Please take a look at: Mercury precession
A new interpretation is possible!
I like that. I wonder if this could be tied in to the sunspot activity. Could all stars be binary in nature and a binary solar system the product of a mass imbalance where the star rotated so fast it spun it's self apart?
Two cores could also help explain weather cycles.
Two cores could also help explain weather cycles.
The link has changed, the working one is: Mercury Precession
closer to the sun space is more dense
and so speed of planets is getting slower
going from the sun to the outside planets all move faster because space is less dense
and so speed of planets is getting slower
going from the sun to the outside planets all move faster because space is less dense
Any spherically symmetric setup of the sun's mass will be identical to the setup of the sun being spherically symmetric and homogeneous, you can prove it through basic calculus (ie via Gauss's result where you only consider the total mass within a spherically symmetric setup). Therefore a non-homogeneous Sun would have no different properties when plotting the motion of Mercury. Besides, it's been long known the Sun isn't homogeneus and while it's not perfectly spherically symmetric it's not enough to explain the motion of Mercury.
Two cores to the sun? Uh huh. Yeah right. No chance.
Seriously though folks: sure a new interpretation is possible. But why? What's the problem with the old interpretation?
Seriously though folks: sure a new interpretation is possible. But why? What's the problem with the old interpretation?
Relativity is wrong and the work of the Devil, haven't you heard 
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 21 2006, 02:37 AM)
Relativity is wrong and the work of the Devil, haven't you heard
This is a cheap demagogy, of course and such stance brings no progress into further discussion. The relativity has it's own obvious limits even in context of the other mainstream theories, like the quantum mechanic. The theory, which predictions differs under certain conditions in two hundered orders of magnitude range cannot be solely "perfect", of course.
Try to answer the Fairsight's question, instead:
WHICH PROBLEM IS WITH THE AETHER CONCEPT IN RELATIVITY, EXACTLY?
This is a cheap demagogy, of course and such stance brings no progress into further discussion. The relativity has it's own obvious limits even in context of the other mainstream theories, like the quantum mechanic. The theory, which predictions differs under certain conditions in two hundered orders of magnitude range cannot be solely "perfect", of course.
Try to answer the Fairsight's question, instead:
WHICH PROBLEM IS WITH THE AETHER CONCEPT IN RELATIVITY, EXACTLY?
There's something I'd like to introduce you to Zephir, it's called a joke. Where did I say it was perfect anyway? Also, learn a new word aside from demagogy, it's getting old.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 21 2006, 12:43 AM)
WHICH PROBLEM IS WITH THE AETHER CONCEPT IN RELATIVITY, EXACTLY?
Well with your's it's that you have no precise predictions, a bunch of self contradicting initial assumptions and all your claims are based on wild flights of fancy resulting in a mixture of false claims about your theories mathematical structure, an excessive erroneous use of terminology and the belief an irrelevent gif or twelve can explain your theory on a level satisfactorily to a physicist.
But more in general, most ether theories don't square up with experiment. Some don't fail as quickly, but none have rivalled relativity's predictive power so haven't replaced it. I'm sure you've read all the Wikipedia pages on ether and related ideas, so you already know the answer to your question.
/cue rants about how AWT is the best thing since God clicked his fingers and invented sliced bread
With probably an animation or 5.
But more in general, most ether theories don't square up with experiment. Some don't fail as quickly, but none have rivalled relativity's predictive power so haven't replaced it. I'm sure you've read all the Wikipedia pages on ether and related ideas, so you already know the answer to your question.
/cue rants about how AWT is the best thing since God clicked his fingers and invented sliced bread
With probably an animation or 5.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 20 2006, 11:37 PM)
Relativity is wrong and the work of the Devil, haven't you heard
LOL. It was the work of Einstein, my hero. But there again, he did find Einstein's Hole and recoiled in horror then dodged round it, so maybe it is wrong. Stuff like "the problem of time in quantum gravity" seems pretty interesting too.
But huh, not two cores in the sun.
LOL. It was the work of Einstein, my hero. But there again, he did find Einstein's Hole and recoiled in horror then dodged round it, so maybe it is wrong. Stuff like "the problem of time in quantum gravity" seems pretty interesting too.
But huh, not two cores in the sun.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 21 2006, 02:51 AM)
There's something I'd like to introduce you to Zephir, it's called a joke...
Nope, this isn't joke, this is not even the irony....
You're trying to introduce some obvious nonsense into debate as a suppositional claim of your opponent in discussion in an effort to make him more untruthfulness by psychological manipulation of readers of this forum.
The most funny is, you're probably believing in such non-conscious manipulation more then we do, it seems. You didn't even realize your manipulative behavior, obviously...
This is a womanish approach in debate, by the way, the womans often manipulate subconsciously.
Nope, this isn't joke, this is not even the irony....
You're trying to introduce some obvious nonsense into debate as a suppositional claim of your opponent in discussion in an effort to make him more untruthfulness by psychological manipulation of readers of this forum.
The most funny is, you're probably believing in such non-conscious manipulation more then we do, it seems. You didn't even realize your manipulative behavior, obviously...
This is a womanish approach in debate, by the way, the womans often manipulate subconsciously.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 21 2006, 01:54 AM)
You're trying to introduce some obvious nonsense into debate as a suppositional claim of your opponent in discussion in an effort to make him more untruthfulness by psychological manipulation of readers of this forum.
I didn't need to do that, my first reply had explained why any spherically symmetric distribution of matter, no matter how it's done, would still give the observed motion for Mercury. I would say that killed his idea in it's tracks pretty solidly.
I didn't need to do that, my first reply had explained why any spherically symmetric distribution of matter, no matter how it's done, would still give the observed motion for Mercury. I would say that killed his idea in it's tracks pretty solidly.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 21 2006, 01:54 AM)
This is a womanish approach in debate, by the way, the womans often manipulate subconsciously
No, they do it with pretty animations and big words as 'eye candy' to distract from their lack of substance.
No sorry, that's your posting style. Opps.
No sorry, that's your posting style. Opps.
Zephir,
You are right here Zephir.
For me it doesn't worth to discuss with this people.
The example given of "two cores" is specially considered as: "Let consider an extreme case just as an illustrative case of not uniformly distribution. Let suppose the Sun has its mass divided in two halves concentrated in two points diametrically opposed in the apparent sphere"
Gauss has nothing to do here and the Sun could have a non-uniform distribution of its mass for example because of non-uniform density due to different concentrations of different kind of atoms in its interior since the star's formation.
There's no more bline that who don't want to see.
QUOTE
You're trying to introduce some obvious nonsense into debate as a suppositional claim of your opponent in discussion in an effort to make him more untruthfulness by psychological manipulation of readers of this forum.
You are right here Zephir.
For me it doesn't worth to discuss with this people.
The example given of "two cores" is specially considered as: "Let consider an extreme case just as an illustrative case of not uniformly distribution. Let suppose the Sun has its mass divided in two halves concentrated in two points diametrically opposed in the apparent sphere"
Gauss has nothing to do here and the Sun could have a non-uniform distribution of its mass for example because of non-uniform density due to different concentrations of different kind of atoms in its interior since the star's formation.
There's no more bline that who don't want to see.
I know, and as I mentioned, it's irrelevent what the distribution is provided it's spherically symmetric which your webpage states you're considering on the 3rd line
You can confirm this by doing some calculus, the spherically symmetric nature of the system gives that result.
As I said also, there are known changes in the density of the Sun. At the centre it's denser than lead while at the surface it turns into a thin superheated gas, but it's almost exactly spherically symmetric. The minute changes caused by flares and convection currents are nowhere near the magnitude to explain the difference in Newton's model with observations and besides, those are dynamic and would only have effect for short periods of time. It would not explain a constant difference.
Your example of two cores is fundamentally different from what you state as your assumption, spherical symmetry.
QUOTE
The possibility that Sun's mass distribution could be symmetrical but not uniform must be considered as a possible cause of some of the Mercury’s orbital precession.
If the Sun had all it's mass concentrated into a single point (ie a black hole) than it would still have the same gravitational effect on the Earth. If the Sun's mass was concentrated into an extremely thin shell with the same radius it currently has it would still have the same gravitational effect on the Earth.You can confirm this by doing some calculus, the spherically symmetric nature of the system gives that result.
As I said also, there are known changes in the density of the Sun. At the centre it's denser than lead while at the surface it turns into a thin superheated gas, but it's almost exactly spherically symmetric. The minute changes caused by flares and convection currents are nowhere near the magnitude to explain the difference in Newton's model with observations and besides, those are dynamic and would only have effect for short periods of time. It would not explain a constant difference.
Your example of two cores is fundamentally different from what you state as your assumption, spherical symmetry.
Alphanumeric,
Your misunderstood is a clear signal of your bad predisposition on considering what is wrotten.
I didn't talk about "spherical" symmetry anywhere!
I wrote about a symmetry but of course it is on the axis of rotation and not on the center. The example shows exactly the situation I wanted to consider although as an extreme illustrative case.
Is clear I'm not talking about spherical symmetry when I say "The mass distribution of the Sun can be someway more concentrated symmetrically in some directions of its spherical form..." and the example shows clearly the symmetry considered in the non-homogeneous distribution.
QUOTE
Your example of two cores is fundamentally different from what you state as your assumption, spherical symmetry.
Your misunderstood is a clear signal of your bad predisposition on considering what is wrotten.
I didn't talk about "spherical" symmetry anywhere!
I wrote about a symmetry but of course it is on the axis of rotation and not on the center. The example shows exactly the situation I wanted to consider although as an extreme illustrative case.
Is clear I'm not talking about spherical symmetry when I say "The mass distribution of the Sun can be someway more concentrated symmetrically in some directions of its spherical form..." and the example shows clearly the symmetry considered in the non-homogeneous distribution.
Fair enough, I'm big enough to admit when I've got it wrong. I misread it and saw 'spherical' and 'symmetric' (in different lines) and put them together mistakenly.
But then this raises the question of how you would explain this non-spherical layout. Not only would you have to explain the shape of the Sun, you'd pretty much have to rewrite the entire area of solar theory.
But then this raises the question of how you would explain this non-spherical layout. Not only would you have to explain the shape of the Sun, you'd pretty much have to rewrite the entire area of solar theory.
alphanumeric,
Current theory talks about the interior of the Sun in the "plasma" state which is not gaseous, not liquid and not solid...
I think the huge pressure inside the deep core can justify a state of the atoms which does not dephormate easily even at huge temperatures. Only a relatively small dense core with non-uniform mass distribution is needed and it could be made of some quantity of massive atoms of different types existent since the creation of the star. This way the situation is compatible with current theories and is a possible situation on the Sun.
QUOTE
But then this raises the question of how you would explain this non-spherical layout. Not only would you have to explain the shape of the Sun, you'd pretty much have to rewrite the entire area of solar theory.
Current theory talks about the interior of the Sun in the "plasma" state which is not gaseous, not liquid and not solid...
I think the huge pressure inside the deep core can justify a state of the atoms which does not dephormate easily even at huge temperatures. Only a relatively small dense core with non-uniform mass distribution is needed and it could be made of some quantity of massive atoms of different types existent since the creation of the star. This way the situation is compatible with current theories and is a possible situation on the Sun.
martillo: if you're merely talking imperfect spherical solar symmetry (eg an oblate core) sorry I blew you off a bit quick.
farsight,
Yes, an "oblate core" could be a good description but the real shape and mass will not be easy to determine. Many possibilities can exist...
QUOTE
martillo: if you're merely talking imperfect spherical solar symmetry (eg an oblate core) sorry I blew you off a bit quick.
Yes, an "oblate core" could be a good description but the real shape and mass will not be easy to determine. Many possibilities can exist...
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 21 2006, 08:31 PM)
aCurrent theory talks about the interior of the Sun in the "plasma" state which is not gaseous, not liquid and not solid...
The whole of the sun, not just the core is plasma, it just happens to vary density as you move closer to the centre.
Your answer doesn't actually answer my question. What you describe is known to be generally true, the bigger nuclei are towards the core, not to mention gravitational pressure makes the core denser anyway. The problem with trying to get the model you describe is you require a mechanism which can give rise to a near constant asymmetric in the sun.
The Sun has a slight bulge at it's equator due to it's rotation, but that has already been taken into account and isn't enough to explain Mercury's motion with Newtonian mechanics. You need something much more pronounced than that, but which isn't visible on the surface and which doesn't effect energy output (which is spherically symmetric pretty much).
Then you have to explain all the other non-Newtonian gravity effects which we've observed like gravitational time dilation experienced by GPS satellites.
The whole of the sun, not just the core is plasma, it just happens to vary density as you move closer to the centre.
Your answer doesn't actually answer my question. What you describe is known to be generally true, the bigger nuclei are towards the core, not to mention gravitational pressure makes the core denser anyway. The problem with trying to get the model you describe is you require a mechanism which can give rise to a near constant asymmetric in the sun.
The Sun has a slight bulge at it's equator due to it's rotation, but that has already been taken into account and isn't enough to explain Mercury's motion with Newtonian mechanics. You need something much more pronounced than that, but which isn't visible on the surface and which doesn't effect energy output (which is spherically symmetric pretty much).
Then you have to explain all the other non-Newtonian gravity effects which we've observed like gravitational time dilation experienced by GPS satellites.
alphanumeric,
If I'm not wrong current theories talk that stars are created by progressive accumulation of cosmic gas, mainly by hydrogen. I think that the process could be initiated by some kind of heavy "asteroid" (with "oblated shape") which remained as an "oblated core" core of the Sun much more dense than the surrounding hydrogen even compressed at huge pressures.
If I'm not wrong current theories talk that stars are created by progressive accumulation of cosmic gas, mainly by hydrogen. I think that the process could be initiated by some kind of heavy "asteroid" (with "oblated shape") which remained as an "oblated core" core of the Sun much more dense than the surrounding hydrogen even compressed at huge pressures.
Then you have to explain all the other non-Newtonian gravity effects which we've observed like gravitational time dilation experienced by GPS satellites.
This will leave to other topics not directly related to this thread.
If I'm not wrong you already know I'm proposing new theories on the basic particles and forces of nature. In the new theories the basic particles like protons and electrons have an internal structure of strong electric and magnetic fields which produce attractive and repulsive forces staying in equilibrium. The atoms link protons and electrons by the same fields creating other structures of equilibrium betwen attractive and repulsive forces. The key feature is that, in the new theories, the classic electric and magnetic fields are corrected to have a factor "s" related to the well known relativistic "k" which is velocity dependent. This way clocks, made by atoms, are velocity dependent but due to their velocity dependent internal structure.
You can see that at the site: "A New Light In Physics" but please try to stay within the topic of the thread.
QUOTE
Your answer doesn't actually answer my question. What you describe is known to be generally true, the bigger nuclei are towards the core, not to mention gravitational pressure makes the core denser anyway. The problem with trying to get the model you describe is you require a mechanism which can give rise to a near constant asymmetric in the sun.
The Sun has a slight bulge at it's equator due to it's rotation, but that has already been taken into account and isn't enough to explain Mercury's motion with Newtonian mechanics. You need something much more pronounced than that, but which isn't visible on the surface and which doesn't effect energy output (which is spherically symmetric pretty much).
The Sun has a slight bulge at it's equator due to it's rotation, but that has already been taken into account and isn't enough to explain Mercury's motion with Newtonian mechanics. You need something much more pronounced than that, but which isn't visible on the surface and which doesn't effect energy output (which is spherically symmetric pretty much).
If I'm not wrong current theories talk that stars are created by progressive accumulation of cosmic gas, mainly by hydrogen. I think that the process could be initiated by some kind of heavy "asteroid" (with "oblated shape") which remained as an "oblated core" core of the Sun much more dense than the surrounding hydrogen even compressed at huge pressures.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your answer doesn't actually answer my question. What you describe is known to be generally true, the bigger nuclei are towards the core, not to mention gravitational pressure makes the core denser anyway. The problem with trying to get the model you describe is you require a mechanism which can give rise to a near constant asymmetric in the sun. The Sun has a slight bulge at it's equator due to it's rotation, but that has already been taken into account and isn't enough to explain Mercury's motion with Newtonian mechanics. You need something much more pronounced than that, but which isn't visible on the surface and which doesn't effect energy output (which is spherically symmetric pretty much). |
If I'm not wrong current theories talk that stars are created by progressive accumulation of cosmic gas, mainly by hydrogen. I think that the process could be initiated by some kind of heavy "asteroid" (with "oblated shape") which remained as an "oblated core" core of the Sun much more dense than the surrounding hydrogen even compressed at huge pressures.
Then you have to explain all the other non-Newtonian gravity effects which we've observed like gravitational time dilation experienced by GPS satellites.
This will leave to other topics not directly related to this thread.
If I'm not wrong you already know I'm proposing new theories on the basic particles and forces of nature. In the new theories the basic particles like protons and electrons have an internal structure of strong electric and magnetic fields which produce attractive and repulsive forces staying in equilibrium. The atoms link protons and electrons by the same fields creating other structures of equilibrium betwen attractive and repulsive forces. The key feature is that, in the new theories, the classic electric and magnetic fields are corrected to have a factor "s" related to the well known relativistic "k" which is velocity dependent. This way clocks, made by atoms, are velocity dependent but due to their velocity dependent internal structure.
You can see that at the site: "A New Light In Physics" but please try to stay within the topic of the thread.
martillo: isn't there some "sound" method that's been used to determine the inner characteristics of the sun?
http://soi.stanford.edu/results/sspeed.html
http://soi.stanford.edu/results/sspeed.html
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 23 2006, 01:50 PM)
I think that the process could be initiated by some kind of heavy "asteroid" (with "oblated shape") which remained as an "oblated core" core of the Sun much more dense than the surrounding hydrogen even compressed at huge pressures.
Not possible I'm afraid. The centre of the sun is over 10 million Kelvin and no asteroid could possibly survive that heat. Besides, at the centre of the Sun the hydrogen is even denser than lead, so it's already denser than any asteroid would be.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 23 2006, 01:50 PM)
"A New Light In Physics"
A well known crank site I'm afraid.
A well known crank site I'm afraid.
farsight,
I don't understand what is meant by "sound speed" in the Sun but I think you are referring to some kind or "X-ray" or "ecography" method to determine the internal density of the Sun with enough accuracy. This haven't been done yet. I don't how this could be done but you know Science have evolutionated so much and new techniques are used everyday to get amazing data and I believe someday it will be possible.
QUOTE
martillo: isn't there some "sound" method that's been used to determine the inner characteristics of the sun?
I don't understand what is meant by "sound speed" in the Sun but I think you are referring to some kind or "X-ray" or "ecography" method to determine the internal density of the Sun with enough accuracy. This haven't been done yet. I don't how this could be done but you know Science have evolutionated so much and new techniques are used everyday to get amazing data and I believe someday it will be possible.
alphanumeric,
What do you mean by "no asteroid could possibly survive that heat"? If there was an asteroid at the begining it cannot disappear!
I know it would be in the same "plasma" state as the hydrogen around but it would remain there, its atoms would remain there and the much more heavy and dense atoms than the hydrogen atoms around would constitute a much more dense core that could perfectly exist today and forever in the life of the star.
It is possible and I think it is a possibility that must be considered seriously.
QUOTE
Not possible I'm afraid. The centre of the sun is over 10 million Kelvin and no asteroid could possibly survive that heat. Besides, at the centre of the Sun the hydrogen is even denser than lead, so it's already denser than any asteroid would be.
What do you mean by "no asteroid could possibly survive that heat"? If there was an asteroid at the begining it cannot disappear!
I know it would be in the same "plasma" state as the hydrogen around but it would remain there, its atoms would remain there and the much more heavy and dense atoms than the hydrogen atoms around would constitute a much more dense core that could perfectly exist today and forever in the life of the star.
It is possible and I think it is a possibility that must be considered seriously.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 23 2006, 05:22 PM)
What do you mean by "no asteroid could possibly survive that heat"? If there was an asteroid at the begining it cannot disappear!
The intermolecular bonds which hold an asteroid together (though a tiny bit of gravity helps) are destroyed when an object is heated into plasma. It would be like melting an ice cube in boiling water, the asteroid would be disintegrated and then absorbed into the plasma.
The heavier ions do tend to contrigate towards the middle but there's no centre core of only heavy elements, like the Earth has, must of it is still hydrogen which is slowly undergoing fusion.
Having a more dense core would not make any difference to the orbit of planets because you still end up with a spherically symmetric situation. You have to come up with a mechanism which permenantly keeps the core of the sun highly asymmetric. Since no such mechanism is even hypothesised, it's not a serious worry to people studying the sun. It is mostly spherically symmetric with an axis of rotation which does play some part in it's dynamics.
The intermolecular bonds which hold an asteroid together (though a tiny bit of gravity helps) are destroyed when an object is heated into plasma. It would be like melting an ice cube in boiling water, the asteroid would be disintegrated and then absorbed into the plasma.
The heavier ions do tend to contrigate towards the middle but there's no centre core of only heavy elements, like the Earth has, must of it is still hydrogen which is slowly undergoing fusion.
Having a more dense core would not make any difference to the orbit of planets because you still end up with a spherically symmetric situation. You have to come up with a mechanism which permenantly keeps the core of the sun highly asymmetric. Since no such mechanism is even hypothesised, it's not a serious worry to people studying the sun. It is mostly spherically symmetric with an axis of rotation which does play some part in it's dynamics.
alphanumeric,
May be you are right and an "asteroid" in the core is not enough.
Much work still remains to be done, I admit.
I'm working about...
QUOTE
You have to come up with a mechanism which permenantly keeps the core of the sun highly asymmetric. Since no such mechanism is even hypothesised, it's not a serious worry to people studying the sun.
May be you are right and an "asteroid" in the core is not enough.
Much work still remains to be done, I admit.
I'm working about...
Here's a bit more on the sound thing martillo.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast09mar_1.htm
"An active region on the side of the Sun facing away from the Earth (the far side) causes sound waves, represented by blue arcs, that travel through the interior, bounce once off the surface, and reach the side facing the Earth (the near side). The waves generate ripples on the near side surface and are reflected back toward the active region. An active region reveals itself because it possesses very strong magnetic fields that speed up the sound waves. Waves that pass through an active region have a round trip travel time about twelve seconds shorter than the average of 6 hours. The difference becomes evident when sound waves shuttling back and forth get out of step with one another...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast09mar_1.htm
"An active region on the side of the Sun facing away from the Earth (the far side) causes sound waves, represented by blue arcs, that travel through the interior, bounce once off the surface, and reach the side facing the Earth (the near side). The waves generate ripples on the near side surface and are reflected back toward the active region. An active region reveals itself because it possesses very strong magnetic fields that speed up the sound waves. Waves that pass through an active region have a round trip travel time about twelve seconds shorter than the average of 6 hours. The difference becomes evident when sound waves shuttling back and forth get out of step with one another...
I must make a correction in a past post (edition seem to be disabled after 24 hs):
The factor "s" cancels out when the electric and magnetic forces are in equilibrium bt there exist another factor "f(v)" in the magnetic field related to the De Broglie formula which makes the equilibrium distance be velocity dependent.
Atoms and molecules have a structure that is velocity dependent which make clocks velocity dependent.
QUOTE
The key feature is that, in the new theories, the classic electric and magnetic fields are corrected to have a factor "s" related to the well known relativistic "k" which is velocity dependent. This way clocks, made by atoms, are velocity dependent but due to their velocity dependent internal structure.
The factor "s" cancels out when the electric and magnetic forces are in equilibrium bt there exist another factor "f(v)" in the magnetic field related to the De Broglie formula which makes the equilibrium distance be velocity dependent.
Atoms and molecules have a structure that is velocity dependent which make clocks velocity dependent.
farsight,
Thanks for the link.
The interior of the Sun will be revealed some day.
I beleive Newton's Gravity Force Law is right and for me Mercury's precession is just an evidence that "something else" exist in the core of the Sun.
Thanks for the link.
The interior of the Sun will be revealed some day.
I beleive Newton's Gravity Force Law is right and for me Mercury's precession is just an evidence that "something else" exist in the core of the Sun.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 10:28 AM)
I beleive Newton's Gravity Force Law is right
It isn't. You can demonstrate it with more than just the orbit of Mercury. There are experiments involving gravity which Newton just can't explain unless you set about modifiying it. The theory he laid out over 300 years ago is not totally true, that is unescapable.
It isn't. You can demonstrate it with more than just the orbit of Mercury. There are experiments involving gravity which Newton just can't explain unless you set about modifiying it. The theory he laid out over 300 years ago is not totally true, that is unescapable.
alphanumeric,
I'm not demonstarting Newton right by the Mercury's precession. I'm saying that I believe in the classical Newton's Law and the precession shows me that something else is in the core of the Sun and if current theories about the constitution of the stars is not compatible then there could be something wrong with them.
If there are "strange" experiments involving gravity then more research is needed to find what could be happening. For me is wrong the modification that Relativity Theory makes to Newton's Gravity Law. Like with Mercury's precession other interpretations are possible, like with the clocks, current theories believe in relativistic effects, I have found that "matter" structure is velocity dependent, etc, etc.
I admit, I can't prove definetly all that today, much work still remains to be done, I can only tell you now that I have been exploring new ways that seem to be possible and they are very interesting...
QUOTE
It isn't. You can demonstrate it with more than just the orbit of Mercury. There are experiments involving gravity which Newton just can't explain unless you set about modifiying it. The theory he laid out over 300 years ago is not totally true, that is unescapable.
I'm not demonstarting Newton right by the Mercury's precession. I'm saying that I believe in the classical Newton's Law and the precession shows me that something else is in the core of the Sun and if current theories about the constitution of the stars is not compatible then there could be something wrong with them.
If there are "strange" experiments involving gravity then more research is needed to find what could be happening. For me is wrong the modification that Relativity Theory makes to Newton's Gravity Law. Like with Mercury's precession other interpretations are possible, like with the clocks, current theories believe in relativistic effects, I have found that "matter" structure is velocity dependent, etc, etc.
I admit, I can't prove definetly all that today, much work still remains to be done, I can only tell you now that I have been exploring new ways that seem to be possible and they are very interesting...
If you came up with some mechanism by which the sun was highly assymetric (you'd need to rewrite solar dynamics though!) you still wouldn't explain gravitational time dilation as demonstrated by the GPS system. Newton's gravity simply cannot explain that and no about of altering the internal make up of the Earth will sort that out!
Hence I am right when saying Newton's theory is wrong in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's good enough to use in the vast majority of cases but ultimately it falls down in too many places where extreme accuracy is important.
Hence I am right when saying Newton's theory is wrong in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's good enough to use in the vast majority of cases but ultimately it falls down in too many places where extreme accuracy is important.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 24 2006, 01:56 PM)
...hence I am right when saying Newton's theory is wrong in the grand scheme of things...
The Newton law is local theory by the same way, like the relativity theory. The tiny bit of elastic foam exhibits pretty harmonic motion, alternating the less and more dense places periodically. Whenever such foam becomes large, the dense places start attract/condense the other waves inside such foam less or more temporarily and above certain size/energy density such foam simply becomes metastable, having tendency to collapse into (nearly) singularities in these places.
Does such behavior violate the Newton inertia law? You decide.
I can say easily, such behavior is just the result of Newton inertia law, instead.
Furthermore, the wave equation isn't the EXACT model of Newton inertia law, because its derivation contains linearization assumption of energy dependency to amplitude. Whenever you're working with wave equation, you're NOT WORKING with exact Newton inertia law, just the low distance scale approximation of it from very beginning.
The Newton law is local theory by the same way, like the relativity theory. The tiny bit of elastic foam exhibits pretty harmonic motion, alternating the less and more dense places periodically. Whenever such foam becomes large, the dense places start attract/condense the other waves inside such foam less or more temporarily and above certain size/energy density such foam simply becomes metastable, having tendency to collapse into (nearly) singularities in these places.
Does such behavior violate the Newton inertia law? You decide.
I can say easily, such behavior is just the result of Newton inertia law, instead.
Furthermore, the wave equation isn't the EXACT model of Newton inertia law, because its derivation contains linearization assumption of energy dependency to amplitude. Whenever you're working with wave equation, you're NOT WORKING with exact Newton inertia law, just the low distance scale approximation of it from very beginning.
alphanumeric,
May be, I'm working on that.
May be, I'm working on that.
you still wouldn't explain gravitational time dilation as demonstrated by the GPS system.
Yes I did. There's no such thing as "gravitational time dilation", just "time dilation" only (gravity has no effect) and as I said is due to velocity since the structure of "matter" is velocity dependent. Sattelites travel at "high" velocities" around Earth and all the atomic structure and behavior of the clocks inside are affected.
QUOTE
you'd need to rewrite solar dynamics though!
May be, I'm working on that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you'd need to rewrite solar dynamics though! |
May be, I'm working on that.
you still wouldn't explain gravitational time dilation as demonstrated by the GPS system.
Yes I did. There's no such thing as "gravitational time dilation", just "time dilation" only (gravity has no effect) and as I said is due to velocity since the structure of "matter" is velocity dependent. Sattelites travel at "high" velocities" around Earth and all the atomic structure and behavior of the clocks inside are affected.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 12:47 PM)
May be, I'm working on that.
You do realise it's an enormously complex area which has thousands of highly skilled and intelligent people working on it all around the world already and still much of the sun's behaviour is poorly understood.
What makes you think that you working alone will manage it?
I didn't make the connection before, but are you the author of the 'a new light in physics' website? I thought you were just linking to it to say "this is where I got it from" but if you're the author (your name does seem familiar somehow) then I would guess you're not trying to do this in any kind of scientific way, you're going about it the crank way.
How much magnetohydrodynamics do you know? Fluid mechanics? Real quantum theory? (not the unverified crap on that website). Thermodynamics? You'll need all that for modelling the sun, that's why it's so hard. Not to mention much of it is not analytically solvable due to the large number of interdependent quantities and so you need a few supercomputers to get decent results.
You do realise it's an enormously complex area which has thousands of highly skilled and intelligent people working on it all around the world already and still much of the sun's behaviour is poorly understood.
What makes you think that you working alone will manage it?
I didn't make the connection before, but are you the author of the 'a new light in physics' website? I thought you were just linking to it to say "this is where I got it from" but if you're the author (your name does seem familiar somehow) then I would guess you're not trying to do this in any kind of scientific way, you're going about it the crank way.
How much magnetohydrodynamics do you know? Fluid mechanics? Real quantum theory? (not the unverified crap on that website). Thermodynamics? You'll need all that for modelling the sun, that's why it's so hard. Not to mention much of it is not analytically solvable due to the large number of interdependent quantities and so you need a few supercomputers to get decent results.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 12:47 PM)
Yes I did. There's no "gravitational time dilation", just "time dilation" only (gravity has no effect) and as I said is due to velocity since the structure of "matter" is velocity dependent. Sattelites travel at "high" velocities" around Earth and all the atomic structure and behavior of the clocks inside are affected.
Obviously that's taken into account when working out the programs which calculate your position. That still isn't enough to explain the time difference experienced by the satellites.
alphanumeric,
I believe is not that what is needed, I believe that just something unexpected could be inside the Sun and no supercomputer will tell us that.
I believe is not that what is needed, I believe that just something unexpected could be inside the Sun and no supercomputer will tell us that.
I didn't make the connection before, but are you the author of the 'a new light in physics' website?
Yes.
I'm "doing it" in an independent way trusting Science as much as I can but doubting it all and being conscient that some things could be wrong.
I'm trying to find some truths and in the same way I'm very conscient I make mistakes and errors (may be everyday) many other ones could also make them, even famous ones, even long time trusted ones, even many people at the same time.
I'm "doing it" in an independent way trusting Science as much as I can but doubting it all and being conscient that some things could be wrong.
I'm trying to find some truths and in the same way I'm very conscient I make mistakes and errors (may be everyday) many other ones could also make them, even famous ones, even long time trusted ones, even many people at the same time.
What makes you think that you working alone will manage it?
I'm not sure I will accomplish it but I will try.
QUOTE
You do realise it's an enormously complex area which has thousands of highly skilled and intelligent people working on it all around the world already and still much of the sun's behaviour is poorly understood.
...
How much magnetohydrodynamics do you know? Fluid mechanics? Real quantum theory? (not the unverified crap on that website). Thermodynamics? You'll need all that for modelling the sun, that's why it's so hard. Not to mention much of it is not analytically solvable due to the large number of interdependent quantities and so you need a few supercomputers to get decent results.
...
How much magnetohydrodynamics do you know? Fluid mechanics? Real quantum theory? (not the unverified crap on that website). Thermodynamics? You'll need all that for modelling the sun, that's why it's so hard. Not to mention much of it is not analytically solvable due to the large number of interdependent quantities and so you need a few supercomputers to get decent results.
I believe is not that what is needed, I believe that just something unexpected could be inside the Sun and no supercomputer will tell us that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You do realise it's an enormously complex area which has thousands of highly skilled and intelligent people working on it all around the world already and still much of the sun's behaviour is poorly understood. ... How much magnetohydrodynamics do you know? Fluid mechanics? Real quantum theory? (not the unverified crap on that website). Thermodynamics? You'll need all that for modelling the sun, that's why it's so hard. Not to mention much of it is not analytically solvable due to the large number of interdependent quantities and so you need a few supercomputers to get decent results. |
I believe is not that what is needed, I believe that just something unexpected could be inside the Sun and no supercomputer will tell us that.
I didn't make the connection before, but are you the author of the 'a new light in physics' website?
Yes.
QUOTE
then I would guess you're not trying to do this in any kind of scientific way, you're going about it the crank way.
I'm "doing it" in an independent way trusting Science as much as I can but doubting it all and being conscient that some things could be wrong.
I'm trying to find some truths and in the same way I'm very conscient I make mistakes and errors (may be everyday) many other ones could also make them, even famous ones, even long time trusted ones, even many people at the same time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| then I would guess you're not trying to do this in any kind of scientific way, you're going about it the crank way. |
I'm "doing it" in an independent way trusting Science as much as I can but doubting it all and being conscient that some things could be wrong.
I'm trying to find some truths and in the same way I'm very conscient I make mistakes and errors (may be everyday) many other ones could also make them, even famous ones, even long time trusted ones, even many people at the same time.
What makes you think that you working alone will manage it?
I'm not sure I will accomplish it but I will try.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 03:59 PM)
...independent way trusting Science as much as I can but doubting it all and being conscient that some things could be wrong...
The problem with explanation of Mercury precession of yours is, it doesn't explain the relativistic aberration - and vice versa. If we have a two theories, one of them is able to explain a wider range of phenomena, which theory is supposedly more valid? Furthermore, you should suppose, the double core should exist for all the binary pulsars and quasars exhibiting the relativistic effects.
The problem with explanation of Mercury precession of yours is, it doesn't explain the relativistic aberration - and vice versa. If we have a two theories, one of them is able to explain a wider range of phenomena, which theory is supposedly more valid? Furthermore, you should suppose, the double core should exist for all the binary pulsars and quasars exhibiting the relativistic effects.
Zephir,
I don't know what you mean by "relativistic aberration". Is something related to those binary pulsars and quasars you mention?
May be the new theories don't explain more things just because it haven't been developed enough.
By the way, Ididn't say "double core", just an asymmetry is needed inside but you know, at a first aproach even a double core could be an interesting possibility to analyze.
I don't know what you mean by "relativistic aberration". Is something related to those binary pulsars and quasars you mention?
May be the new theories don't explain more things just because it haven't been developed enough.
By the way, Ididn't say "double core", just an asymmetry is needed inside but you know, at a first aproach even a double core could be an interesting possibility to analyze.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 06:50 PM)
May be the new theories don't explain more things just because it haven't been developed enough.
Well, consider the relativity manifests itself by different phenomena, including the Mercury precession, which is explained qualitatively with high precision. If you want to replace such qualitative approach by some new insight, you should supply the same alternative for the other phenomena.
