10 Reasons to Consider the Earth is Flat

But are they accurate descriptions of how the universe works? No, as any RE scientist will tell you. If they were, you guys wouldn't have moved on to GR, QM, and whatever you hope comes next.

Um, for most situations they work the same as GR.  I don't see how this invalidates Newton's observations.

Do they believe in his theory of gravity? No.

But they do believe that his theory of gravity is a reasonably good approximation that is very useful when relativistic conditions do not apply.

Newton's theories no longer hold sway in the RE scientific community.

Actually, Newton's theories are still held in high regard as the foundation of much of today's science.

Newton wasn't trying to explain what is the core reason that makes gravity do what it does, he just successfully managed to mathematically predict gravity's behavior by linking it to the mass of earth.

Newton's law of gravity don't actually try to explain why the mass causes gravity. That is what Einstein tried to do.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 01, 2012, 09:20:46 PM

But are they accurate descriptions of how the universe works? No, as any RE scientist will tell you. If they were, you guys wouldn't have moved on to GR, QM, and whatever you hope comes next.

Um, for most situations they work the same as GR.  I don't see how this invalidates Newton's observations.

I have bolded the point I was making.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 01, 2012, 09:10:46 PM

Do they believe in his theory of gravity? No.

But they do believe that his theory of gravity is a reasonably good approximation that is very useful when relativistic conditions do not apply.

Ditto.

Quote

Newton's theories no longer hold sway in the RE scientific community.

Actually, Newton's theories are still held in high regard as the foundation of much of today's science.

Do you mean they underpin GR/QM/X, or so you mean some other, irrelevant concept of "foundation", i.e. historical/methodological etc?

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 01, 2012, 09:27:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 01, 2012, 09:20:46 PM

But are they accurate descriptions of how the universe works? No, as any RE scientist will tell you. If they were, you guys wouldn't have moved on to GR, QM, and whatever you hope comes next.

Um, for most situations they work the same as GR.  I don't see how this invalidates Newton's observations.

I have bolded the point I was making.

Quote from: markjo on April 01, 2012, 09:46:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 01, 2012, 09:10:46 PM

Do they believe in his theory of gravity? No.

But they do believe that his theory of gravity is a reasonably good approximation that is very useful when relativistic conditions do not apply.

Ditto.

There are degrees of accuracy.  Newton's theory of gravity is more accurate than the theories that preceded and less accurate than theories that followed.  This is known as progress. 

Quote from: markjo on April 01, 2012, 09:46:20 PM

Quote

Newton's theories no longer hold sway in the RE scientific community.

Actually, Newton's theories are still held in high regard as the foundation of much of today's science.

Do you mean they underpin GR/QM/X, or so you mean some other, irrelevant concept of "foundation", i.e. historical/methodological etc?

I would hardly call his contributions to mathematics (calculus), optics (the reflecting telescope) and his laws of motion, among other things, irrelevant.

There are degrees of accuracy.  Newton's theory of gravity is more accurate than the theories that preceded and less accurate than theories that followed.  This is known as progress.

Okay, so which RE scientists currently think Newton's theories are the most accurate descriptions of how the universe works, or as accurate as GR/QM?

I would hardly call his contributions to mathematics (calculus), optics (the reflecting telescope) and his laws of motion, among other things, irrelevant.

I see, one of the irrelevant ones. "Newton made a new kind of telescope! Therefore, his theories about telescopes are the foundation of much of today's science! Newton along with Leibniz shares credit for inventing calculus! Therefore, Newton's theories are the foundation of much of today's science, including GR/QM etc!"


Of course, even if the above were true (and it isn't), it wouldn't and doesn't follow that RE scientists think Newton's theories were correct, or even as accurate as/more accurate than GR/QM.

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2012, 09:22:58 PM

There are degrees of accuracy.  Newton's theory of gravity is more accurate than the theories that preceded and less accurate than theories that followed.  This is known as progress.

Okay, so which RE scientists currently think Newton's theories are the most accurate descriptions of how the universe works, or as accurate as GR/QM?

Just because Newton's gravity isn't the most accurate theory today, that does not mean that it is not at all accurate. 

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2012, 09:22:58 PM

I would hardly call his contributions to mathematics (calculus), optics (the reflecting telescope) and his laws of motion, among other things, irrelevant.

I see, one of the irrelevant ones. "Newton made a new kind of telescope! Therefore, his theories about telescopes are the foundation of much of today's science! Newton along with Leibniz shares credit for inventing calculus! Therefore, Newton's theories are the foundation of much of today's science, including GR/QM etc!"

