PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-23, 07:09:44
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Electromagnetism and relativity  (Read 7015 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
I only need math, not generalities.
The question asked in Reply #48 is the calculation of the 4-potential (scalar+vector) of a distant accelerated charge, seen by a local test charge, also accelerated.
The force should be proportional to the product of the accelerations, which opens great perspectives.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 258
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4

He goes over all of this, where mass and gravity pop out of the equation because of a very simple fact, two spinning charged particles when disturbed create a reaction force which we call mass (inertia to be exact. He provides all the derivations and it's all simple math, no higher special dimensions and wacky mathematics needed.
His work on the standard model is even more cool but currently on Patreon only. When a simple model and equation leads to explaining the masses and magnetic moments of fundamental particles without resorting to a blackboard full of equations then you have something truly noteworthy at hand. And if you think this is doing pseudo isomorphic science where you're not adding any new knowledge or data to the pool, well here is an example: he can predict the magnetic moment of the Tau particle which is a yet unknown experimental value. This alone should trigger people to look further into this especially people at CERN.

I truly believe his work will become the foundation of future scientific progress when mainstream physics catches on and stops beating their dead horse. I truly believe the only reason why distinti is still rambling on to his small community and making small progress is because of his personality. He makes a lot of fun of physicists which makes things difficult when you want smart and respected people in the community to have a look at your work in a respectful manner.  But then again, history tells us it's always the young/new generation that made the biggest impact in science not the old established thinking. Niels Bohr was only 28 when he wrote on the quantization of the electrons energy level. Einstein himself was only 26 and 36 when he published his most impactful papers.

Yet today these papers are seen as gospel and nothing critical can be said of them without being ridiculed as a heretic or nutjob.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 545
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
He goes over all of this, where mass and gravity pop out of the equation because of a very simple fact, two spinning charged particles when disturbed create a reaction force which we call mass (inertia to be exact. He provides all the derivations and it's all simple math, no higher special dimensions and wacky mathematics needed.

It's quite persuasive when fundamental aspects fall right out onto paper like that.  When no dark/mystery particles needed to make everything 'fit'. ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
I highly encourage anyone to watch Distinti's semi recent work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRDSy88SN4
...

More generalities and no refutable theory.

What are the facts that this theory would explain that conventional theories would not? Where are the quantified predictions that we could test?

A speed limit in a 4D universe is sufficient to explain and to quantify all the facts of classical physics, including electromagnetism (except perhaps thermodynamics).
We may need to bring out an ether theory when new facts will require new explanations. For the moment this kind of theory is completely superfluous and useless since we have a more general model which works.

All I saw from Distinti was at first a judicious method to treat magnetism with current elements, which is what Ampere had already done long before him. Then I saw from him a smoky theory of gravity and it became a universal theory of nonsense.

I invite those who want to follow him and the unconditional supporters of the ether to open a new thread, this one being exclusively reserved for relativity, especially for the treatment of electromagnetism.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
@Hackasays

I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread. To imply anything by throwing links without technical or scientific justification is in my opinion a lack of respect for one's opponents.
Republishing them over and over again after moderation is against the ethics of the forum. Please stop this practice. Thank you.

By "Electromagnetism and relativity", one should understand "connection between electromagnetism and relativity".


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 545
Quote from: F6FLT
I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread.

I suspected that you simply glossed over Distinti's work, hence my links to some of his higher-level novel predictions and a tongue-in-cheek joke that 'perhaps you just didn't dig deep enough'. :P   (the post you deleted after declaring "More generalities and no refutable theory." C.C)

It is a refutable theory, that much is clear.  And it does seem to make connections that haven't been made in academia, which I find interesting (like arriving at Shwarzschild radius from completely different formulas (6.1) and roughly predicting Michaelson/Morley/Miller drift results (6.2).
https://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf


Rather than explore esoteric subjects yourself you'd prefer someone else did it for you?  That only works well if you implicitly trust the person(s) analyzing on your behalf.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
I suspected that you simply glossed over Distinti's work, hence my links to some of his higher-level novel predictions
...

So explain these "higher-level novel predictions" of the links you provided, especially on what is experimentally testable, with a level of analysis sufficient to say that you have not glossed over Distinti's work and concluded anything about it.

Otherwise, if you remain so fuzzy, I don't see what your speech would have to do here, and I will draw the conclusions.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 545
So explain these "higher-level novel predictions" of the links you provided, especially on what is experimentally testable, with a level of analysis sufficient to say that you have not glossed over Distinti's work and concluded anything about it.

In the original post you deleted a few times, I was following-up on your requests for more mathematical/refutable citations from Distinti:

I only need math, not generalities.
More generalities and no refutable theory.

I was 'calling the bluff' in a sense, that I suspect you hadn't actually read any of the papers deep enough to make a declarative statement that it was 'not a refutable theory'. :P  That was confirmed in the next post:

I do not accept links that are supposed to justify a point of view, but are not accompanied by personal analysis, clearly explaining how they would be relevant to the topic of the thread.



But to get back to the actual topic and answer your question,
one thing I found interesting just glancing through Distinti's work was his predicted values for drift velocity on Earth was relatively close to what was measured by Michaelson-Morley-Miller a century prior (attached).

And despite the many theories out there, it's rare to see a set of papers that goes all the way from basic electrical engineering relationships to deriving the Schwarzschild radius without resorting to pages of tensors and differential equations.  That made it interesting to me because it means that derivations of things like antigravity/time dilation/negative impedance solutions would be more directly engineerable/falsifiable.
http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf   - extremely low-level EE
https://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf - extremely high-level cosmic

It's probably a flawed theory in many places, but IMO not worth throwing the whole thing out arbitrarily (unless I had something better to recommend).


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-23, 07:09:44