The worse, you should explain, why just at the case of Sun the relativity isn't working at all and why it should be replaced by the exactly same effect of some core "assymetry". I suppose, you'll be in rather difficult situation.
Well, consider the relativity manifests itself by different phenomena, including the Mercury precession, which is explained qualitatively with high precision. If you want to replace such qualitative approach by some new insight, you should supply the same alternative for the other phenomena.
The worse, you should explain, why just at the case of Sun the relativity isn't working at all and why it should be replaced by the exactly same effect of some core "assymetry". I suppose, you'll be in rather difficult situation.
Zephir,
Not necessarily, different phenomena can have different physical causes.
Not necessarily, different phenomena can have different physical causes.
The worse, you should explain, why just at the case of Sun the relativity isn't working at all and why it should be replaced by the exactly same effect of some core "assymetry". I suppose, you'll be in rather difficult situation.
Not so difficult since Relativity can be discarded by other arguments as already presented in the site.
Yes but with the reserve that what you call "Quantum Physics" I interpret as "Wave Mechanics". I totally agree in the "photon" and the "quantum" of Einstein, Planck, Compton, etc (the real "Quantum Physics") but not in the "waves" of De Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, etc.
Just imagine a Physics where E=mc2 is valid but without Lorentz Transform and its space-time "distortion", where the relation λ=h/mv is valid but there is no wave and any wave-equation, both with a totally different physical meaning.
It is possible!!!
Yes but with the reserve that what you call "Quantum Physics" I interpret as "Wave Mechanics". I totally agree in the "photon" and the "quantum" of Einstein, Planck, Compton, etc (the real "Quantum Physics") but not in the "waves" of De Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, etc.
Just imagine a Physics where E=mc2 is valid but without Lorentz Transform and its space-time "distortion", where the relation λ=h/mv is valid but there is no wave and any wave-equation, both with a totally different physical meaning.
It is possible!!!
I wish you successful year....
Thanks, I'm having one.
What I'm doing is opening a new door in Physics with new ideas totally compatible with all the main experiments already done just bringing new interpretations to some of them and rigorously following Logic and Math and you know, IT WORKS! (of course still much work remains to be done).
I just didn't know it was called that way but I even give a new explanation for "bending of light" in my site. There is a special page dedicated to it.
I'm sorry if the new theories are not presented well enough. I couldn't do it better. I have my own limitations...
The discussion is going nowhere now.
End of the discussion for me.
QUOTE
Well, consider the relativity manifests itself by different phenomena, including the Mercury precession, which is explained qualitatively with high precision. If you want to replace such qualitative approach by some new insight, you should supply the same alternative for the other phenomena.
Not necessarily, different phenomena can have different physical causes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, consider the relativity manifests itself by different phenomena, including the Mercury precession, which is explained qualitatively with high precision. If you want to replace such qualitative approach by some new insight, you should supply the same alternative for the other phenomena. |
Not necessarily, different phenomena can have different physical causes.
The worse, you should explain, why just at the case of Sun the relativity isn't working at all and why it should be replaced by the exactly same effect of some core "assymetry". I suppose, you'll be in rather difficult situation.
Not so difficult since Relativity can be discarded by other arguments as already presented in the site.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 07:33 PM)
Not so difficult since Relativity can be discarded by other arguments as I present in my site.
The problem is, the relativity isn't discarded, because for example the relativistic aberration is working without problem around Sun.
The problem is, the relativity isn't discarded, because for example the relativistic aberration is working without problem around Sun.
Zephir,
You are talking about "bending of light" or "light curvature". There is another explanation for that already presented in the site. Is based in the classical aproach that photons have mass (something impossible in Relativity) but with the new proposition that light usually travels in "trains" of photons (new calculations are needed).
Is wrong to say the new theory doesn't explain some things while the problem is that you haven't read it enough!
You are talking about "bending of light" or "light curvature". There is another explanation for that already presented in the site. Is based in the classical aproach that photons have mass (something impossible in Relativity) but with the new proposition that light usually travels in "trains" of photons (new calculations are needed).
Is wrong to say the new theory doesn't explain some things while the problem is that you haven't read it enough!
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 08:00 PM)
Is wrong to say the new theory doesn't explain some things while the problem is that you haven't read it enough!
So you can start to read my theory instead - and you'll see, the AWT doesn't require any core asymmetry at all. Both the light bending, both the Mercury precession has origin in the density gradient of the Aether, surrounding the Sun. Because the light is spreading through the Aether by the similar mechanism like all the observable matter through Aether, the density gradient affects both the light, both the Mercury by the same way: it slovens the relative speed of object motion near the Sun.
You're not right, the relativity doesn't consider the mass of photon. Even the Newton theory predicts the light bending due the light photon attraction to the massive bodies, but it neglect the increased vacuum density surrounding the Sun (the additional mass of the elastic vacuum, collapsed by the Sun gravity). Therefore the relativistic aberration predicted by Newton theory is just a half of those, predicted by relativity theory, but it has the very same mechanism.
So you can start to read my theory instead - and you'll see, the AWT doesn't require any core asymmetry at all. Both the light bending, both the Mercury precession has origin in the density gradient of the Aether, surrounding the Sun. Because the light is spreading through the Aether by the similar mechanism like all the observable matter through Aether, the density gradient affects both the light, both the Mercury by the same way: it slovens the relative speed of object motion near the Sun.
You're not right, the relativity doesn't consider the mass of photon. Even the Newton theory predicts the light bending due the light photon attraction to the massive bodies, but it neglect the increased vacuum density surrounding the Sun (the additional mass of the elastic vacuum, collapsed by the Sun gravity). Therefore the relativistic aberration predicted by Newton theory is just a half of those, predicted by relativity theory, but it has the very same mechanism.
Zephir,
Sorry but I already know that your theory agree with the "Wave Mechanics" Theory of Schrodinger, Dirac, etc wich is a basic "brick" of yours. That theory is hown wrong in mine showing that there is no wave associated to matter and just a "wave-like" behavior perfectly explained with the proposed electro-magnetic structures of the elementary particles.
This way, if there are no waves, an "aether" has no reason to exist.
Your theory also agree with Relativity in the space-time "distortion" (lenght contraction, time dilation, etc) and with mine that is simply false.
Sorry but I already know that your theory agree with the "Wave Mechanics" Theory of Schrodinger, Dirac, etc wich is a basic "brick" of yours. That theory is hown wrong in mine showing that there is no wave associated to matter and just a "wave-like" behavior perfectly explained with the proposed electro-magnetic structures of the elementary particles.
This way, if there are no waves, an "aether" has no reason to exist.
Your theory also agree with Relativity in the space-time "distortion" (lenght contraction, time dilation, etc) and with mine that is simply false.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 10:11 PM)
those theories are shown wrong in mine ... this way an "aether" has no reason to exist.
So you don't believe both in aether, both in relativity/quantum theory? I wish you successful year....
So you don't believe both in aether, both in relativity/quantum theory? I wish you successful year....
QUOTE
So you don't believe both in aether, both in relativity/quantum theory?
Yes but with the reserve that what you call "Quantum Physics" I interpret as "Wave Mechanics". I totally agree in the "photon" and the "quantum" of Einstein, Planck, Compton, etc (the real "Quantum Physics") but not in the "waves" of De Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, etc.
Just imagine a Physics where E=mc2 is valid but without Lorentz Transform and its space-time "distortion", where the relation λ=h/mv is valid but there is no wave and any wave-equation, both with a totally different physical meaning.
It is possible!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you don't believe both in aether, both in relativity/quantum theory? |
Yes but with the reserve that what you call "Quantum Physics" I interpret as "Wave Mechanics". I totally agree in the "photon" and the "quantum" of Einstein, Planck, Compton, etc (the real "Quantum Physics") but not in the "waves" of De Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, etc.
Just imagine a Physics where E=mc2 is valid but without Lorentz Transform and its space-time "distortion", where the relation λ=h/mv is valid but there is no wave and any wave-equation, both with a totally different physical meaning.
It is possible!!!
I wish you successful year....
Thanks, I'm having one.
Lorentz transforms don't literally warp space-time, they show the different, but equivalent views that different inertial frames see. They certainly work in practice, such as in particle accelerator experiments for high energy collisions.
If you're talking about the 'new light in physics' ideas, you've zero proof for any of it and you're trying to sweep aside physics which has decades of experiments behind it.
If you're talking about the 'new light in physics' ideas, you've zero proof for any of it and you're trying to sweep aside physics which has decades of experiments behind it.
QUOTE
If you're talking about the 'new light in physics' ideas, you've zero proof for any of it and you're trying to sweep aside physics which has decades of experiments behind it.
What I'm doing is opening a new door in Physics with new ideas totally compatible with all the main experiments already done just bringing new interpretations to some of them and rigorously following Logic and Math and you know, IT WORKS! (of course still much work remains to be done).
How can you say it's all compatible and works when you've practically no experimental predictions and you don't even know about the tests of general relativity aside from the precession of Mercury?
You can't say "It works for everything" when you don't know all the possible tests?
You can't say "It works for everything" when you don't know all the possible tests?
How do you know what I know and what I don't?
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 24 2006, 11:29 PM)
...Just imagine a Physics where E=mc2 is valid but without Lorentz Transform and its space-time "distortion", where the relation λ=h/mv is valid but there is no wave and any wave-equation, both with a totally different physical meaning..
I can imagine the physic modeled only by torsion fields, pin-point particle interactions or just by strings - but each such approach is not very complete, because it lacks the other insights. For example the quantum physic has at least an eight of mainstream interpretations, each is described by quite different math, nevertheless all they have the same physical meaning.
I can imagine the physic modeled only by torsion fields, pin-point particle interactions or just by strings - but each such approach is not very complete, because it lacks the other insights. For example the quantum physic has at least an eight of mainstream interpretations, each is described by quite different math, nevertheless all they have the same physical meaning.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 25 2006, 09:58 AM)
How do you know what I know and what I don't?
You just admitted to not knowing what "relativistic aberration" is, not to mention your website shows a profound misunderstanding of physics and the requirement for experimental evidence for a theory.
For instance, you make the statement that a particle exhibiting wave diffraction implies internal structure. Not so. You claim a certain layout for the helium atom, ignoring the fact you can experimentally demonstrate it is spherically symmetric. You think a neutrino is involved in pair production, yet this is not seen experimentally, not to mention breaks the laws of momentum conservation and lepton number conservation.
That should be enough for you to think about for now
You just admitted to not knowing what "relativistic aberration" is, not to mention your website shows a profound misunderstanding of physics and the requirement for experimental evidence for a theory.
For instance, you make the statement that a particle exhibiting wave diffraction implies internal structure. Not so. You claim a certain layout for the helium atom, ignoring the fact you can experimentally demonstrate it is spherically symmetric. You think a neutrino is involved in pair production, yet this is not seen experimentally, not to mention breaks the laws of momentum conservation and lepton number conservation.
That should be enough for you to think about for now
QUOTE
You just admitted to not knowing what "relativistic aberration" is
I just didn't know it was called that way but I even give a new explanation for "bending of light" in my site. There is a special page dedicated to it.
I'm sorry if the new theories are not presented well enough. I couldn't do it better. I have my own limitations...
The discussion is going nowhere now.
End of the discussion for me.
alphanumeric,
Your comments show me you have read something of the new theories. I appreciate that.
Why not?
Current theories talks about elementary particles as "quarks" but do not tell what are them exactly. Do you assume them as "spheric things"? There is a hole in the theories here.
I do give a precise structure and shape and show how they can produce the "wave like" behavior. Current theories tell us we must admit a called "wave-particle duality" what I don't accept as something valid. Half "particle" (without telling what is meant by that word) and half "wave" has no sense for me.
Why not?
Current theories talks about elementary particles as "quarks" but do not tell what are them exactly. Do you assume them as "spheric things"? There is a hole in the theories here.
I do give a precise structure and shape and show how they can produce the "wave like" behavior. Current theories tell us we must admit a called "wave-particle duality" what I don't accept as something valid. Half "particle" (without telling what is meant by that word) and half "wave" has no sense for me.
