Reinventing Dynamics: The New Principle of Gravitation and Light

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dock
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed new principle of dynamics that challenges established Newtonian mechanics. Participants explore the implications of this new principle on the understanding of force, displacement, and motion, while also addressing criticisms of conventional physics. The scope includes theoretical considerations and critiques of existing models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that Newton's second law is invalid and proposes a new principle expressed as FdR > 0, suggesting that force causes displacement in the same direction.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the explanation and requests a simpler version for better understanding.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the proposed principle, with one participant arguing that the relationship between force and displacement is not adequately justified.
  • Some participants assert that the traditional understanding of dynamics, including concepts like acceleration and initial conditions, is being misrepresented or ignored.
  • Critiques are made regarding the use of equations and definitions, with one participant emphasizing that acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity, not merely a function of position.
  • Another participant points out fundamental errors in the proposed theory, particularly regarding the interpretation of Newton's laws and the nature of forces.
  • One participant expresses frustration at the lack of acceptance of their theory, insisting on its correctness without providing convincing arguments.
  • Another participant argues that the insistence on the correctness of a theory without evidence reduces it to a matter of faith rather than scientific reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the proposed new principle of dynamics and its implications for understanding motion. Multiple competing views remain, with some defending traditional physics while others advocate for the new approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the proposed theory, including potential misunderstandings of fundamental physics concepts and the lack of empirical support for the claims made. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and assumptions about dynamics and motion.

dock
the first principle of dynamics by mua

dynamics is a field in physics dealing with the matter in motion with questioning the cause of the motion. as a most important law in this field there is the second Newton's law. but unfortunately this law is not valid. i want go thru reproving that claim again(i will only on your demand) but i'll only fill the vacuum caused with dismisal of this law. the new version of the basic principle of dynamics is as it follows:

FdR > 0

where F = force, R = distance from the source of the force. it should be understood this way:
The force F forces the object it acts upon on displacement dR in same direction of the vector of the force. if the object performs additional tangential displacement dx then there is additional force Fx that is causing it and

Fxdx > 0

too.

if you are asking me, this is the most importantoutstanding discovery ever and it will change the physics as you know it if implemented/accepted. what you do wrong actually is mistaking the speed with displacement. should i require reward for this?
back to you.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Um........

Could you explain that so a typical sixth grader could understand? Please? I really want to learn everything I possibly can about physics in any way, shape, or form.
Good luck with a nobel prize
 
it's like loseing an arrow. when you tense the arrow you aply force. this force neutrealizes with the elastic force. when you lose the arrow the only force present is the elastic one. since it is nonzero force it is causing the arrow to shift along the direction of the arrow. the main point is that every force is sugessting displacement with same sing of the force. for example:
positive force sugessts positeve displacement
negative force sugessts negative displacement

if you say that dE = FdR is the job done by that force then this job is always positive-greater then zero.

deam i don't know how to explain it to a sixth grader.
wait a minute, aint it early for you to learn physics. here in macedonia, i think, the pupils start learning physics from 7th grade.
what the hack?
 
by the way try the link Arguments Against Modern Physics down there that figures as my signiture. you'll learn a lot more. this is what i call marsian physics.
 
Why is the link to an executable?





—Ben-CS
 
the Newtonian dynamics is to blame for all this deviations. imagine accel of one mass is function of another mass.
F=ma=wmM/R^2 => am=wM/R^2.

now what if m=0 or that object is vacuum. conclusion: vacuum around massive object accelerates. nonsense part one.

if m<0 and wM/R^2>0 then F<0 and a>0. nonsense part two.

ALL TOGETHER: PURE NONSENSE.

every force sugessts displacement in same direction as the direction of the force. that is true dynamics.

I have moved this post in from another thread, this is just more of the same stuff, tets keep it all together. Integral
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Ben-CS
Why is the link to an executable?





—Ben-CS
to download it right away.
it's zip self extractor containing word document with the same title as the link.
 
Can I just say this document is utter nonsense? You seem to pull equations out of thin air and try to do stuff that simply does not make sense. eg. Where do you get the conclusion that x = x(t) according to conventional dynamics? x cannot be x(t), but f(t) where f is a function that relates the position of x to t. Hence, for example, if we have a certain object at constant velocity from the origin, we can have f: x -> kx, and then we assume that x(0) = 0. You ignore completely the existence of initial conditions. Acceleration meanwhile has nothing to do with initial position but is defined as the rate of change of velocity. ie. It has to be dv/dt. Same for velocity = dx/dt. These are not assumptions, but definitions. If you dispute them, then you are not talking about the same universe as conventional kinetics.
a is const when you learn high school level mechanics. But a is usually a function of t itself, or a function of x (as in Newton's law of gravitation). In this case, the basic equations (v= u+at etc) do not apply, and integration must be used.
Similarly, you objections reduce down to lack of knowledge on your part.
 
There is apparently a fundamental error on each page...

You quote N2 as F = ma. That is incorrect. F = d/dt(mv) ie. rate of change of momentum. It reduces to f=ma when m is constant. And A most certainly does not equal V/t but dv/dt.

You describe N2 as "absurd" when m = 0 or -ve. Well, such situations are absurd. How many negative mass objects have you seen recently? I expect you can count them on the fingers of an imaginary hand. Now, we know from practical experience that gravitational acceleration is more or less independent of the mass of the object. Hence, force as a function of the mass of the Earth does hold.

Other problems:
"The foundation of the impact theory is in the conservation of the kinetic energy..."
Deeply wrong. Only holds for completely elastic collisions.

"The charge causes the volume of the particle to become larger and therefore such particle is easy to divide. The mass has opposite intention and it makes the particle more compact."
No. Just plain wrong. Gravity which is based on mass is hugely weaker than the other forces. It is simply negligible at such scales. And charged, divisible entities like nuclei, baryons are held together by other forces like the nuclear strong force.

Never mind problems. It is hard to find statements that are correct.
 
  • #10
to FZ+

FZ+ I'm not trying to make me smartest or make you stupid. i just know my theory is right and i don't know how to convince you to accept it. only on bases that my theory is right you'll have to accept it.
 
  • #11
Then it does not qualify as a scientific theory, but as a faith. And such faith, the idea of "I just know" is not a sound basis for any argument against modern physics. (Though modern physics is by no means absolutely correct)
 
  • #12
Originally posted by dock
i don't know how to convince you to accept it. only on bases that my theory is right you'll have to accept it.

If this is the only argument that you can make for your theory, you can be pretty sure that it's not right...
 

Similar threads

Graduate Thermodynamic Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Discussion
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Doublet flow in Fluid Dynamics between two spheres or cylinders
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Undergrad Work - Energy Principle Application to Fluid Flow
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Graduate Body Force vs Inertial Force: What's the Difference?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Intuition on the direction of friction in a rotational dynamics problem
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Graduate New take on Tegmarks MUH --Geometric Transformation Internalization
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Principle of relativity and Galileo's group
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Consequences of the Existence of Gravitational Waves?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Gravitational Radiation Power of Object in Forced Circular Motion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K