Newton's "new kind of telescope" was not his only contribution to optics and calculus was not Newton's only contribution to mathematics.  I only mentioned them because they are some of his better known contributions.

Of course, even if the above were true (and it isn't), it wouldn't and doesn't follow that RE scientists think Newton's theories were correct, or even as accurate as/more accurate than GR/QM.

I never said that they did.  You really do need to take it easy on the straw men.  Perhaps foundation may have been a strong word, but can you honestly say that GR and QM would be where they are today without Newton's body of work?

Just because Newton's gravity isn't the most accurate theory today, that does not mean that it is not at all accurate.

Amazing. You ask a RE'er two straight questions, and they answer a third question you didn't ask.

Newton's "new kind of telescope" was not his only contribution to optics and calculus was not Newton's only contribution to mathematics.  I only mentioned them because they are some of his better known contributions.

Are any of these other contributions, which you haven't mentioned, actually relevant?

Quote

Of course, even if the above were true (and it isn't), it wouldn't and doesn't follow that RE scientists think Newton's theories were correct, or even as accurate as/more accurate than GR/QM.

I never said that they did.  You really do need to take it easy on the straw men.

Sorry markjo, in future I will be less charitable and won't assume that you're trying to say something relevant when you respond with answers to questions I haven't asked.

Perhaps foundation may have been a strong word, but can you honestly say that GR and QM would be where they are today without Newton's body of work?

You could say the same thing about almost any established concept in the history of ideas. Would we have have DNA without Aristotle's biology? Would we have Wittgenstein without Plato? Would we have modern chemistry without alchemy? In the broadest possible sense, all of these things are connected. That doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally different or mutually exclusive.

Is there a point to any of this?  Or are you trying to magic away the fact that science both in Newton's time and today's supported a round earth and were able to make accurate models, which is something that FET has yet to do?

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM

Just because Newton's gravity isn't the most accurate theory today, that does not mean that it is not at all accurate.

Amazing. You ask a RE'er two straight questions, and they answer a third question you didn't ask.

That's because you keep asking the wrong questions.  We both know that Newton's version of gravity is not currently the most accurate description of how gravity works.  That does not mean that Newton's version of gravity is not capable of making very accurate predictions.

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM

Newton's "new kind of telescope" was not his only contribution to optics and calculus was not Newton's only contribution to mathematics.  I only mentioned them because they are some of his better known contributions.

Are any of these other contributions, which you haven't mentioned, actually relevant?

Probably not to a philosopher. 

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM

Perhaps foundation may have been a strong word, but can you honestly say that GR and QM would be where they are today without Newton's body of work?

You could say the same thing about almost any established concept in the history of ideas. Would we have have DNA without Aristotle's biology? Would we have Wittgenstein without Plato? Would we have modern chemistry without alchemy? In the broadest possible sense, all of these things are connected. That doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally different or mutually exclusive.

I think that you're finally starting to get it.  There's an old saying that good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement.  Yes, many of the historical pioneers of science were wrong about a lot of things.  However, if there is one thing that science is about, it's about learning from past failures as well as successes.

That's because you keep asking the wrong questions.  We both know that Newton's version of gravity is not currently the most accurate description of how gravity works.  That does not mean that Newton's version of gravity is not capable of making very accurate predictions.

I'm not asking the right questions? Are you suggesting my questions should be tailored to the answers you want to give?


None of this changes the fact that Newton's theories are not currently supported by mainstream scientists. The instant transmission of gravitational force would involve breaking the speed of light. What modern RE scientist believes that this is an accurate description of gravitation? Newtonian physics and GR/QM are mutually exclusive.

Probably not to a philosopher.

Or to anyone.

I think that you're finally starting to get it.  There's an old saying that good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement.  Yes, many of the historical pioneers of science were wrong about a lot of things.  However, if there is one thing that science is about, it's about learning from past failures as well as successes.

Okay, so according to you, Newtonian physics, which are fundamentally incompatible with GR, form the foundation of GR. Plato is the foundation for Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, and this is the foundation for his later works, despite the fact that he completely rejects the Tractatus in them. Right.


Of course even if we buy this, you've still characterised Newton's theories as mistaken. In other words, wrong. Which is even more than I claimed to begin with.

Jeeze, Wilmore, I don't think you get how science works.  It goes by successively better models.

Newton's models work just fine in tons of situations.  There are situations where they don't work, so now we have Einstein's that do.