You claim a certain layout for the helium atom, ignoring the fact you can experimentally demonstrate it is spherically symmetric.
How is that since helium atom as any atom has a central nucleus and electrons outside? What do you say is spheric, the nucleus? As a concentration of protons and neutrons it can seem spheric at far distances but as we know it has two isolated protons it cannot be really spheric anyway! May be more accurate experiments should be needed...
How can you say that while neutrinos is something really difficult to observe? Do you realize that only recently some big laboratories have been built to find some few neutrinos? Do you realize that a very sophysticated apparatus is needed to add to that other apparatus which the pair creation and annihilation has been observed? This haven't been done since never before whas even theorized about the possibility od neutrinos in the creation/annihilation processes.
Furthermore the new theory predicts neutrinos with variable mass and that involved in the creation/annihilation have neglihible mass and energy.
How can you say that while neutrinos is something really difficult to observe? Do you realize that only recently some big laboratories have been built to find some few neutrinos? Do you realize that a very sophysticated apparatus is needed to add to that other apparatus which the pair creation and annihilation has been observed? This haven't been done since never before whas even theorized about the possibility od neutrinos in the creation/annihilation processes.
Furthermore the new theory predicts neutrinos with variable mass and that involved in the creation/annihilation have neglihible mass and energy.
not to mention breaks the laws of momentum conservation and lepton number conservation.
I remember we have discussed this in a past thread but it could have ended without a good conclusion.
I think there is a problem in the measurement of the momentum you mention. Actually what you measure and balance in the creation/annihilation processes is the spin. I tell you in the past that in the current theories the spin is not conservated since you have 1/2 spin for the electron and the positron while two photons with spin=1 on the other side!
You answered that you could give signs to those spins and find a balance if it is considered +1/2-1/2=+1-1=0 but I don't think is a good balance.
The new theories shows what exactly the spin is (Section 4.11 "The spin") and you can see how strong magnetic fields are "hidden" in the particles structures because the average magnetic field at some distance is very small. The spin is a measure about this average and oes not tell exactly about the real fields inside. This way the spin is not a precise measure of the angular momentum of the elementary particles and the law of conservation of momentum cannot be verified by the spin in all cases particularly in the creation/annihilation processes.
I think the conservation of the angular momentum is verified by the model presented for the creation annihilation processes while there is no conservation of the spin.
Finally I don't now what the "lepton number" physically means. All what I can say now is that the new theories require a totally new "Subatomic Model".
Your comments show me you have read something of the new theories. I appreciate that.
QUOTE
For instance, you make the statement that a particle exhibiting wave diffraction implies internal structure. Not so.
Why not?
Current theories talks about elementary particles as "quarks" but do not tell what are them exactly. Do you assume them as "spheric things"? There is a hole in the theories here.
I do give a precise structure and shape and show how they can produce the "wave like" behavior. Current theories tell us we must admit a called "wave-particle duality" what I don't accept as something valid. Half "particle" (without telling what is meant by that word) and half "wave" has no sense for me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For instance, you make the statement that a particle exhibiting wave diffraction implies internal structure. Not so. |
Why not?
Current theories talks about elementary particles as "quarks" but do not tell what are them exactly. Do you assume them as "spheric things"? There is a hole in the theories here.
I do give a precise structure and shape and show how they can produce the "wave like" behavior. Current theories tell us we must admit a called "wave-particle duality" what I don't accept as something valid. Half "particle" (without telling what is meant by that word) and half "wave" has no sense for me.
You claim a certain layout for the helium atom, ignoring the fact you can experimentally demonstrate it is spherically symmetric.
How is that since helium atom as any atom has a central nucleus and electrons outside? What do you say is spheric, the nucleus? As a concentration of protons and neutrons it can seem spheric at far distances but as we know it has two isolated protons it cannot be really spheric anyway! May be more accurate experiments should be needed...
QUOTE
You think a neutrino is involved in pair production, yet this is not seen experimentally
How can you say that while neutrinos is something really difficult to observe? Do you realize that only recently some big laboratories have been built to find some few neutrinos? Do you realize that a very sophysticated apparatus is needed to add to that other apparatus which the pair creation and annihilation has been observed? This haven't been done since never before whas even theorized about the possibility od neutrinos in the creation/annihilation processes.
Furthermore the new theory predicts neutrinos with variable mass and that involved in the creation/annihilation have neglihible mass and energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You think a neutrino is involved in pair production, yet this is not seen experimentally |
How can you say that while neutrinos is something really difficult to observe? Do you realize that only recently some big laboratories have been built to find some few neutrinos? Do you realize that a very sophysticated apparatus is needed to add to that other apparatus which the pair creation and annihilation has been observed? This haven't been done since never before whas even theorized about the possibility od neutrinos in the creation/annihilation processes.
Furthermore the new theory predicts neutrinos with variable mass and that involved in the creation/annihilation have neglihible mass and energy.
not to mention breaks the laws of momentum conservation and lepton number conservation.
I remember we have discussed this in a past thread but it could have ended without a good conclusion.
I think there is a problem in the measurement of the momentum you mention. Actually what you measure and balance in the creation/annihilation processes is the spin. I tell you in the past that in the current theories the spin is not conservated since you have 1/2 spin for the electron and the positron while two photons with spin=1 on the other side!
You answered that you could give signs to those spins and find a balance if it is considered +1/2-1/2=+1-1=0 but I don't think is a good balance.
The new theories shows what exactly the spin is (Section 4.11 "The spin") and you can see how strong magnetic fields are "hidden" in the particles structures because the average magnetic field at some distance is very small. The spin is a measure about this average and oes not tell exactly about the real fields inside. This way the spin is not a precise measure of the angular momentum of the elementary particles and the law of conservation of momentum cannot be verified by the spin in all cases particularly in the creation/annihilation processes.
I think the conservation of the angular momentum is verified by the model presented for the creation annihilation processes while there is no conservation of the spin.
Finally I don't now what the "lepton number" physically means. All what I can say now is that the new theories require a totally new "Subatomic Model".
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
Current theories talks about elementary particles as "quarks" but do not tell what are them exactly. Do you assume them as "spheric things"? There is a hole in the theories here.
They are modelled as points, they have no shape. They can still diffract though.
They are modelled as points, they have no shape. They can still diffract though.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
Current theories tell us we must admit a called "wave-particle duality" what I don't accept as something valid. Half "particle" (without telling what is meant by that word) and half "wave" has no sense for me.
Why do you assume that macroscope notions must apply to the subatomic world? If quantum mechanics has taught us anything it's that the world of the very small is a much stranger place than the every day world. You say a subatomic object can't be both wave and particle but why not? Why can't there be a third 'state', which shares the properties of what we'd associate with projectiles and waves on a large scale?
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
How is that since helium atom as any atom has a central nucleus and electrons outside?
That doesn't mean it can't be spherically symmetric.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
How can you say that while neutrinos is something really difficult to observe? Do you realize that only recently some big laboratories have been built to find some few neutrinos? Do you realize that a very sophysticated apparatus is needed to add to that other apparatus which the pair creation and annihilation has been observed? This haven't been done since never before whas even theorized about the possibility od neutrinos in the creation/annihilation processes.
Something was known to be involved in things like neutron -> proton + electron decay because energy and momentum conservation was broken otherwise, not to mention lepton number. Hence while you couldn't see it, you could infer the existence of the neutrino.
For a reaction like photon -> electron+positron or electron+positron -> photons, there is no need for the neutrino to play a part because energy and momentum is already conserved in those reactions.
For a reaction like photon -> electron+positron or electron+positron -> photons, there is no need for the neutrino to play a part because energy and momentum is already conserved in those reactions.
QUOTE (martillo+Oct 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
Finally I don't now what the "lepton number" physically means.
Electron, muon, tau and their neutrinos have a lepton number of +1. Their antimatter equivalents have a lepton number of -1. Like charge, this quantity is conserved during reactions. It's possible to violate due to chiral behaviour, but extremely rare. Certainly nothing close to the level of common reactions like pair creation/annihilation. You're trying to fight experimental fact here, not a theory.
About the quarks you wrote:
How then they have spin which is by defnition the magnetic dipole? You must consider that by definition a magnetic field can only be generated by a displacement of charge.
About an atom:
How then they have spin which is by defnition the magnetic dipole? You must consider that by definition a magnetic field can only be generated by a displacement of charge.
About an atom:
That doesn't mean it can't be spherically symmetric.
How can it be?
I don't see how it can be.
I don't see how it can be.
Something was known to be involved in things like neutron -> proton + electron decay because energy and momentum conservation was broken otherwise, not to mention lepton number. Hence while you couldn't see it, you could infer the existence of the neutrino.
For a reaction like photon -> electron+positron or electron+positron -> photons, there is no need for the neutrino to play a part because energy and momentum is already conserved in those reactions.
Well, sometimes their presence doesn't make the difference.
Have you realized that current energy balance for the creation/annihilation process fails? The mass of the electron and the positron added equals the energy of the two produced photons but what about the energy due to the Electric Field? As opposite charged there is an Electrci Field between them and as the positron and the electron are brought together or separated there is an energy variation equal to the Electric Potential between them which aproaches infinite while distance becomes zero! This energy is not taken into account in current theories. My new theories do.
We got out of topic too much...
No, the last update on the Mercury's precession page was about how a star like the Sun could present such non-uniformity in its mass distribution and as it is said in the page now I thought the Sun could actually be composed by the fusion of two smaller stars but not totally fusionated. I think it is possible although may be other possibilities could exist to explain the non-uniformity. What do you think about?
And how do you really know?
And how?
A very small non-uniformity would be neglihible at far distances like Earth planet and would only affect slightly Mercury the nearer in its precession only.
Which gravitational effect or phenomenon do you think contradicts the non-uniformity assumption?
How do you know the two cores would merge immediately and not take thousands of years to fuse completely? It would depend on how the two stars "meet" what would depend on relative positions and velocities. Lot of ways are possible. May be some would happen fast while others could take lot of time.
You are just theorizing about possibilities. This doesn't demonstrate any contradiction to the possible small non-uniformity in the mass distribution of the Sun. I can theorize the same way to bring compatible results.
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
You're sketchy hypothesis is nonsense. GR accounts for the natural precession so we don't need proposals from cranks.
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
You think the mainstream is some kind of conspiracy to keep nonsense out of the scientific literature.
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. For me they have a different physical meaning. For example De Broglie's lambda is a length in the basic particles not a wavelength.
Just unhappy coincidences...
Just to clarify that I don't think there's a conspiracy or something like that in current Physics as brucep said.
I don't think scientists are idiots. I just think they would need a new "door" opened for them.
As I say at the main page of the site: "That's what I'm blowing away, very bad, unlucky and unhappy coincidences that make everybody think wrong."
Sorry but there's no rule to make a discovery in any area, not even in Physics. Where it is stated that to make a discovery in Physics is strictly necessary to have a high degree? Is it a Physics' law?
Some things can happen in a very unexpected way.
Take just for example: who invented the plane? Was it a high degree physicist or a well paid engineer? No, were two bicycle fixers, Wright brothers...
QUOTE
They are modelled as points, they have no shape.
How then they have spin which is by defnition the magnetic dipole? You must consider that by definition a magnetic field can only be generated by a displacement of charge.
About an atom:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They are modelled as points, they have no shape. |
How then they have spin which is by defnition the magnetic dipole? You must consider that by definition a magnetic field can only be generated by a displacement of charge.
About an atom:
That doesn't mean it can't be spherically symmetric.
How can it be?
QUOTE
Why can't there be a third 'state', which shares the properties of what we'd associate with projectiles and waves on a large scale?
I don't see how it can be.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why can't there be a third 'state', which shares the properties of what we'd associate with projectiles and waves on a large scale? |
I don't see how it can be.
Something was known to be involved in things like neutron -> proton + electron decay because energy and momentum conservation was broken otherwise, not to mention lepton number. Hence while you couldn't see it, you could infer the existence of the neutrino.
For a reaction like photon -> electron+positron or electron+positron -> photons, there is no need for the neutrino to play a part because energy and momentum is already conserved in those reactions.
Well, sometimes their presence doesn't make the difference.
Have you realized that current energy balance for the creation/annihilation process fails? The mass of the electron and the positron added equals the energy of the two produced photons but what about the energy due to the Electric Field? As opposite charged there is an Electrci Field between them and as the positron and the electron are brought together or separated there is an energy variation equal to the Electric Potential between them which aproaches infinite while distance becomes zero! This energy is not taken into account in current theories. My new theories do.
We got out of topic too much...
Mercury precession (Newton's theory deviation of: 43 angle seconds per century )
1． Kepler's idea of the same gravity as the car spoke, on the one hand to maintain the planets in their orbits can not run away (ie the components), on the other hand, with the sun's rotation around the sun forced planetary rotation (that is tangential component) . I use Cavendish torsion balance has been measured rotating the ball around the vortex of existence, and that formula. Use of vortex force & Newton's gravitational the new formula, explain and calculate a lot of problems. The prediction of general relativity - inertial system drag (frame dragging) should be the vortex force.
2． By Kepler's idea of the sun's magnetic lines of a similar thing, we may wish to call it gravity line, The sun's rotation gravity-driven rotary, scroll to the transfer of the planets, scroll to the transfer of planets. The planets corner speed is less than the sun's rotation velocity resulting precession. Moon, too, was angular momentum away from Earth. If the satellite is the corner speed of the earth's rotation velocity, the satellite is not cutting gravity line from the vortex of . Geostationary satellite is the case. If the satellite is greater than the corner of the earth's rotation velocity speed, scroll of satellite impede movement, the angular momentum to reduce satellite orbit decay decline , thousands of man-made celestial bodies are so, the Mars satellite Phobos as well.
3． No rotation of the sun's or rotation corner velocity is less than the rotation corner speed of Mercury, Mercury can not be precession, moving instead to retire. So with the solution of Schwarzschild Mercury precession [Newton's theory of deviation], I can not agree. If the inertial system drag of general theory of relativity to explain the Mercury precession, I think But good. Einstein was the problem with Mercury moving into the capture of the stronghold of Newton, is now a directional errors.
4. Solve the Mercury precession [Newton's theory of deviation] There are many ways to the present, there is more than 10 domestic, but with the added vortex of gravitational theory to explain primary and secondary school students will be able to understand [qualitative analysis] and high school students can quantitative analysis.
5. Reflection: no force act, no angular momentum transfer, no energy conversion, the Mercury can precession [Newton's theory of deviation]？？
1． Kepler's idea of the same gravity as the car spoke, on the one hand to maintain the planets in their orbits can not run away (ie the components), on the other hand, with the sun's rotation around the sun forced planetary rotation (that is tangential component) . I use Cavendish torsion balance has been measured rotating the ball around the vortex of existence, and that formula. Use of vortex force & Newton's gravitational the new formula, explain and calculate a lot of problems. The prediction of general relativity - inertial system drag (frame dragging) should be the vortex force.
2． By Kepler's idea of the sun's magnetic lines of a similar thing, we may wish to call it gravity line, The sun's rotation gravity-driven rotary, scroll to the transfer of the planets, scroll to the transfer of planets. The planets corner speed is less than the sun's rotation velocity resulting precession. Moon, too, was angular momentum away from Earth. If the satellite is the corner speed of the earth's rotation velocity, the satellite is not cutting gravity line from the vortex of . Geostationary satellite is the case. If the satellite is greater than the corner of the earth's rotation velocity speed, scroll of satellite impede movement, the angular momentum to reduce satellite orbit decay decline , thousands of man-made celestial bodies are so, the Mars satellite Phobos as well.
3． No rotation of the sun's or rotation corner velocity is less than the rotation corner speed of Mercury, Mercury can not be precession, moving instead to retire. So with the solution of Schwarzschild Mercury precession [Newton's theory of deviation], I can not agree. If the inertial system drag of general theory of relativity to explain the Mercury precession, I think But good. Einstein was the problem with Mercury moving into the capture of the stronghold of Newton, is now a directional errors.
4. Solve the Mercury precession [Newton's theory of deviation] There are many ways to the present, there is more than 10 domestic, but with the added vortex of gravitational theory to explain primary and secondary school students will be able to understand [qualitative analysis] and high school students can quantitative analysis.
5. Reflection: no force act, no angular momentum transfer, no energy conversion, the Mercury can precession [Newton's theory of deviation]？？
zyh
I like your thoughts, just wish I could completely understand your approach
It seems to be along my lines of thought, but then again I might be just imagining
I like your thoughts, just wish I could completely understand your approach
It seems to be along my lines of thought, but then again I might be just imagining
Edit.
Zarkov
Your ideas can be realized.
vortex force Introduction of
In the beginning of the last century, Astrophysicists face a problem, Mercury recently at the precession (Newton's theory deviation of: 43 angle seconds per century ), This is the quote the classics scholars can not explain, and it is not Newton's theory of classical mechanics adopted by a storm. Then only 37-year-old in 1916 Einstein published the《〈basis of general relativity〉》，Schwarzschild Metric German mathematician in the field equations of general relativity to the Mercury precession of the mystery，Mercury precession was therefore established the general theory of relativity early as the first major experiment. Later measured the Earth, Venus and other planets has also point precession of the general theory of relativity and the calculation of anastomosis with good results. Mercury precession and in the light deflection in the gravitational field, the gravitational redshift spectra of the three major criterion known as general relativity.
In the beginning of the new century, have an astrophysicist at the problems facing the front ，This is NASA launched the "pioneers 10" "Galilean slightly," four spacecraft speed reduction. American scientists through 10 years of observation, found space for the role of a slowdown The effect is tiny - only about one part in 10bn of that due to the Earth's gravity acting on you right now - but it is definitely there. So some scientists questioned Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation,
However, while some scientists believe that the best flight path is based on the parameters calculated, it is too early to doubt the basic law. We explore the long-term, in 2001, with Cavendish balance is measured not only by gravity to the component (that is, Newton's gravity), but also the existence of the tangential component, and that formula. To our planet, as an example, in addition to the original gravity (ie to the component), with the rotation of the earth, there are around in the vortex force of its (tangential component) the existence of ,The vortex force of (that is tangential component) and the Earth's rotation rate is proportional relationship. In the gravitational theory to elect representatives, it seems that non-Kepler, Newton and Einstein to my mind. It is worth noting that three representatives in the two agree that planets or stars in the rotation around a vortex. Kepler's idea of the same gravity as the car spoke, on the one hand to maintain the planets in their orbits can not run away (ie the components), on the other hand, with the sun's rotation around the sun forced planetary rotation (that is tangential component) . Einstein's general theory of relativity in there is a little-known forecast to be tested, the framework called gravitational drag [frame dragging]. When a planet or star rotation in space, it will drag space-time in its surrounding. This is very like the following example, when you filled with water in the bowl, one ball, and their rotation, the surface will be generated by the friction of water along the direction of rotation drag ball, the ball near the water in the rotation faster, the farther away from the ball, the friction of water drag effect will be weak. Newton's theory does not recognize the planet's rotation a scroll, so could not pass on Newton's theory of the "Mercury precession," this hurdle, a spacecraft can slow down this hurdle, Not only that, in many helpless astronomical phenomena, such as the angular momentum of the solar system, Venus reverse rotation problems…… .
Practice is the sole criterion for testing theory, laboratory come to the conclusion also subject to the test of practice can rise to the theory. use of vortex & gravitational force formula, explain and calculate the following questions.
vortex force of 12 major criterion [quantitative calculation, high school students can master]
1. . the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
2. Venus precession 8.4 "± 4.8" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
3. Earth's precession 5.0 "± 1.2" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
4. "Pioneers 10" four spacecraft speed reduction. ( slowdown by the the acceleration : one part in 10 billion of gravity at Earth's surface )
5.the moon Away from the Earth (3 cm per year).
6. Cycle of the Earth's rotation slows down. (Per hundred years 0.00164 s] ，
7. Coriolis force whereabouts eastward.
8. Around Mars Phobos campaign cycle to slow down the week 0.1 ms
9. Sun-synchronous orbit satellite orbital plane precession; altitude of 900 km polar orbit satellite orbital plane precession of the daily 1 degree. The orbital plane of the vertical scroll relatively static, the situation in order to prove Scroll of the accuracy of the vortex force and an excellent opportunity.
10. Oblate of the Earth , 5 × 10-5m/s2. On the Global Positioning System GPS satellite orbit produces nearly 10,000 meters every day the impact of this phenomenon of vortex theory can be used to explain and calculate. Satellite orbit calculation of the largest perturbation of the - non-perturbation of the ball, not the flat rate from the Earth, but the role of the vortex.
11. Solar wind acceleration: time to reach the Earth, usually in the jet speed of 450 kilometers per second around.
12. With near 20years explore the more than 300 people each repeated verification; used Cavendish torsion balance measured vortex force of existence, and that formula
New gravitational formula in the 2001 :
F = Fn + Ft
To the weight of Fn = GMm / r ^ 2 -
Tangential component [vortex force] Ft = kGMm ω Cos α / r ^ 2
K = 0.4 for one factor,the unit: sec/cycle ; ω is the angular velocity rotating ball, the unit: cycle / sec; α to the orbital inclination.
Reference: With Cavendish torsion balance experiment measuring gravity tangential component "and" physical communications 2002.9 "
“mysterious vortex force- gravity partner ”Books Author: Zhuyonghuan Publisher: 21st Century Publishing House - China 2005-3
Your ideas can be realized.
vortex force Introduction of
In the beginning of the last century, Astrophysicists face a problem, Mercury recently at the precession (Newton's theory deviation of: 43 angle seconds per century ), This is the quote the classics scholars can not explain, and it is not Newton's theory of classical mechanics adopted by a storm. Then only 37-year-old in 1916 Einstein published the《〈basis of general relativity〉》，Schwarzschild Metric German mathematician in the field equations of general relativity to the Mercury precession of the mystery，Mercury precession was therefore established the general theory of relativity early as the first major experiment. Later measured the Earth, Venus and other planets has also point precession of the general theory of relativity and the calculation of anastomosis with good results. Mercury precession and in the light deflection in the gravitational field, the gravitational redshift spectra of the three major criterion known as general relativity.
In the beginning of the new century, have an astrophysicist at the problems facing the front ，This is NASA launched the "pioneers 10" "Galilean slightly," four spacecraft speed reduction. American scientists through 10 years of observation, found space for the role of a slowdown The effect is tiny - only about one part in 10bn of that due to the Earth's gravity acting on you right now - but it is definitely there. So some scientists questioned Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation,
However, while some scientists believe that the best flight path is based on the parameters calculated, it is too early to doubt the basic law. We explore the long-term, in 2001, with Cavendish balance is measured not only by gravity to the component (that is, Newton's gravity), but also the existence of the tangential component, and that formula. To our planet, as an example, in addition to the original gravity (ie to the component), with the rotation of the earth, there are around in the vortex force of its (tangential component) the existence of ,The vortex force of (that is tangential component) and the Earth's rotation rate is proportional relationship. In the gravitational theory to elect representatives, it seems that non-Kepler, Newton and Einstein to my mind. It is worth noting that three representatives in the two agree that planets or stars in the rotation around a vortex. Kepler's idea of the same gravity as the car spoke, on the one hand to maintain the planets in their orbits can not run away (ie the components), on the other hand, with the sun's rotation around the sun forced planetary rotation (that is tangential component) . Einstein's general theory of relativity in there is a little-known forecast to be tested, the framework called gravitational drag [frame dragging]. When a planet or star rotation in space, it will drag space-time in its surrounding. This is very like the following example, when you filled with water in the bowl, one ball, and their rotation, the surface will be generated by the friction of water along the direction of rotation drag ball, the ball near the water in the rotation faster, the farther away from the ball, the friction of water drag effect will be weak. Newton's theory does not recognize the planet's rotation a scroll, so could not pass on Newton's theory of the "Mercury precession," this hurdle, a spacecraft can slow down this hurdle, Not only that, in many helpless astronomical phenomena, such as the angular momentum of the solar system, Venus reverse rotation problems…… .
