Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravitation and light

  1. Mar 21, 2003 #1
    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


    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 23, 2003 #2

    Could you explain that so a typical sixth grader could understand? Please? I realy want to learn everything I possibly can about physics in any way, shape, or form.
    Good luck with a nobel prize
  4. Mar 24, 2003 #3
    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?
  5. Mar 24, 2003 #4
    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.
  6. Mar 25, 2003 #5
    Why is the link to an executable?


  7. Mar 25, 2003 #6
    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.


    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: Mar 26, 2003
  8. Mar 25, 2003 #7
    to download it right away.
    it's zip self extractor containing word document with the same title as the link.
  9. Mar 26, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    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.
  10. Mar 26, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    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.
  11. Mar 26, 2003 #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.
  12. Mar 27, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    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)
  13. Mar 27, 2003 #12
    If this is the only argument that you can make for your theory, you can be pretty sure that it's not right...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook