The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 12:19:03 AM

Title: Newton
Post by: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 12:19:03 AM
Interested in your theories...however looking through the FAQ:

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This directly breaks Newton's law of universal gravitation. Could someone please explain how this is possible?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 12:30:53 AM
I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment (http://www.leydenscience.org/physics/gravitation/cavend.htm), and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Pongo on August 03, 2012, 12:41:26 AM
I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment (http://www.leydenscience.org/physics/gravitation/cavend.htm), and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 12:52:55 AM
I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment (http://www.leydenscience.org/physics/gravitation/cavend.htm), and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

Could you provide me with the ratio of gravity:universal acceleration that keeps us grounded - otherwise your statement is pointless and my question still stands.

Also I think the FAQ may need to be updated now:

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

According to your statement, you just proved the dark energy model, McIntyre and Bishop model "most likely" wrong.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 12:55:50 AM
I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment (http://www.leydenscience.org/physics/gravitation/cavend.htm), and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

So gravity does exist now?  I need to keep an excel spreadsheet or something to keep up with all these amazing advancements in FET.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:41:28 AM
I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 01:45:08 AM
I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

You may dispute however much you want, however without any evidence or scientific reasoning - it is pointless and therefore meaningless to this discussion.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 01:52:35 AM
I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish.

On what grounds?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:52:57 AM
It's a bit naive to think I dispute the reliability of Cavendish without reason, isn't it?  ::)
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 01:58:54 AM
I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

Extremely naive to dispute a basic law of physics without reason, yes. Could even be seen as something that is holding human kind back..... ::)
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:16:51 AM
I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish.

On what grounds?

There have been mountains of papers on Cavendish and its flaws. Miles Mathis in particular has done a splendid job spelling out potential pitfalls and the institutional removal of published papers disputing it from the internet. If you have access to a university library, I will happily give you a list of contemporary papers you can dig up to read of the failures of Cavendish.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 02:52:57 AM
Ah yes, Miles Mathis, the crank who runs the website Tom linked me to last time I brought up the Cavendish experiment.  What a wonderful source you've chosen to rely upon.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981pmfc.conf..591H (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981pmfc.conf..591H)
Records the failure of standard gravitational models to account for experimental results.


http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/6A/008 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/6A/008)
More of same

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983AmJPh..51.1016S (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983AmJPh..51.1016S)
"Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB)" = Model cannot definitively predict experimental result.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 03:38:59 AM
Yawn, I'll do my "homework" if this is actually going to go anywhere.  What exactly am I looking for here that's going to somehow make the observations thousands have made with the Cavendish experiment and its various updates disappear?

As for Miles Mathis, he's a double-edged sword to deal with.  The world he lives in has an alternative for everything, including calculus and geometry.  It's a self-contained world, and his objections might not make sense outside of it.

The last time he was brought up, I asked what objections, exactly, he brought up to the Cavendish experiment that were worthwhile and all I got was that it was done underground, and so the gravity of the walls wasn't taken into account, which is false given that the experiment starts in equilibrium with whatever the local gravity is and only measures the change to the new state of equilibrium after introducing the heavier balls.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 05:16:23 AM
Miles notes that efforts to measure G in the last 20 to 30 years have produced deviating results. Often significant deviation. All with efforts using modern precision instruments: (See Here)

All modern efforts to duplicate Cavendish have relied on much smaller objects of mass in torsion devices. Here then the object is constrained in a vertical plane, but free to move in the horizontal plane. If motion in that plane is limited only by air resistance and electromagnetic fields, then all mass in those planes must be accounted for as well as EM fields. To simply say that the effect of buildings, walls, the instrument itself, et al are negligible is to ignore the fact that one is trying to measure an immensely small effects to begin with. To say that the objects start in equilibrium is to ignore the fact that air resistance and possibly electromagnetic fields are affecting those objects in situ. We do not know, in fact, that there is a priori equilibrium.

Cavendish observed: "irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes."
This is ten percent deviation and three percent. But because it is two separate margins of error we multiply and get 30%!

 (http://"http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/60/2/001")
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2012, 07:19:05 AM
It's a bit naive to think I dispute the reliability of Cavendish without reason, isn't it?  ::)

And it's a bit naive to think that Cavendish is the only way to measure G.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract)
Quote
We measured the Newtonian constant of gravity, G, using a gravity gradiometer based on atom interferometry. The gradiometer measures the differential acceleration of two samples of laser-cooled Cs atoms. The change in gravitational field along one dimension is measured when a well-characterized Pb mass is displaced. Here, we report a value of G = 6.693 1011 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of 0.027 1011 and a systematic error of 0.021 1011 cubic meters per kilogram second squared. The possibility that unknown systematic errors still exist in traditional measurements makes it important to measure G with independent methods.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: garygreen on August 03, 2012, 07:38:55 AM
You can measure the gravitational force in your basement.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/ (http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/)
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:26:57 PM
That laughable experiment is precisely what one should avoid doing. It's too bad you can't deign to actually read Miles.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
Miles notes that efforts to measure G in the last 20 to 30 years have produced deviating results. Often significant deviation. All with efforts using modern precision instruments: (See Here)

All modern efforts to duplicate Cavendish have relied on much smaller objects of mass in torsion devices. Here then the object is constrained in a vertical plane, but free to move in the horizontal plane. If motion in that plane is limited only by air resistance and electromagnetic fields, then all mass in those planes must be accounted for as well as EM fields. To simply say that the effect of buildings, walls, the instrument itself, et al are negligible is to ignore the fact that one is trying to measure an immensely small effects to begin with. To say that the objects start in equilibrium is to ignore the fact that air resistance and possibly electromagnetic fields are affecting those objects in situ. We do not know, in fact, that there is a priori equilibrium.
 (http://"http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/60/2/001")

Lol, it's quite clear that the apparatus in the experiment I linked to is in equilibrium at the beginning of the experiment.  The tiniest movement will show up as a movement of the laser.

You should do your "homework," read the actual experiment, and come up with your own criticisms that are actually relevant.

Cavendish observed: "irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes."
This is ten percent deviation and three percent. But because it is two separate margins of error we multiply and get 30%!

 ???
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 06:22:06 AM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: MrT on August 15, 2012, 07:57:44 AM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 08:04:24 AM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:01:25 PM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

So we can agree that this was a misinterpretation and .75% isn't evidence of anything more than a delusional person grasping at straws to support the ridiculous theories of a deranged mind, correct?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 01:10:00 PM
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

So we can agree that this was a misinterpretation and .75% isn't evidence of anything more than a delusional person grasping at straws to support the ridiculous theories of a deranged mind, correct?

I'll drink to that.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 15, 2012, 11:14:53 PM
No, I asserted that a .75% deviation is unaccounted for and that Cavendish is wrong. I seriously worry about the world's mean reading comprehension level.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 16, 2012, 12:01:06 AM
No, I asserted that a .75% deviation is unaccounted for and that Cavendish is wrong. I seriously worry about the world's mean reading comprehension level.

a .75% deviation is WAY more accurate than anything provided by a FEHer.

It's still grasping at straws, and it doesn't "disprove" anything.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 16, 2012, 12:06:17 AM
What is a FEHer?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:07:05 AM
It certainly disproves Cavendish and the accepted models. Why are you so obstinately clinging to error?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 16, 2012, 12:09:19 AM
What is a FEHer?

Someone who believes in the Flat Earth Hypothesis. . .
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 16, 2012, 12:11:08 AM
It certainly disproves Cavendish and the accepted models. Why are you so obstinately clinging to error?

show me a testable, falsifiable, peer reviewed projection with less than .75% deviation.


Why do you seem to think that less than one percent deviation is the same thing as being one hundred percent false??
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:16:35 AM
Do you know what a "statistically significant" means? ???
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: tunu on August 16, 2012, 12:21:25 AM
Do you know what a "statistically significant" means? ???

answering my question with a question isn't going to get us anywhere.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:26:04 AM
Neither will a conversation with someone that doesn't understand what he is talking about and refuses to learn. I guess we're at an impasse.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 12:43:28 AM
Lol, yes, Ski, that Phd thesis is clearly the nail in the coffin of the Cavendish experiment.  Nevermind the fact that it mentions doing diagnostic tests and ways to improve the experiment in the abstract itself, I'm sure the full paper will agree with your conclusions.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:45:39 AM
The diagnostic tests proved the error was not an anomaly. Further refinements may bring a more accurate result better explaining the failings of current theories of gravitation.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 01:21:15 AM
The diagnostic tests proved the error was not an anomaly. Further refinements may bring a more accurate result better explaining the failings of current theories of gravitation.

That's not what the abstract says.  I don't like saying 'I don't trust your biased interpretation' but i really don't.  Without seeing the full article it's asking a lot for me and other people to just take your word for it that this thesis proves Cavendish wrong.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
You don't have to take my opinion, you only have to read the abstract  ::)    It simply proves that all current models of gravitation are flawed. Surely, even you won't find that difficult to believe.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on August 16, 2012, 06:36:16 AM
The diagnostic tests proved the error was not an anomaly. Further refinements may bring a more accurate result better explaining the failings of current theories of gravitation.

Did you miss (or skip) the part where they did find and fix the problem?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
Quote
A diagnostic experiment, to test for a change in the force at a fixed distance upon the interposition of another mass, demonstrated that the errors were due to uncontrolled variations in the gravimeter tilt. When the tilt was controlled, the same diagnostic experiment yielded a null result at the level of 1.8 parts in 10 to the 4th power which is the resolution to be expected from a repetition of the inverse square law test.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 06:40:00 AM
The diagnostic tests proved the error was not an anomaly. Further refinements may bring a more accurate result better explaining the failings of current theories of gravitation.

Did you miss (or skip) the part where they did find and fix the problem?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C)
Quote
A diagnostic experiment, to test for a change in the force at a fixed distance upon the interposition of another mass, demonstrated that the errors were due to uncontrolled variations in the gravimeter tilt. When the tilt was controlled, the same diagnostic experiment yielded a null result at the level of 1.8 parts in 10 to the 4th power which is the resolution to be expected from a repetition of the inverse square law test.

I'll bet $50 on (skip).
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 17, 2012, 03:18:44 AM
What is a FEHer?

Someone who believes in the Flat Earth Hypothesis. . .
Thankfully we are all FELers
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: James on September 02, 2012, 01:30:32 PM
Breaking Newton's so called law of universal gravitation is no indictment of a theory.

My inability to transmute lead into gold contraindicates Newton's wild beliefs about alchemy, for example - does that make me any more able to do so?

Isaac Newton was a committed Satanist whose theories are part of a deliberate deception regarding Earth-shape, motivated by his megalomaniacal lust for power and celebrity. Gravity is one of the most outrageous myths ever created.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: EmperorZhark on September 02, 2012, 03:25:29 PM
Breaking Newton's so called law of universal gravitation is no indictment of a theory.

My inability to transmute lead into gold contraindicates Newton's wild beliefs about alchemy, for example - does that make me any more able to do so?

Isaac Newton was a committed Satanist whose theories are part of a deliberate deception regarding Earth-shape, motivated by his megalomaniacal lust for power and celebrity. Gravity is one of the most outrageous myths ever created.

If only there was a better theory!
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 05:19:37 PM
Like Universal Acceleration?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:26:04 PM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 05:55:45 PM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.

You do realize that you don't have do that every time, don't you?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 06:01:51 PM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.

You do realize that you don't have do that every time, don't you?

Wouldn't want a newbie to read the thread and think it's a viable theory before they come across one of the many threads in which I destroy it by pointing out variances in g, would we?  ;)
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 07:50:28 PM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.

You do realize that you don't have do that every time, don't you?

Wouldn't want a newbie to read the thread and think it's a viable theory before they come across one of the many threads in which I destroy it by pointing out variances in g, would we?  ;)

The UA is as viable as any other FE theory.  Besides, why don't you give the noobs the chance to "destroy" the UA for themselves?  You shouldn't hog all the fun for yourself.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: iwanttobelieve on September 02, 2012, 10:22:28 PM
how exactly does gravity bend time space, and what "space" is it expanding into??

gravity is hard to understand for a Zetetic. The UA makes more sense.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
how exactly does gravity bend time space, and what "space" is it expanding into??
How exactly does the UA accelerate the earth and the celestial bodies, but nothing in between?

Quote
The UA makes more sense.
That seems to be a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: hoppy on September 02, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.

You do realize that you don't have do that every time, don't you?
Markjo, TK does not realize that he doesn't have to post. He has problems and cannot stop from posting. He needs others to bam him, in order to stop posting.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 05:03:54 AM
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.

You do realize that you don't have do that every time, don't you?
Markjo, TK does not realize that he doesn't have to post. He has problems and cannot stop from posting. He needs others to bam him, in order to stop posting.

Who has more posts, Hoppy, you or me?  ;)
If I didn't keep pointing out the variances in g disproving UA, nobody else would, and new debaters would be left with weaker counterarguments as that is the strongest counter to UA there is and the one thing that destroys the Equivalence Principle in this argument. Since the "jump off a chair" Equivalence Principle is the only defence there is for UA, it's fairly fundamental to the RE position to be able to trash it effectively.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 03, 2012, 08:14:51 AM

If I didn't keep nit-picking about every little thing I could, conversations could continue without getting derailed. 

Fixed.

Also, markjo has been here a lot longer than you, TK.  You probably post ten times more drivel than markjo.  Don't try to use post counts to make yourself look like a better poster.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: rayman on September 03, 2012, 12:56:16 PM
Can FEers mathematically or empirically prove Newton wrong? or all they can do is assume that Newton was wrong ?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 04:36:20 PM

If I didn't keep nit-picking about every little thing I could, conversations could continue without getting derailed. 

Fixed.

Also, markjo has been here a lot longer than you, TK.  You probably post ten times more drivel than markjo.  Don't try to use post counts to make yourself look like a better poster.

1. I didn't derail the thread as I was discussing something pertinent to the topic, i.e. Newton's laws, gravity, etc. But since you autohit reply to post a criticism when you see my post, without reading said post, I wouldn't expect you to have noticed.
2. The post count comment was an ironic dig at Hoppy for complaining that I post too much. If you can't understand that then perhaps you should return to the lower forums.
3. There are many people supporting the RE side here who have been here longer than I have, yet do not use the most effective arguments against FET. I haven't seen any threads proving the ISS is a satellite, crushing UA using "inexplicable" variances in g or disproving Tom's constant babble that high altitude curvature is caused by lens distortion before I came along. Why not?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: markjo on September 03, 2012, 05:02:43 PM
Can FEers mathematically or empirically prove Newton wrong? or all they can do is assume that Newton was wrong ?

Actually, Einstein mathematically and empirically proved Newton wrong.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: rayman on September 03, 2012, 08:15:59 PM
Newton's equations are correct for what they are intended for.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Ski on September 03, 2012, 10:03:41 PM
Except when they aren't.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 03, 2012, 10:05:26 PM
Newton's equations are correct for what they are intended for.

Are you saying they are correct for being wrong?
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: burt on September 04, 2012, 05:00:17 AM
Can FEers mathematically or empirically prove Newton wrong? or all they can do is assume that Newton was wrong ?

Actually, Einstein mathematically and empirically proved Newton wrong.

This.

furthermore, before einstein the theory had already been falsified because of the deviation of mercury from a derivation of its orbit frrom newton's theory. but there was not a better model until einstein came along and unified some disparate gropings at an explanation.

I think what raymen intends to say, is that we still use newton's theory for everyday earth sciences 1)because it is accurate enough for human scales 2) it is a million times easier to use.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 04, 2012, 07:06:37 AM
Can FEers mathematically or empirically prove Newton wrong? or all they can do is assume that Newton was wrong ?

Actually, Einstein mathematically and empirically proved Newton wrong.

This.

furthermore, before einstein the theory had already been falsified because of the deviation of mercury from a derivation of its orbit frrom newton's theory. but there was not a better model until einstein came along and unified some disparate gropings at an explanation.

I think what raymen intends to say, is that we still use newton's theory for everyday earth sciences 1)because it is accurate enough for human scales 2) it is a million times easier to use.

Yea, relativity can get quite intense. Some of it makes my brain hurt, and the more I understand about it, the more I realize I don't understand it, and the more my head hurts.

Just because it's hard to understand though, doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't see how a "UA" is easier to comprehend than a bend in space-time. I can imagine space time. I cant also imagine a UA, it's an enormous set of rockets stuck to the earth's ass, with an unlimited fuel supply and breaking thermodynamics. It's a wonderful machine.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Spanner on September 12, 2012, 06:16:10 AM
Newton's work was correct, but incomplete. He conducted thought experiments in "absolute space", where space was inert, and time was constant. It was off in extreme cases such as objects with high velocities or objects with high gravitational fields. It couldn't predict things like gravitational redshift. That doesn't make Newton wrong, it just draws a border around what it can be used for.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 12, 2012, 08:17:02 AM
Newton's work was correct, but incomplete. He conducted thought experiments in "absolute space", where space was inert, and time was constant. It was off in extreme cases such as objects with high velocities or objects with high gravitational fields. It couldn't predict things like gravitational redshift. That doesn't make Newton wrong, it just draws a border around what it can be used for.

No, Newton was wrong. His theory does not explain observed effects. He was just flat out wrong, aside from the fact that "apples fall, something made it fall."
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: Spanner on September 12, 2012, 03:45:17 PM
I'm not going to try and argue with you, since you obviously know very little about Newtonian physics given that response. Just know that here in the real world, people still make thorough use of Newton's equations with great success.
Title: Re: Newton
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 06:39:39 AM
I'm not going to try and argue with you, since you obviously know very little about Newtonian physics given that response. Just know that here in the real world, people still make thorough use of Newton's equations with great success.

Newton's equations are only effective for calculating things on a small scale, because they didn't take any of the relativistic effects into account, or lagrange points, or anything like that. The voyager missions would not have been as accurate as they were under Newtonian physics, some of the gravity slings would probably have been missed, and the probes probably would not have made it out of the solar system. Space travel would be a mess under the Newtonian model. Also, the Newtonian model was missing much of what we know about the fundamental laws of physics now. Relativity is extremely important to our understanding of the basic fundamentals of the Universe we live in, and Newton's laws just don't cut it. He was wrong. That is why relativity replaced Newtonian Physics, because it's only good for calculating things like inertia and small, 1 body gravitational effects.