Distances in the universe

Here's a thought:

I think everyone but Sandman is pretty much in agreement  here. Sandman will never change so we might as well move on.

FWIW

jack, when you are going to learn some real physics?

But we have a solution to that. Particle physics tries it with gravitons, but I prefer the simpler idea of distortion of space time. The very fabric of space time is the thing that provides the mediation between them.

But you don't.

Because there is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.


H. Minkowski used a sponge on a blackboard, to erase Riemann's x4 variable and then replaced it by t (time).

A mathematical pipe dream.

G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.

ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Moreover, jackblack, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:



HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:




http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)


http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)

E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ

The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdf

"Maxwell’s [modified] equations are a brilliant formulation of the laws of electromagnetism. However, they were derived for static systems, i.e.; where there was no motion relative to the relevant coordinate system (RCS). At the turn of the twentieth century some scientists assumed that these equations pertain also to dynamic systems, wherefrom it follows that the speed of light is constant in all inertial coordinate systems. This in turn led to the Lorentz transformation and to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The complete set of the EM (corrected Maxwell) equations is presented in chapter 1. It is shown that the notion of the speed of light being constant in all inertial coordinate systems stems from the wrong application of Maxwell's [modified] equations to dynamic systems. It is also pointed out that due to terms restored to the corrected Maxwell equations they do not equate under the Lorentz transformation rendering it, along with the theory of relativity which is based on this transformation, invalid.

A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."


J.C. Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations.


So there you have it jack.

You have no knowledge whatsoever of real physics, you base your entire system of beliefs on ONE QUOTE from 1905 which used the WRONG EQUATIONS to arrive at a very erroneous conclusion.

Similarly, you can have 2 forces produced by something other than gravity which are equal and opposite.
For example, electrostatics, magnetism, the Casmir effect or 2 people pulling on each other.

But you did not use the words: electrostatics, magnetism, the Casimir effect, now did you jack?


You specifically stated:

Quote from: JackBlack on May 10, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.

You mentioned Newtonian gravity, NOTHING ELSE.

You made use of a single equation, F=GMm/r^2, NOTHING ELSE.

You made the direct claim that, given your belief in the correctness of this equation, THE FORCES EXERTED ON EACH BODY MUST BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

This is what you said.

You can't take it back now.


Therefore, if I can prove that your cherised equation turns out to be a piece of crap, that means the forces exerted on each end of the rope MUST BE DIFFERENT, and that the rope will transmit the two forces.


On page 20 of this thread I posted the DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, which totally defies the law of gravity as posted by you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1909009#msg1909009

The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.

Included in that very same message, the celebrated Biefeld-Brown effect which again makes a mockery out of your equation.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FULL DETAILS/VIDEOS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363


Here is your statement again jack black.


Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.

Your equation, F=GMm/r^2, has just been proven to be totally false, which means that the forces on each end can be and will be different to start with.


Here is another experiment, carried out by Professor Francis Nipher, which again defies your worthless equation.

Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New York Times (19 September 1917)

"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."

A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.

"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."

New Gravitation Theory ~

Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.



Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.

However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.



Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.


In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

On second thought, we could have a copy-n-paste contest! It'd be fun!

boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.

Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.

boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.

Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.

My sig is actually a quote from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. What do you think of that?

When Carroll first wrote it down he called it Alice’s Adventures Underground .

Here is an even better idea, use this for a signature line:

"When reading Newton I have to look twice at the cover, to be sure I am not reading Swift by mistake. "

boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.

Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.
‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.
As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.

So you are still living in 1668!
Of course Newton might query where his and Hooke's theories were leading, so what?

But, since than, gravitation has been verified so many times, by direct experimental work in the lab and in the observation of the planets.
And I do not mean simply Kepler's Laws. They are accurate only for a 2-body system.
What I mean is that astronomy "works" and while you might doubt that predictions can be made millions of years ahead, planets and stars are certainly close to their expected locations over many centuries.

But, on gravitation, Newton was not alone. A lot of the research and ideas that lead to the "Law of Universal Gravitation" was done by Robert Hooke and others.

Hooke's work and claims
Robert Hooke published his ideas about the "System of the World" in the 1660s, when he read to the Royal Society on March 21, 1666, a paper "On gravity", "concerning the inflection of a direct motion into a curve by a supervening attractive principle", and he published them again in somewhat developed form in 1674, as an addition to "An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations". Hooke announced in 1674 that he planned to "explain a System of the World differing in many particulars from any yet known", based on three "Suppositions": that "all Celestial Bodies whatsoever, have an attraction or gravitating power towards their own Centers" [and] "they do also attract all the other Celestial Bodies that are within the sphere of their activity"; that "all bodies whatsoever that are put into a direct and simple motion, will so continue to move forward in a straight line, till they are by some other effectual powers deflected and bent..."; and that "these attractive powers are so much the more powerful in operating, by how much the nearer the body wrought upon is to their own Centers". Thus Hooke clearly postulated mutual attractions between the Sun and planets, in a way that increased with nearness to the attracting body, together with a principle of linear inertia.

