What logical reasons are there to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?

Some method of falsifying Newtonian gravity is used by most Flat Earthers.

By Newtonian gravity I just mean the idea masses attract each other and this is what we call Gravity.

There are plenty of illogical and ignorant reasons out there on youtube claiming Newton was wrong such as:

1. The Cavendish experiment was never repeated ie it cannot be repeated,
2. The theory of gravity is only based on weight there is no evidence masses attract each other - same kind of thing as 1.
3. Einstein being wrong disproves gravity
4. Different  measurements of the gravitational constant over the last 15 years creating different results ranging from 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 somehow have something to do with there being no gravitational constant


Are there any sensible attempts to disprove Newtonian gravity?

Some method of falsifying Newtonian gravity is used by most Flat Earthers.

By Newtonian gravity I just mean the idea masses attract each other and this is what we call Gravity.

There are plenty of illogical and ignorant reasons out there on youtube claiming Newton was wrong such as:

1. The Cavendish experiment was never repeated ie it cannot be repeated,
2. The theory of gravity is only based on weight there is no evidence masses attract each other - same kind of thing as 1.
3. Einstein being wrong disproves gravity
4. Different  measurements of the gravitational constant over the last 15 years creating different results ranging from 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 somehow have something to do with there being no gravitational constant


Are there any sensible attempts to disprove Newtonian gravity?

You ask "What logical reasons are there to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?"

Then you have "3. Einstein being wrong disproves gravity". Well I have seen it put the other way
"Einstein being right disproves Newtonian gravitation", though I don't believe even Einstein claimed that.

Special Relativity.  What do I win?

Special Relativity.  What do I win?

A dunce cap. 

Special Relativity explains the relationship between space and time.  General Relativity explains the warping of space-time to produce the phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity.

Special Relativity.  What do I win?

Wow for once Im finding myself agreeing with you as long as we are talking about general relativity for stuff related to gravity and special for all things to do with space time, but I am sure you were. Sure the Newtonian view of gravity and the mechanical solar system were not quite correct, though for predicting planetary orbits its pretty dam good, but relativity and space time offers a much better explanation that has been proved through much experimentation.

You see that the thing you have an idea of how things work, you test your idea in the real world by experimentation...if your predictions hold good then its a good chance you are on winner.

The sat nav in you car for example needs to take account of special relativity in calculating your position.

Here is a great TV prog on that whole topic watch it and enjoy.

So, can we agree that Special Relativity throws Newtonian Physics out the window? 

So, can we agree that Special Relativity throws Newtonian Physics out the window?

Not out of the window. Newtonian physics works really well on slow-moving (reletive to eachother) objects. And it vastly simplifies it even though it may be slightly off.

So, can we agree that Special Relativity throws Newtonian Physics out the window?

So, can we agree that Special Relativity throws Newtonian Physics out the window?

Not out of the window. Newtonian physics works really well on slow-moving (reletive to eachother) objects. And it vastly simplifies it even though it may be slightly off.

  jroa doesn't know the difference between special and general relativity   

So, can we agree that Special Relativity throws Newtonian Physics out the window?

Now your just being a cheeky monkey!....No, not at all. What you have to remember is Newton was a giant....you with your acceptable calculations are not worthy to even say his name. The day you pen something as great as his Philosophić Naturalis Principe Mathematica, you too will become something special. If you know anything regarding the history of science and mathematics you should appreciate how astoundingly great his contribution was. Only an utter fool would deny it. Einstein simply improved on what Newton had already done, its not that he was wrong..... You have to remember Newton was doing all his great work in the latter years of the 17thC.
This is why he is regarded as one of the greatest minds ever to have lived.

jroa doesn't know the difference between special and general relativity   

I think he does know the difference. His go to argument is semantics, particularly when gravity is brought up.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 11, 2016, 01:47:21 PM

jroa doesn't know the difference between special and general relativity   

I think he does know the difference. His go to argument is semantics, particularly when gravity is brought up.

I think your spelling needs some work.... semantics is not spelled like that...it should be....bullshit.

Special Relativity.  What do I win?

No!
1) I don't believe it was a competition.

2) Special Relativity says nothing about gravitation. Strictly it applies to Inertial Reference Frames.

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.



[1] Near the earth the only significant effect is slight increase in the rate of the clocks on GPS satellites (about 45 μs/day).