Practice is the sole criterion for testing theory, laboratory come to the conclusion also subject to the test of practice can rise to the theory. use of vortex & gravitational force formula, explain and calculate the following questions.
vortex force of 12 major criterion [quantitative calculation, high school students can master]
1. . the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
2. Venus precession 8.4 "± 4.8" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
3. Earth's precession 5.0 "± 1.2" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
4. "Pioneers 10" four spacecraft speed reduction. ( slowdown by the the acceleration : one part in 10 billion of gravity at Earth's surface )
5.the moon Away from the Earth (3 cm per year).
6. Cycle of the Earth's rotation slows down. (Per hundred years 0.00164 s] ，
7. Coriolis force whereabouts eastward.
8. Around Mars Phobos campaign cycle to slow down the week 0.1 ms
9. Sun-synchronous orbit satellite orbital plane precession; altitude of 900 km polar orbit satellite orbital plane precession of the daily 1 degree. The orbital plane of the vertical scroll relatively static, the situation in order to prove Scroll of the accuracy of the vortex force and an excellent opportunity.
10. Oblate of the Earth , 5 × 10-5m/s2. On the Global Positioning System GPS satellite orbit produces nearly 10,000 meters every day the impact of this phenomenon of vortex theory can be used to explain and calculate. Satellite orbit calculation of the largest perturbation of the - non-perturbation of the ball, not the flat rate from the Earth, but the role of the vortex.
11. Solar wind acceleration: time to reach the Earth, usually in the jet speed of 450 kilometers per second around.
12. With near 20years explore the more than 300 people each repeated verification; used Cavendish torsion balance measured vortex force of existence, and that formula
New gravitational formula in the 2001 :
F = Fn + Ft
To the weight of Fn = GMm / r ^ 2 -
Tangential component [vortex force] Ft = kGMm ω Cos α / r ^ 2
K = 0.4 for one factor,the unit: sec/cycle ; ω is the angular velocity rotating ball, the unit: cycle / sec; α to the orbital inclination.
Reference: With Cavendish torsion balance experiment measuring gravity tangential component "and" physical communications 2002.9 "
“mysterious vortex force- gravity partner ”Books Author: Zhuyonghuan Publisher: 21st Century Publishing House - China 2005-3
Mercury precession of the experiment: [do not have to spend money, a quarter of an hour to complete]
A simple experiment. For a line, 50 cm long; fixed line side a small steel ball, which is pendulum. Handheld pendulum top, top-down, the ball straight for the campaign. Hand slightly forced counterclockwise rotation, so that the ball trajectories for the oval. Hand forced to stop static, elliptical trajectory of the ball. Hand slightly forced counterclockwise rotation, can be seen in the anti-clockwise oval precession, That is, the long axis of the ellipse around a focus anti-clockwise rotation; And vice versa, such as hand slightly forced clockwise rotation, Oval can be seen in the clockwise precession, that is, in the long axis of the ellipse around a focus clockwise rotation.
Personally seen: elliptical orbit precession; personally by the flu: the orbit precession reason is force. Newton's gravity to run for the elliptical orbit of Mercury, a vortex of the sun's rotation, As the rotation speed of Mercury's rotation velocity slower than the sun's, the Mercury orbit by the vortex of the role of precession. [Newton's theory of deviation]
Quantitative calculation: [High School]
Basic data: from the Mercury, d = 0.58 × 10 ^ 11m, the quality of the sun Ms = 1.98 × 10 ^ 30kg, the sun's rotation velocity ω s = 4.64 × 10 ^-7rod / s. solar rotation cycle t = 25day ., Eccentricity of e = 0.2
Mercury tangential acceleration at =--- qK ω sMsG / d ^ 2 ----------------. ①
Angular velocity difference: q = 1-25/88 = 0.715
Admission average: at-= 1 / π ∫ 0 → π (at × cos ω td ω t )...... ②
-= (2 / π) at
Mercury moving into a cycle angle d θ; d θ = (1 / 2) at-× t ^ 2 × 360 / 2 π d(1-e ^ 2) ------------- ③
Into the data: d θ =.[ 2 × 0.716 × 0.40 × 4.64 × 10 ^ 7 × 1.98 × 10 ^ 30 × 6.67 × 10 ^- 11 × (25 × 24 × 3600) ^ 2 × 360] /[ 2 × 2 π ^ 2 × (0.581 × 0 ^ 11) ^ 3× (1-0.2 ^ 2) ]
= 7.98 × 10 ^ -6 degrees.
100-year cycle of 1460, the century precession 1.165 × 10 ^ -2 degrees (42 angle seconds); This result and the actual value are more identical.
A simple experiment. For a line, 50 cm long; fixed line side a small steel ball, which is pendulum. Handheld pendulum top, top-down, the ball straight for the campaign. Hand slightly forced counterclockwise rotation, so that the ball trajectories for the oval. Hand forced to stop static, elliptical trajectory of the ball. Hand slightly forced counterclockwise rotation, can be seen in the anti-clockwise oval precession, That is, the long axis of the ellipse around a focus anti-clockwise rotation; And vice versa, such as hand slightly forced clockwise rotation, Oval can be seen in the clockwise precession, that is, in the long axis of the ellipse around a focus clockwise rotation.
Personally seen: elliptical orbit precession; personally by the flu: the orbit precession reason is force. Newton's gravity to run for the elliptical orbit of Mercury, a vortex of the sun's rotation, As the rotation speed of Mercury's rotation velocity slower than the sun's, the Mercury orbit by the vortex of the role of precession. [Newton's theory of deviation]
Quantitative calculation: [High School]
Basic data: from the Mercury, d = 0.58 × 10 ^ 11m, the quality of the sun Ms = 1.98 × 10 ^ 30kg, the sun's rotation velocity ω s = 4.64 × 10 ^-7rod / s. solar rotation cycle t = 25day ., Eccentricity of e = 0.2
Mercury tangential acceleration at =--- qK ω sMsG / d ^ 2 ----------------. ①
Angular velocity difference: q = 1-25/88 = 0.715
Admission average: at-= 1 / π ∫ 0 → π (at × cos ω td ω t )...... ②
-= (2 / π) at
Mercury moving into a cycle angle d θ; d θ = (1 / 2) at-× t ^ 2 × 360 / 2 π d(1-e ^ 2) ------------- ③
Into the data: d θ =.[ 2 × 0.716 × 0.40 × 4.64 × 10 ^ 7 × 1.98 × 10 ^ 30 × 6.67 × 10 ^- 11 × (25 × 24 × 3600) ^ 2 × 360] /[ 2 × 2 π ^ 2 × (0.581 × 0 ^ 11) ^ 3× (1-0.2 ^ 2) ]
= 7.98 × 10 ^ -6 degrees.
100-year cycle of 1460, the century precession 1.165 × 10 ^ -2 degrees (42 angle seconds); This result and the actual value are more identical.
vortex force:
1.Lab vortex force
a.used Cavendish torsion balance measured vortex force of existence, and that formula New gravitational formula in the 2001
2.earth vortex force
a.the moon Away from the Earth (3 cm per year).
b. Cycle of the Earth's rotation slows down. (Per hundred years 0.00164 s] ，
c. Coriolis force whereabouts eastward.
d. Sun-synchronous orbit satellite orbital plane precession; altitude of 900 km polar orbit satellite orbital plane precession of the daily 1 degree. The orbital plane of the vertical scroll relatively static, the situation in order to prove Scroll of the accuracy of the vortex force and an excellent opportunity.
e. Oblate of the Earth , 5 × 10-5m/s2. On the Global Positioning System GPS satellite orbit produces nearly 10,000 meters every day the impact of this phenomenon of vortex theory can be used to explain and calculate. Satellite orbit calculation of the largest perturbation of the - non-perturbation of the ball, not the flat rate from the Earth, but the role of the vortex.
3.solar vortex force
a. Mercury precession 43 "per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
b. Venus precession 8.4 "± 4.8" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
c. Earth's precession 5.0 "± 1.2" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
d. "Pioneers 10" four spacecraft speed reduction.
e. Solar wind acceleration: time to reach the Earth, usually in the jet speed of 450 kilometers per second around.
4. Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, MOND theory).
5.Mars vortex force
a. Around Mars Phobos campaign cycle to slow down.
1.Lab vortex force
a.used Cavendish torsion balance measured vortex force of existence, and that formula New gravitational formula in the 2001
2.earth vortex force
a.the moon Away from the Earth (3 cm per year).
b. Cycle of the Earth's rotation slows down. (Per hundred years 0.00164 s] ，
c. Coriolis force whereabouts eastward.
d. Sun-synchronous orbit satellite orbital plane precession; altitude of 900 km polar orbit satellite orbital plane precession of the daily 1 degree. The orbital plane of the vertical scroll relatively static, the situation in order to prove Scroll of the accuracy of the vortex force and an excellent opportunity.
e. Oblate of the Earth , 5 × 10-5m/s2. On the Global Positioning System GPS satellite orbit produces nearly 10,000 meters every day the impact of this phenomenon of vortex theory can be used to explain and calculate. Satellite orbit calculation of the largest perturbation of the - non-perturbation of the ball, not the flat rate from the Earth, but the role of the vortex.
3.solar vortex force
a. Mercury precession 43 "per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
b. Venus precession 8.4 "± 4.8" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
c. Earth's precession 5.0 "± 1.2" per century. (Newton's theory of deviation values.)
d. "Pioneers 10" four spacecraft speed reduction.
e. Solar wind acceleration: time to reach the Earth, usually in the jet speed of 450 kilometers per second around.
4. Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, MOND theory).
5.Mars vortex force
a. Around Mars Phobos campaign cycle to slow down.
Seismic energy from the moon?
The distance between the Earth and Moon on the Earth's surface as tidal friction role annual increase of nearly 3.8 cm, we calculate the energy exchange year.
Basic Data: Monthly - the distance r = 38.4 × 10 ^ 7M, Me = 6 × 10 ^ 24kg
m = 7.35 × 10 ^ 22kg, h = 0.038 米
mg = GMm / r ^ 2 ①
Year energy exchange: mgh = hGMm / r ^ 2
= 7.58 × 10 ^ 18J
The energy equivalent of China's generating capacity in 2004, with global annual energy of earthquakes close to release. Possible deformation of the vibration energy of the mantle, plate extrusion causing earthquakes.
Reference: vortex force
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/in...p?topic=6217.50
The distance between the Earth and Moon on the Earth's surface as tidal friction role annual increase of nearly 3.8 cm, we calculate the energy exchange year.
Basic Data: Monthly - the distance r = 38.4 × 10 ^ 7M, Me = 6 × 10 ^ 24kg
m = 7.35 × 10 ^ 22kg, h = 0.038 米
mg = GMm / r ^ 2 ①
Year energy exchange: mgh = hGMm / r ^ 2
= 7.58 × 10 ^ 18J
The energy equivalent of China's generating capacity in 2004, with global annual energy of earthquakes close to release. Possible deformation of the vibration energy of the mantle, plate extrusion causing earthquakes.
Reference: vortex force
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/in...p?topic=6217.50
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 23 2005, 11:58 AM)
Please take a look at: Mercury precession
A new interpretation is possible!
If it mentions Mercury I'd better read it!
A new interpretation is possible!
If it mentions Mercury I'd better read it!
This is a very old thread! The site has moved (yahoo closed its geocities service) and updated since then.
Now you can find that at: Appendix B
Now you can find that at: Appendix B
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 05:38 AM)
This is a very old thread! The site has moved (yahoo closed its geocities service) and updated since then.
Now you can find that at: Appendix B
Thanks - @Martillo. Have you any new thoughts on the topic?
Now you can find that at: Appendix B
Thanks - @Martillo. Have you any new thoughts on the topic?
QUOTE
Thanks - @Martillo. Have you any new thoughts on the topic?
No, the last update on the Mercury's precession page was about how a star like the Sun could present such non-uniformity in its mass distribution and as it is said in the page now I thought the Sun could actually be composed by the fusion of two smaller stars but not totally fusionated. I think it is possible although may be other possibilities could exist to explain the non-uniformity. What do you think about?