This doesn't mean that Newton's models don't still work.  They're not as close, but lots of times they're close enough to not alter the significant figures we're reaching for.

And once again, neither Newton or Einstein agreed with you about the shape of the earth.  Not sure what you're trying to prove here except that you enjoy debating irrelevant micro-arguments until everyone else gets tired and leaves.  Then you declare victory, I guess?

Jeeze, Wilmore, I don't think you get how science works.  It goes by successively better models.

Newton's models work just fine in tons of situations.  There are situations where they don't work, so now we have Einstein's that do.

This doesn't mean that Newton's models don't still work.  They're not as close, but lots of times they're close enough to not alter the significant figures we're reaching for.

And once again, neither Newton or Einstein agreed with you about the shape of the earth.  Not sure what you're trying to prove here except that you enjoy debating irrelevant micro-arguments until everyone else gets tired and leaves.  Then you declare victory, I guess?

People are presenting Newton as some kind of King of RE Science. The problem is, he isn't. So when people stop presenting him as such, I won't have to point out that his theories fundamentally contradict modern RET. Nobody believes in Newtonian physics any more. He's about as authoritative as Aristotle when it comes to physics.

People are presenting Newton as some kind of King of RE Science. The problem is, he isn't. So when people stop presenting him as such, I won't have to point out that his theories fundamentally contradict modern RET. Nobody believes in Newtonian physics any more. He's about as authoritative as Aristotle when it comes to physics.

Um, he made models predicting how gravity works that support a round earth.  His models are accurate enough that they're still used today.

I'm not sure what you're not getting here.

People are presenting Newton as some kind of King of RE Science. The problem is, he isn't. So when people stop presenting him as such, I won't have to point out that his theories fundamentally contradict modern RET. Nobody believes in Newtonian physics any more. He's about as authoritative as Aristotle when it comes to physics.

Newton's equations can mathematically predict many physical events provided that relativistic conditions do not apply.

I have no idea why you are saying that his equations no longer apply. Have the physical laws of the universe changed?
Cause if it didn't change, all his equations should still work for non relativistic conditions.

None of this changes the fact that Newton's theories are not currently supported by mainstream scientists. The instant transmission of gravitational force would involve breaking the speed of light. What modern RE scientist believes that this is an accurate description of gravitation? Newtonian physics and GR/QM are mutually exclusive.

Yes, he got the "instant transmission" thing wrong, but he did get the part about gravitational attraction of two objects being directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to their distance part right.  In fact, he go it so right that it's a cornerstone of GR and QM.  Also, last I heard, his three laws of motion are still right and very relevant to modern physics.

Of course even if we buy this, you've still characterised Newton's theories as mistaken. In other words, wrong. Which is even more than I claimed to begin with.

And you've characterized Newton's theories as completely rejected by modern scientists, which is not true.  I'm saying that Newton's body of work, mistakes and all, have stood the test of time and that is why Newtonian mechanics are still taught to science and engineering students and used in real world applications to this day.

Um, he made models predicting how gravity works that support a round earth.  His models are accurate enough that they're still used today.

I'm not sure what you're not getting here.

The ancient Greeks could predict the movements of the heavens. So could many other cultures. Some of these were RE cosmologies, some FE cosmologies. They are not considered veridical simply because they had predictive power.

Newton's equations can mathematically predict many physical events provided that relativistic conditions do not apply.

I have no idea why you are saying that his equations no longer apply. Have the physical laws of the universe changed?
Cause if it didn't change, all his equations should still work for non relativistic conditions.

You tell me! After all, the universe can't work in the way Newton described and in the way Einstein described. One of them had to be wrong.

Yes, he got the "instant transmission" thing wrong, but he did get the part about gravitational attraction of two objects being directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to their distance part right.  In fact, he go it so right that it's a cornerstone of GR and QM.  Also, last I heard, his three laws of motion are still right and very relevant to modern physics.

Oh, he got the bit about gravity breaking the speed of light wrong, and the manner in which it works wrong. Not much I guess.


As for his laws of motion, they may still be applied for the purposes of approximate predictions under normal conditions, but they still do not accurately describe how the universe works. This is why they cannot be applied very small scales, high speeds etc.

And you've characterized Newton's theories as completely rejected by modern scientists, which is not true.  I'm saying that Newton's body of work, mistakes and all, have stood the test of time and that is why Newtonian mechanics are still taught to science and engineering students and used in real world applications to this day.

What exactly is the test of time? I can think of a better test: veracity. Do Newton's theories describe how the universe actually works? If not, they are wrong. Do RE scientists believe they describe how the universe actually works? No. Therefore, RE scientists think Newton was wrong.