That is from Wikipedia, but this draft has more of Robert Hooke writings Hooke Gravitation.

Newton was rather ambitious and was keen keep to get plenty of the credit, though he did say:

Newton's work and claims
Newton, faced in May 1686 with Hooke's claim on the inverse square law, denied that Hooke was to be credited as author of the idea. Among the reasons, Newton recalled that the idea had been discussed with Sir Christopher Wren previous to Hooke's 1679 letter. Newton also pointed out and acknowledged prior work of others, including Bullialdus, (who suggested, but without demonstration, that there was an attractive force from the Sun in the inverse square proportion to the distance), and Borelli (who suggested, also without demonstration, that there was a centrifugal tendency in counterbalance with a gravitational attraction towards the Sun so as to make the planets move in ellipses). D T Whiteside has described the contribution to Newton's thinking that came from Borelli's book, a copy of which was in Newton's library at his death.

Newton further defended his work by saying that had he first heard of the inverse square proportion from Hooke, he would still have some rights to it in view of his demonstrations of its accuracy. Hooke, without evidence in favor of the supposition, could only guess that the inverse square law was approximately valid at great distances from the center. According to Newton, while the 'Principia' was still at pre-publication stage, there were so many a-priori reasons to doubt the accuracy of the inverse-square law (especially close to an attracting sphere) that "without my (Newton's) Demonstrations, to which Mr Hooke is yet a stranger, it cannot believed by a judicious Philosopher to be any where accurate."

Newton certainly did not work in a vacuum and he wrote to Hooke in 1676 "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton. Whether Hooke received it is another matter.

But believe in your own reality if you wish.
The trouble is that you do not seem to have a model of your universe that fits observations without the most outlandish assumptions with no experimental evidence to back it up.

Yet it was Isaac Newton that wrote:

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676)

Yet almost all of your "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" seems to hypotheses.

A tiny point is the distances to and the motions of the moon, planets, sun and closer stars!

Yeah I don't know how we got into gravity, which has little to nothing to do with this problem...

It was more the other way around.
The OP asked about distances in the universe and how the objects are held together by forces acting over such a great distance.
This involves gravity, which resulting in Sandy bring up his delusional nonsense about gravity.
The part that was chosen to discuss was his alleged double forces of gravity paradox, which he uses the boats on an ocean pulling on ropes to model, claiming that there will be 2 times the force.

jack, when you are going to learn some real physics?

Many years ago, when I started learning real physics.
When will you? So far all you have spouted is delusional nonsense which anyone who knows what you are talking about and has a basic understanding could easily refute.

Because there is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.

And that is just another baseless claim of yours, where it once again seems to be based upon denying the antecedent.
But this is not the place for it. If you want to change subject, first admit your mistakes with the boats and ropes.

So there you have it jack.

Yep, there I have it, you have nothing rational and honest to say on the topic at hand, and instead need to continually try to change the subject to run away from your failures.

But you did not use the words: electrostatics, magnetism, the Casimir effect, now did you jack?

No. I didn't. I am using these to show other situations which also work to produce equal forces, showing you the error of your ways.

This is what you said.
You can't take it back now.

I know what I said. I'm not trying to take it back.
I'm just pointing out that your claim about it is pure bullshit and based upon a logical fallacy akin to suggesting dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats.
Do you notice the insanity of that line of reasoning (claiming dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats)?
Because that is effectively what you are doing.

Therefore, if I can prove that your cherised equation turns out to be a piece of crap, that means the forces exerted on each end of the rope MUST BE DIFFERENT, and that the rope will transmit the two forces.

Only if you can prove that because a dog isn't a cat, it can't be an animal.
That is what that line of reasoning is.

It is a completely irrational and illogical argument of the form:
If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore not B.

It is pure bullshit.
There can be plenty of times when B is the case when A is not.

As such even if gravity is completely fictional, it doesn't mean the forces must be different.

Do you understand that?
Or are you so insane you think dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats?

On page 20 of this thread I posted the DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, which totally defies the law of gravity as posted by you.

I don't give a shit. Like I said, stop trying to change topic to escape your pathetic failures.
Especially when you are trying to change it to a topic where you are already were a complete failure.
I have refuted that bullshit before.

If you wish to change the subject, you need to admit you were wrong about the forces and the ropes.

Now then, do you have anything rational and honest to say about the subject at hand?
Perhaps an admission that you were completely wrong, and that my analysis works fine for the massless rope approximation where the rope has no net force, the tension is constant throughout and the force on each end is equal and opposite, while your analysis, being full of contradictions, only works when no force is applied?

Sandokhan we extensively debunked the depalma spinning ball experiment, memba?

It's caused by the rotation of the ball causing less resistance as it moves through the atmosphere.

It doesn't defy physics, it's similar to why a spinning bullet travels much further than an old style musket.

Come on man.

So... can we consider this thread to be over?

Yes.

Yes.

Just wait until Sandy sees these posts.

I kind of gave up after gravity became mentioned, because I thought we were just discussing the forces transmitted on the rope from both boats. Great job guys... or maybe I misspoke...

DEFEATERS OF SANDOKHAN!