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 08:07 AM)
No, the last update on the Mercury's precession page was about how a star like the Sun could present such non-uniformity in its mass distribution and as it is said in the page now I thought the Sun could actually be composed by the fusion of two smaller stars but not totally fusionated.
"Fusionated"? Really?
"Fusionated"? Really?
Ok, fusioned...
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 02:02 PM)
Ok, fusioned...
"Fused" is the correct word.
By the way, the Sun is not composed of two stars.
"Fused" is the correct word.
By the way, the Sun is not composed of two stars.
QUOTE
By the way, the Sun is not composed of two stars
And how do you really know?
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 01:39 PM)
And how do you really know?
How do you really know that the sun isn't a big ball of gouda cheese? It's the same color.
How do you really know that the sun isn't a big ball of gouda cheese? It's the same color.
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 7 2011, 06:55 PM)
How do you really know that the sun isn't a big ball of gouda cheese? It's the same color.
It might look like cheese but it doesn’t taste like cheese does it!
It might look like cheese but it doesn’t taste like cheese does it!
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 02:39 PM)
And how do you really know?
Because Gravity.
Because Gravity.
Ha Ha good answer.
Comments like that of AlexG only brings "trolling" to the thread.
Comments like that of AlexG only brings "trolling" to the thread.
QUOTE
Because Gravity.
And how?
A very small non-uniformity would be neglihible at far distances like Earth planet and would only affect slightly Mercury the nearer in its precession only.
Which gravitational effect or phenomenon do you think contradicts the non-uniformity assumption?
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 03:13 PM)
And how?
A very small non-uniformity would be neglihible at far distances like Earth planet and would only affect slightly Mercury the nearer in its precession only.
Which gravitational effect or phenomenon do you think contradicts the non-uniformity assumption?
Two cores would produce a lot more irregularity than you think. Gravity pulls things together. The two cores would merge almost immediately. If they were to orbit each other, the whole sun would be spinning incredibly fast. This is pretty basic physics.
A very small non-uniformity would be neglihible at far distances like Earth planet and would only affect slightly Mercury the nearer in its precession only.
Which gravitational effect or phenomenon do you think contradicts the non-uniformity assumption?
Two cores would produce a lot more irregularity than you think. Gravity pulls things together. The two cores would merge almost immediately. If they were to orbit each other, the whole sun would be spinning incredibly fast. This is pretty basic physics.
QUOTE
Two cores would produce a lot more irregularity than you think. Gravity pulls things together. The two cores would merge almost immediately. If they were to orbit each other, the whole sun would be spinning incredibly fast. This is pretty basic physics.
How do you know the two cores would merge immediately and not take thousands of years to fuse completely? It would depend on how the two stars "meet" what would depend on relative positions and velocities. Lot of ways are possible. May be some would happen fast while others could take lot of time.
You are just theorizing about possibilities. This doesn't demonstrate any contradiction to the possible small non-uniformity in the mass distribution of the Sun. I can theorize the same way to bring compatible results.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 7 2011, 03:43 PM)
"Fusionated"? Really?
It's amazing how many brain cells are wasted on the nonsense posted in physics forums. Wonder how he proposes to include stuff like these famous pulsars.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/cou...201/psr1913.htm
It's amazing how many brain cells are wasted on the nonsense posted in physics forums. Wonder how he proposes to include stuff like these famous pulsars.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/cou...201/psr1913.htm
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 07:38 PM)
How do you know the two cores would merge immediately and not take thousands of years to fuse completely? It would depend on how the two stars "meet" what would depend on relative positions and velocities. Lot of ways are possible. May be some would happen fast while others could take lot of time.
You are just theorizing about possibilities. This doesn't demonstrate any contradiction to the possible small non-uniformity in the mass distribution of the Sun. I can theorize the same way to bring compatible results.
You're sketchy hypothesis is nonsense. GR accounts for the natural precession so we don't need proposals from cranks.
You are just theorizing about possibilities. This doesn't demonstrate any contradiction to the possible small non-uniformity in the mass distribution of the Sun. I can theorize the same way to bring compatible results.
You're sketchy hypothesis is nonsense. GR accounts for the natural precession so we don't need proposals from cranks.
QUOTE
It's amazing how many brain cells are wasted on the nonsense posted in physics forums.
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's amazing how many brain cells are wasted on the nonsense posted in physics forums. |
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
You're sketchy hypothesis is nonsense. GR accounts for the natural precession so we don't need proposals from cranks.
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 04:00 PM)
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
Did you ever find the Universal Physics Systems Control Room?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=422180
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
Did you ever find the Universal Physics Systems Control Room?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=422180
Ha Ha, good remembering although out of topic. At least you have memory.
By the way in essence I still continue thinking the same way although some concepts changed a little.
But is a waste of time for me discussing here in this forum. At the end I'm just a crank with crackpot ideas isn't it? I stopped posting here long time ago. I just posted now because someone asked for a broken link of my site. Is not my aim to participate more here.
Bye, bye.
By the way in essence I still continue thinking the same way although some concepts changed a little.
But is a waste of time for me discussing here in this forum. At the end I'm just a crank with crackpot ideas isn't it? I stopped posting here long time ago. I just posted now because someone asked for a broken link of my site. Is not my aim to participate more here.
Bye, bye.
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 08:00 PM)
Nonsense? For me nonsense is to talk about "dark matter", "dark energy", etc concepts of current mainstream theories.
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
The reason it's mainstream is because works. You think the mainstream is some kind of conspiracy to keep nonsense out of the scientific literature. The first science problem I solved is one more than you've solved.
Yeah, I know you prefer to just stay looking at nonsensical mainstream rather than to work in solving physics problems.
The reason it's mainstream is because works. You think the mainstream is some kind of conspiracy to keep nonsense out of the scientific literature. The first science problem I solved is one more than you've solved.
QUOTE
The reason it's mainstream is because works.
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reason it's mainstream is because works. |
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
You think the mainstream is some kind of conspiracy to keep nonsense out of the scientific literature.
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. For me they have a different physical meaning. For example De Broglie's lambda is a length in the basic particles not a wavelength.
Just unhappy coincidences...
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 05:01 PM)
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. Just unhappy coincidences...
What happened to leaving?
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. Just unhappy coincidences...
What happened to leaving?
QUOTE
What happened to leaving?
Just to clarify that I don't think there's a conspiracy or something like that in current Physics as brucep said.
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 05:09 PM)
Just to clarify that I don't think there's a conspiracy or something like that in current Physics as brucep said.
But you do think all scientists are idiots that need martillo to show them the true way.
But you do think all scientists are idiots that need martillo to show them the true way.
QUOTE
But you do think all scientists are idiots that need martillo to show them the true way.
I don't think scientists are idiots. I just think they would need a new "door" opened for them.
As I say at the main page of the site: "That's what I'm blowing away, very bad, unlucky and unhappy coincidences that make everybody think wrong."
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 05:20 PM)
I don't think scientists are idiots. I just think they would need a new "door" opened for them.
Sorry, how many years have you spent studying physics? And by study, I mean "at a university" not "on the internet." How do you think you're qualified to enlighten anyone?
Sorry, how many years have you spent studying physics? And by study, I mean "at a university" not "on the internet." How do you think you're qualified to enlighten anyone?
QUOTE
Sorry, how many years have you spent studying physics? And by study, I mean "at a university" not "on the internet." How do you think you're qualified to enlighten anyone?
Sorry but there's no rule to make a discovery in any area, not even in Physics. Where it is stated that to make a discovery in Physics is strictly necessary to have a high degree? Is it a Physics' law?
Some things can happen in a very unexpected way.
Take just for example: who invented the plane? Was it a high degree physicist or a well paid engineer? No, were two bicycle fixers, Wright brothers...
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 05:33 PM)
Sorry but there's no rule to make a discovery in any area, not even in Physics. Where it is stated that to make a discovery in Physics is strictly necessary to have a high degree? Is it a Physics' law?
It's a law of practicality. You can't contribute new things to a field if you don't understand it. Understanding takes many years of study. You're like a child who tells his parents that they should let him drive because he would be a much better driver.
Not in the way you're hoping.
Not in the way you're hoping.
Take just for example: who invented the plane? Was it a high degree physicist or a well paid engineer? No, were two bicycle fixers, Wright brothers...
Heavier-than-air flight wasn't a physics breakthrough at all. There is a big difference between science and technology. The Wright Brothers didn't discover any new scientific principles, they applied existing principles to technology.
It's a law of practicality. You can't contribute new things to a field if you don't understand it. Understanding takes many years of study. You're like a child who tells his parents that they should let him drive because he would be a much better driver.
QUOTE
Some things can happen in a very unexpected way.
Not in the way you're hoping.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some things can happen in a very unexpected way. |
Not in the way you're hoping.
Take just for example: who invented the plane? Was it a high degree physicist or a well paid engineer? No, were two bicycle fixers, Wright brothers...
Heavier-than-air flight wasn't a physics breakthrough at all. There is a big difference between science and technology. The Wright Brothers didn't discover any new scientific principles, they applied existing principles to technology.
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 09:01 PM)
I don't think it works so well. For example is not known what "dark matter" actually is, is assumed as some kind of undetectable substance with gravitational effects to explain gravitational anomalies but it is not even stated of what is composed and experiments done to determine it didn't have success.
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. For me they have a different physical meaning. For example De Broglie's lambda is a length in the basic particles not a wavelength.
Just unhappy coincidences...
The reason you think the great theoretical models don't work is because you're scientifically illiterate and don't have the tools or desire to fix that. Pretend all you want
I don't think that. What I think is just that with Einstein's and De Broglie's theories Physics went out of rails and this because they found amazing formulas that work but actually due to a different physical phenomena than their theories state. For me they have a different physical meaning. For example De Broglie's lambda is a length in the basic particles not a wavelength.
Just unhappy coincidences...
The reason you think the great theoretical models don't work is because you're scientifically illiterate and don't have the tools or desire to fix that. Pretend all you want
But all of you yes know Physics very in deep, isn't it?
Sorry, so much that you are lost...
Sorry, so much that you are lost...
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 06:19 PM)
But all of you yes know Physics very in deep, isn't it?
Sorry, so much that you are lost...
This isn't a religion dimwit.
Sorry, so much that you are lost...
This isn't a religion dimwit.
As always ending with personal agression not logical physics argumentation.
Bye.
Bye.
QUOTE (martillo+Dec 7 2011, 10:31 PM)
As always ending with personal agression not logical physics argumentation.
Bye.
Why do you think it always ends that way for you? Important question.
Bye.
Why do you think it always ends that way for you? Important question.
Mercury's procession is fully accounted for. see problem 10.1.4
http://www.modernrelativitysite.com/chap10.htm#BM115
http://www.modernrelativitysite.com/chap10.htm#BM115
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 20 2006, 07:04 PM)
closer to the sun space is more dense
and so speed of planets is getting slower
going from the sun to the outside planets all move faster because space is less dense
Sorry I do not read all this tread jet.
But you my be close to what I think about it.
Just change "dense space" to bigger mass.
In my view inertial mass arise by
m = m0 / sqrt( 1-(v+v_escape)^2 /c^2 )
v - velocity relative to the Sun
v - Sun escape velocity
I am not sure jet I need to add velocities (v+v_escape)
like a vectors or just absolute values.
This would show which my version I mentioned on another tread is more correct.
Maybe somebody has time/wish to calculate?
I mean if m varies than velocity also varies because of momentum conservation.
(m here is inertial mass, not gravitational)
and so speed of planets is getting slower
going from the sun to the outside planets all move faster because space is less dense
Sorry I do not read all this tread jet.
But you my be close to what I think about it.
Just change "dense space" to bigger mass.
In my view inertial mass arise by
m = m0 / sqrt( 1-(v+v_escape)^2 /c^2 )
v - velocity relative to the Sun
v - Sun escape velocity
I am not sure jet I need to add velocities (v+v_escape)
like a vectors or just absolute values.
This would show which my version I mentioned on another tread is more correct.
Maybe somebody has time/wish to calculate?
I mean if m varies than velocity also varies because of momentum conservation.
(m here is inertial mass, not gravitational)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.