Jump to content

martillo

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About martillo

  • Rank
    Quark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://sites.google.com/view/anewlightinphysics

Profile Information

  • Location
    Uruguay
  • College Major/Degree
    Electrical Engineer
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

2633 profile views
  1. For me is obvious there is another force not taken into account in current theories: the repulsion force. If a "strong force" attracting elementary particles exist, another strong repulsive force must exist to mantain them appart. If not all particles would "fusion" in something or would annihilate. A repulsive force would allow equilibrium states between elementary particles...
  2. Is not a problem with the forum nor anyone here. Everything right here. Is just that there are too much things to be questioned at the same time. Everything is interconnected someway in Physics, I know. Too much things to handle at the same time. The point is that I can't manage that. Same problem I would have in any other forum. It's a problem of mine...
  3. You know, seems imposible for me to follow the discussion. Too much things are questioned by the new theory, quite everything of "Modern Physics"... As it is mentioned in the manuscript: "The proposed new theory is consistent with Classical Physics, Photon’s Physics, the Einstein E=mc2 formula, Planck E=hυ formula and the De Broglie relation, although some corrections must be made. It disagrees with Einstein’s Relativity Theory, the “Quantum Physics” based on the “Wave Mechanics Theory”, the Electromagnetic Wave Theory, the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom and today’s subatomi
  4. You ask me to show experimental evidence... I ask you why there are so few evidence for the invariance of the velocity of light? The invariance is the second postulate of Relativity Theory and has NEVER been tested DIRECTLY. I mean, to measure the velocity of a beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities. I know the reason, is very difficult to perform such experiment. Only a very few experiments (questionable let me say) measuring light velocity emitted from moving sources have been made. They do not measure the invariance in relation to frames of reference
  5. I will understand, don't worry, it would be a problem of mine... Is not so easy to discuss some things sometimes...
  6. You know, what I find here is too much predisposition to not accept something new and as I already said what you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. Is not the aim here to present everything of the new theory. As I got tired to say the subject of this thread is to discuss the possibility of the relativistic factor actually be present in the E and B Fields and I'm not seing any reference to that. In spite of considering this you are most interested in finding something against the new theory to not consider anything about anymore. So... I'm about to consider the thread finished with nobody
  7. I think the theory works in all cases of course, is just that I'm not able to analyze and write about every case possible. Is this so difficult to understand?
  8. I will look at the links but I must mention now that the aim of this thread is not to talk about everything in the new theory but, as I said, to analise the problems I could face with the assumption that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v2/c2)1/2 actually be present in the E and B Fields and not in the mass or in the space-time metric as in Relativity Theory. And, as I also said, this is a completely original new proposition I never seen or heard anywhere before and which I think deserves attention. ... Well... I already looked in the links you provided and I don't find anything really co
  9. I MUST "cherry-pick"! My work has not the aim to describe the complete new theory. A so huge task is imposible for just one. Is not my aim to even give a complete demonstration of the theory, I can't do that, you should know that. That would be a task for an entire group or even community of physicists. My work is just a start-point for a new theory where some important key subjects are covered and solved for the new theory. The manuscript is just a collection of the main problems I have found to be more important to be solved for a new theory to begin to be developed. Just a start-point. That
  10. Well, for instance, Hertz experiment is analyzed in the manuscript and it is shown that actually photons are detected. Also a complete description of how communication between antennas happens with photons is given. Also, the theoretical hypothesis of existence of EM waves from the EM wave equation is questioned since the theoretical solutional to them are infinite planes with the same field parallel to the plane in the entire plane for both, the electric and the magnetic one. Then it is taken into consideration which source for that fields could generate such kind of fields and that no o
  11. Google what? That the experiment of measuring the velocity of the same beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities was made and the same value was obtained? Or that the hypothesis that photons in arrangements in trains of photons exhibiting diffraction patterns has been shown to not exist? Sorry, I don't think any of them has been done. But, as you insist, I will wait for your stuff...
  12. Just show where then... Ican't wait for it...
  13. In the new theory electromagnetic WAVES do not exist, what exist are electromagnetic PARTICLES well known as photons. Particles that when travelling in arrangements of trains of particles can have the wave-like behavior of diffraction. The wave-particle duality is solved in favor to the particles model. But this goes beyond the scope of the thread I think...
  14. Please tell me where. I can't wait to analyze such experimentation...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.