Newton

  • 64 Replies
  • 10640 Views
*

tunu

  • 45
Re: Newton
« Reply #30 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??

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Newton
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2012, 12:16:35 AM »
Do you know what a "statistically significant" means? ???
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

tunu

  • 45
Re: Newton
« Reply #32 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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Newton
« Reply #33 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Newton
« Reply #34 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.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Newton
« Reply #35 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Newton
« Reply #36 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.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Newton
« Reply #37 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #38 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
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Newton
« Reply #39 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
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).
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Newton
« Reply #40 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
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Newton
« Reply #41 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.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Newton
« Reply #42 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!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2012, 05:19:37 PM »
Like Universal Acceleration?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Newton
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2012, 05:26:04 PM »
Like the already disproved Universal Acceleration?

Fixed.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #45 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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Newton
« Reply #46 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?  ;)
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #47 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Newton
« Reply #48 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #49 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11703
Re: Newton
« Reply #50 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.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Newton
« Reply #51 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.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newton
« Reply #52 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.

Re: Newton
« Reply #53 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 ?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Newton
« Reply #54 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?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Newton
« Reply #55 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Newton
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2012, 08:15:59 PM »
Newton's equations are correct for what they are intended for.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Newton
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2012, 10:03:41 PM »
Except when they aren't.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newton
« Reply #58 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?

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Newton
« Reply #59 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.