As for his laws of motion, they may still be applied for the purposes of approximate predictions under normal conditions, but they still do not accurately describe how the universe works. This is why they cannot be applied very small scales, high speeds etc.

That is exactly why we keep qualifying that Newton's physics work just fine under non-relativistic conditions.  This is also why GR doesn't work at very small scales and QM doesn't work at large scales.  None of those theories accurately describe how the universe works at all scales.  Does that mean that we should discard QM and GR as well?

The ancient Greeks could predict the movements of the heavens. So could many other cultures. Some of these were RE cosmologies, some FE cosmologies. They are not considered veridical simply because they had predictive power.

A few things you're glossing over here:

1.  This doesn't invalidate the observations they made.  They did a good job of it. 

2.  The FE cosmologies you speak of are nothing like most FETs today.  They had the good sense to recognize that celestial bodies appear to rotate around the earth and not zip around on top of it. 

The move from older cosmologies to seeing the world as spinning around, and not the stars, doesn't change the observations they made.  They just assumed the wrong thing was spinning.

The move from seeing the planets moving around crazily to orbiting the sun, likewise, didn't change the observations they made.  They just had a way to explain those motions.

The move from Newton to Einstein didn't change the observations that Newton made, either.  It just helped explain some anomalies that had been observed in the past (Mercury's orbit, if I remember correctly) and some other things that had been observed more recently.

All of these steps built on top of each other because even if the conclusions were imperfect, they were still based on and fit with observations.

The usual FET model with the sun, moon, stars, and planets doing circles above the plane of the earth doesn't meet those requirements.  It describes motions that we don't observe.  And it's utterly dissimilar to any of the models along the line so far.

So yeah, the "truth" may change about all of this, but not enough that previous, established models suddenly aren't based on observations or are unable to predict anything. 

Newton's models require a round earth, and they still work excellently in many applications.  Why is that?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 04, 2012, 02:44:36 PM

As for his laws of motion, they may still be applied for the purposes of approximate predictions under normal conditions, but they still do not accurately describe how the universe works. This is why they cannot be applied very small scales, high speeds etc.

That is exactly why we keep qualifying that Newton's physics work just fine under non-relativistic conditions.

Yeah, I know why you keep doing it. The point is, relativistic conditions do exist, and Newton's theories cannot operate within them. Hence, they are wrong.

This is also why GR doesn't work at very small scales and QM doesn't work at large scales.  None of those theories accurately describe how the universe works at all scales.  Does that mean that we should discard QM and GR as well?

Well, according to many RE scientists today, yes. Everyone's searching for a new model (or some new version of either one), having satisfied themselves that they are insufficient, and do not describe how the universe actually works.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 04, 2012, 02:44:36 PM

As for his laws of motion, they may still be applied for the purposes of approximate predictions under normal conditions, but they still do not accurately describe how the universe works. This is why they cannot be applied very small scales, high speeds etc.

That is exactly why we keep qualifying that Newton's physics work just fine under non-relativistic conditions.

Yeah, I know why you keep doing it. The point is, relativistic conditions do exist, and Newton's theories cannot operate within them. Hence, they are wrong.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

This is also why GR doesn't work at very small scales and QM doesn't work at large scales.  None of those theories accurately describe how the universe works at all scales.  Does that mean that we should discard QM and GR as well?

Well, according to many RE scientists today, yes. Everyone's searching for a new model (or some new version of either one), having satisfied themselves that they are insufficient, and do not describe how the universe actually works.

Major fail for you.

Newton's theory aren't wrong, they are incomplete. Doesn't the apple fall at the exactly speed his equations predict? Doesn't civil engineer still use his equations  to balance out the forces of the pillars in a house?

When the laws of the universe changed and made Newton's equation obsolete?

Does that mean Einstein is wrong too? Einstein came with the Theory of relativity to try to fill some of the gaps of Newton's equations. But even that is not completed.

Is every single scientific branch wrong because their theories are incomplete?

I really can't understand your logic.

Major fail for you.

Uh, what exactly is the fail?

Newton's theory aren't wrong, they are incomplete.

How exactly is gravity acting instantaneously, and thereby breaking the speed of light, an "incomplete" aspect of Newton's theories? It's just wrong.

When the laws of the universe changed and made Newton's equation obsolete?

When it was decided that nothing could go faster than light. Newton's gravity acts instantaneously, thereby breaking the speed of light. Which do you agree with? Stop flip-flopping and pick a side.

