martillo

What do you think I posted here? Rockets dynamics not only justifies but demonstrates I'm right.

No, they must not have equal magnitude. They don`t have. One is zero. The other is vedm/dt not zero. The net force on the total system is zero. The force on the rocket is not zero. Remember this: p = mv F = ma dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = F + vdm/dt F = dp/dt only when dm/dt = 0. Particular case. This is what I agree.

They use F = dp/dt for the total system rocket plus total fuel and apply conservation of momentum with net force F = 0 and dp/dt = 0. After, they derive another force, the force on the rocket alone as F = ma = vedm/dt. They are two different forces!

That´s right. The rockets dynamics works fine with cassical Mechanics and the Newton's Laws if the second is expressed as F = ma. They are fine for me. What I argue is that F = ma has general aplication and is valid even when mass varies. The problem is that this contradicts the statement F = dp/dt which is largely used in Relativity. That equation is wrong. Newton's original formulation of the Second Law is wrong. They actually use the relation F = ma as can be read right after. Is not a source o f mine. Is what can be found in the web. I just analize it.

I apologize. There´s something wrong in the calculation I tried for Eise. It's wrong to state p' = mv + meve for the rocket and the expelled fuel. The calculation is wrong twice giving a right result... But the initial post is right... I'm working on that. So do I. The net external force on the total system is zero. I treat that the same way. The reaction force on the rocket is given by the well known thrust equation: F = ma = vedm/dt Strange, can't you understand that, in what is considered, the MASS m IS NOT CONSTANT? Not for rockets, not for Relativity!

Ok, here my calculation: momentum: p = mv dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = ma + vdm/dt = F + vdm/dt First consider the total system: Rocket plus total fuel, contained and expelled one. Total mass: m' = m + me where m is the mass of the rocket and its contained fuel at velocity v and me is the mass of the expelled fuel at velocity u relative to a frame at rest. m' constant then dm'/dt = dm/dt + dme/dt = 0 Then: dme/dt = -dm/dt Now: p' = mv + meu dp'/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt + medu/dt + udme/dt = 0 (net force F' = 0 and dm'/dt = 0) u constant then du/dt = 0 mdv/dt + vdm/dt - udm/dt = 0 mdv/dt = -(v - u)dm/dt (v - u) = ve velocity of expelled fuel relative to the rocket. Then the thrust equation: mdv/dt = -vedm/dt a = dv/dt and as is considered F = ma F = -vedm/dt is the force exerted on the rocket

Something does not make sense. The definition F = dp/dt makes no sense. The true is that F = ma even for varying mass m. Rocket Dynamics demonstrates it and Relativity Theory fails.

No, m not "stays the same". m is variable and the valid relation is F = ma with variable m. The well known "Thrust Equation" for rockets is: F = ma = -vedm/dt You can easily Google for it.

But Rocket Dynamics shows F = ma necessarily valid even for variable mass. Rockets' experiments validate this.

The point is that in both cases in consideration, Rocket Dynamics and Relativity Theory, the mass varies so dp/dt is not the same that ma. They are different: dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt dp/dt = ma + vdm/dt There´s a problem then because Rocket Dynamics implies force defined as F = ma while Relativity Theory needs F = dp/dt.

As swansont posted: p = mv dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = ma + vdm/dt Here is a link with the theoretical derivation of the equation E = mc2 based on F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt: http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Deriving.htm#.XUdykvZFyM8

Not the same thing, not at all. I think you didn´t get to the point...

This is an extract of "Appendix A" in my manuscript on a new theory which can be accessed through the link in my profile if someone would be interested. The real Equation of Force is F = ma Today's Physics is stating that the Equation of Force is F = dp/dt. We will analyze the equation of motion of rockets to see that the real Equation of Force is: F = ma A rocket has variable mass in its trajectory and it's important to see its motion equation. Let m be its variable mass at any instant in its movement composed by the mass of the rocket plus the mass of its contained fuel. I have made a search in the internet about rocket motion equations and all the sites agree in the equation: F = m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) where ve is the speed of the fuel expelled relative to a frame at rest. One web site: http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm They all agree that the force acting on the rocket is due to the expelled mass and is F = –ve(dm/dt) and that the equation of motion is F = m(dv/dt) = ma. I assume the equation have been completely verified experimentally with enough precision from a long time ago. It is evident that it is used the equation: F = ma for the force and not: F = dp/dt ... ... ... This indicates that today's Physics is wrong stating the Equation of Force as F = dp/dt. The right equation for force is F = ma even when mass varies. Note that the natural derivation of the famous equation E = mc2 by Relativity Theory has no sense since it is based in the wrong relation F = dp/dt. Relativity Theory becomes a wrong theory since it is based on a wrong law.

Yes. To explain why or how the force between two magnets varies with exponent four in distance as determined in the following experiment: "Force between two magnets as a function of distance"

I think this experiment by Paul Doherty well determine the force between magnets showing exponential four in distance: "Force between two magnets as a function of distance"

Fine. I understand. I must not discuss about the theory here. But then I will ask for everybody to not post anything against it in a way I would find I must defend it. Isn't this fair?

Why you say would be untestable? Is perfectly testable. I cannot do that for the reasons of lack of resources, expertise and even time for that but it is perfectly testable. Einstein didn't test his theory himself. Other ones did it time after he proposed it. Same thing happened with De Broglie. So, what are you talking about?

Fine but what if this new theory could present even better predictions with better accuracy? Unfortunatelly I don't have those results to show and so I cannot prove that but it just must be taken into account that good accuracy of a theory in experiments can yet be improved by other better theory.

I agree with your approach and can give the mathematical support. I have a model for the photon perfectly matching your description. It is proposed in web page of a web site presenting a book so not everything is showed at the site but has enough content for anyone have a good idea on what is proposed. The model is based on a couple of more elementary "rings of current" particles (a positive and a negative ones) in spite of spinning dipoles as you mention but can match your description. The photon model is presented here: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-1_The_photon_structure.htm The elementary particles involved are presented here: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section3-2_The_most_elementary_particles_of_the_Universe.htm I attach here an image of them. The big problem you don't know you take with your approach and need to face up is that at the end not only Einstein was wrong...

With the assumption of UNDETECTABLE things in a theory any theory could be developed since it could never be proven wrong! This way anyone can invent any theory! To sustain Relativity Theory the concept of UNDETECTABLE "dark matter" was developed but about hundred years have passed without experimental confirmation... To sustain Quantum Physics the concept of UNDETECTABLE "virtual particles" was developed but there's no experimental confirmation on them... Don't you think is time for a totally new theory in Physics? I have a very good start-point for one without any undetectable thing. For those that could be interested I cannot post the link here but it can be found in my profile ("A New Light In Physics").

Right, I would need to look for it. I will try with time, may be would be frustrating, but I must try...

I must admit, not so easy. For some "God" make a creation and remain just observing it the rest of the existence seems unlikely... But what if the Universe needs maintenance? For instance what if unavoidable problems arises in surged worlds with the living beings that surged (spontaneously, following evolution of course) and could guide the beings' intuition some way to solve the problems? What about that?

Not so bad. Many churchs predicates "God is love". ... ... ...But I don't believe that...

That has sense. Let me think in what could a deistic "God" intervene in the Universe without violating any physics' law...

Referring to: 1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it. 2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: Q: Why are people good? A: God; Q: Why are people evil? A: God Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God After all, he moves in mysterious ways. On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything. I think it all relies in which kind of "God" we are referring to. Any of those assertions corresponds to the deistic concept of "God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).