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

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]

Originally Posted by martillo

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.

Originally Posted by martillo

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 [url=http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/new_evidence/The_real_equation_of_force.htm]Appendix A[/url]

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


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

now lets substitute into the original formula:



you said it yourself: p=mv
, thus we can now simply conclude:



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).