Does that mean Einstein is wrong too? Einstein came with the Theory of relativity to try to fill some of the gaps of Newton's equations. But even that is not completed.

If a re-working of relativity comes along to solve all its problems, then no. However, if a new theory comes along, which explains how the universe works and is fundamentally incompatible with relativity, then yes, relativity is wrong.

Quote from: rayman on April 04, 2012, 05:22:39 PM

Major fail for you.

Uh, what exactly is the fail?

Quote from: rayman on April 04, 2012, 05:22:39 PM

Newton's theory aren't wrong, they are incomplete.

How exactly is gravity acting instantaneously, and thereby breaking the speed of light, an "incomplete" aspect of Newton's theories? It's just wrong.

Quote from: rayman on April 04, 2012, 05:22:39 PM

When the laws of the universe changed and made Newton's equation obsolete?

When it was decided that nothing could go faster than light. Newton's gravity acts instantaneously, thereby breaking the speed of light. Which do you agree with? Stop flip-flopping and pick a side.

Quote from: rayman on April 04, 2012, 05:22:39 PM

Does that mean Einstein is wrong too? Einstein came with the Theory of relativity to try to fill some of the gaps of Newton's equations. But even that is not completed.

If a re-working of relativity comes along to solve all its problems, then no. However, if a new theory comes along, which explains how the universe works and is fundamentally incompatible with relativity, then yes, relativity is wrong.

Newton's theory would be wrong if they failed to predict what they were meant to predict.

If Newton's equation were wrong, your house would had fell over your head a long time ago. Since the engineers would have failed in properly balance out the forces of the base pillars of your house.  Or they would have to use a lot more material than they actually used to make sure the house wouldn't fall apart.

There is a big different between incomplete and wrong.

Newton was able to mathematically predict all the hypotheses he presented. I really don't understand where you idea of wrong fits in that.

Newton was able to mathematically predict all the hypotheses he presented.

What?

Also, incomplete is wrong.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 04, 2012, 02:44:36 PM

As for his laws of motion, they may still be applied for the purposes of approximate predictions under normal conditions, but they still do not accurately describe how the universe works. This is why they cannot be applied very small scales, high speeds etc.

That is exactly why we keep qualifying that Newton's physics work just fine under non-relativistic conditions.

Yeah, I know why you keep doing it. The point is, relativistic conditions do exist, and Newton's theories cannot operate within them. Hence, they are wrong.

So you're saying that Newton's theories can not be used ever?

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

This is also why GR doesn't work at very small scales and QM doesn't work at large scales.  None of those theories accurately describe how the universe works at all scales.  Does that mean that we should discard QM and GR as well?

Well, according to many RE scientists today, yes. Everyone's searching for a new model (or some new version of either one), having satisfied themselves that they are insufficient, and do not describe how the universe actually works.

Are you suggesting that unless we have a theory of everything, we don't have a theory of anything? 

Also, incomplete is wrong.

So there's no partial credit for what he did get right?

Also, incomplete is wrong.

So your FET is wrong, by this ridiculous rhetoric. Isn't every theory wrong then?

Newton's theory would be wrong if they failed to predict what they were meant to predict.

If Newton's equation were wrong, your house would had fell over your head a long time ago. Since the engineers would have failed in properly balance out the forces of the base pillars of your house.  Or they would have to use a lot more material than they actually used to make sure the house wouldn't fall apart.

There is a big different between incomplete and wrong.

Newton was able to mathematically predict all the hypotheses he presented. I really don't understand where you idea of wrong fits in that.

Predictive power != truth.

So you're saying that Newton's theories can not be used ever?

No?


www.rif.org

Are you suggesting that unless we have a theory of everything, we don't have a theory of anything? 

Again, no?


www.rif.org


If I don't have a working toaster, does that mean I don't have a toaster?

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

So you're saying that Newton's theories can not be used ever?

No?

Are you asking me or are you telling me?

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 03:03:45 PM

Are you suggesting that unless we have a theory of everything, we don't have a theory of anything? 

Again, no?

If I don't have a working toaster, does that mean I don't have a toaster?

But Newton's theories, GR and QM do work within their intended, respective realms.  Would you use a toaster to make a smoothie?

Are you asking me or are you telling me?

Telling you.

But Newton's theories, GR and QM do work within their intended, respective realms.  Would you use a toaster to make a smoothie?

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Newton only intended his theory to be used in non-quantum, non-relativistic contexts, despite not knowing about either? And that his theory violated the speed of light in order to complement GR?