusion we can be rid of.I understand MASS as an illusion if it connotes "solidness"/"hardness"/etc.

However, to my understanding, mass and waves are both radiant energy; however, with different properties that are empirically differentiated by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) that underlies the gravitational effect. The cause of the difference lies in the reflective geometry of the resonance that arises from complex intrinsic oscillations and pulses of said energy. The internal wave reflection with mass is total (and also the exclusion of waves).

Somewhere an experiment has been conducted with four highly reflective spheres grouped tightly in the form of a tetrahedron where a laser beam input was totally reflected with no output.

Charge is the quantization of available polar fields.What are “available polar fields”? I understand “charge” as a phase differentiation of standing waves.