Come on, REAL Physics please!

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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

i will change my post to reflect this

[alexander]

Pyro in the house

Originally Posted by Pyro

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...

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.

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?

[alexander]

I have thought in a situation where both twins suffers symmetric acceleration and so it cannot be decided which twin age less or more.

at this point direction matters... are you talking about symmetric acceleration in opposite directions?

works the same way it does with one twin accelerating away from the other, within the initial frame of reference, the twins would both age at the same rate...

[martillo]

alexander:

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

I think I'm right and that those Physics' books are wrong, I'm sorry.

By the way its transverse not "transversal" mass.

Right, time passed since I last talked about and I forget that but it means the same isn't it?

Lets start with basics, how do YOU define mass?

Mass is a mathematical parameter (a number) characteristic of the elementary particles of the Universe present in several important laws of Physics like F=ma, gravitational field, E=mc2.
Something similar is the charge, just a numerical parameter characteristic of the particles.
More complex bodies are constituted by many particles and the total parameters mass and charge are the sum of those of their particles.
Charge is a constant for the elementary particles but their mass can vary in some circunstances. In the new theories is directly related to the current of the rings that compose the elementary particles. Yes the new theory give structures for the basic particles of nature like the photon. If you are interested you should read more in the manuscript (begining in Section 3.1), is not easy to explain the complete characteristic and features of the elementary particles proposed although the basic structure is simple.

at this point direction matters... are you talking about symmetric acceleration in opposite directions?

works the same way it does with one twin accelerating away from the other, within the initial frame of reference, the twins would both age at the same rate...

That from the point of view of the "stationary" frame because each twin see a different thing and here is the inconsistency.
Note that is not a matter to decide which point of view would be right and which would be wrong, the problem is that in different frame of observation we obtain contradictory results and that means inconsistency. A right Physics' theory cannot be inconsistent. Any phenomenon must have totally compatible observations in any frame of observation. The reality is only one. As I say in the section photographs can be taken and be sent to everybody, even us" to see what really happens.

[martillo]

Just a question: Why this forum is so slow? It lates a lot to charge every page and show it on the screen. It does not happen in any other forum.