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

Quote from: rabinoz link=topic=67664.msg1809155#msg1809155

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

I gotta admit, when I saw this thread I was like "you mean except GR?"

Quote from: rabinoz link=topic=67664.msg1809155#msg1809155

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

You are correct.  The wording in my post is wrong.      I am now struggling to word it correctly.      These are the ideas I wanted to highlight.

1.   Modern scientific views are based on the observation gravity behaves as if masses attract each other in proportion to their masses.
2.  The modern view of gravity is incompatible with a flat earth because plumb bobs would not point downwards once you move away from the North Pole
3.  Presumably because of 2,  Flat Earthers have attempted to falsify the modern view of gravity by claiming there is no science behind the modern view of gravity.
4.  Many if not all Flat earthers are inventing reasons why gravitational science is 'scientism' that has no basis in experimental evidence.  These inventions can easily be seen to be based on ignorance,  lack of knowledge and  inability to think scientifically.

However I was wondering if there are sensible ideas out there that enable the flat earth idea to work scientifically at least as far as Gravity goes.     For example if the earth is accelerating upwards is it sensible to think of the Earth and the atmosphere as a protected spaceship going faster and faster through space where by now it must be travelling at an enormous speed and if life here is to continue it must continue to go ever faster?   OK it is one of the best ideas but it is still ridiculous to think we are accelerating through space in an intelligently designed space ship with a protected atmosphere, while simultaneously space travel is regarded as impossible by flat earthers. 

You are correct.  The wording in my post is wrong.      I am now struggling to word it correctly.      These are the ideas I wanted to highlight.

1.   Modern scientific views are based on the observation gravity behaves as if masses attract each other in proportion to their masses.

Well, I admire your willingness to admit your error. Some of your fellow globularists could learn a thing or two from you, and with that attitude, you may learn a great deal.
1) That is not entirely correct. Most views of gravitation are based on the SEM tensor, not mass. What about objects without mass? Other globularists treat gravitation as an actual force, but those ideas are not in vogue despite better predictive power than the current model. I suspect that we would see a move toward a modified gravitation and perhaps better understanding if the Orthodoxy had not such a stranglehold on its pulpits.

2.  The modern view of gravity is incompatible with a flat earth because plumb bobs would not point downwards once you move away from the North Pole

Isn't it possible that the CoM is far enough below the earth that this is not discernible?  It seems like a meaningless thought experiment if we don't know what the variables are and just assume we would see it. Interestingly enough, experiments have been performed with plumb bobs with some astonishing results (if you're a globularist). You should explore the Tamarack mine experiments.

3.  Presumably because of 2,  Flat Earthers have attempted to falsify the modern view of gravity by claiming there is no science behind the modern view of gravity.

There is science behind gravitation in the same sense that it was behind gravity. They are simply both woefully inadequate to describe observations and not "laws" by any demonstrable means. I'm sure that gravitation exists in some form or another. I am equally sure that we have not the slightest understanding of it or how it interacts with other fundamental forces, including perhaps those unknown to us.

4.  Many if not all Flat earthers are inventing reasons why gravitational science is 'scientism' that has no basis in experimental evidence.

You should corner one of your prophets until they admit that they really don't understand the phenomenon that is gravitation. Or continue reading wiki articles and primary school texts as though they were scripture. Up to you.  Orthodoxy's gravitation fails to match observations in a way that would devastate any thinking person's trust in it or the system which continues to espouse it.
You openly scoff a universal accelerator, but open your mind and heart to a "universal accelerator" of the Orthodoxy that is even more outrageous-- in staggering amounts! If one replaced the words "dark matter" with "fairies", or "dark energy" with "fairies pushing", it would not make the slightest difference to mainstream science's understanding of the universe.  It's tantamount to saying "fairies must exist otherwise our 'laws' don't work, and we'd be forced to admit we're wrong. And everyone knows our laws work."
Currently, the laws are working so well that according to the Orthodoxy if you add up all the billions of massive stars and galaxies together in their huge universe, they'd still be outnumbered by "fairies" 97 to 3. That's good science. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant and unable to think scientifically because I don't kneel at the fairy altar?  No, thank you.

At any rate,  you at least put some thought into your post and seem willing to learn. I wish more people would take your example to heart, but I suppose it's unlikely.

Quote from: Ski on August 11, 2016, 09:08:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz link=topic=67664.msg1809155#msg1809155

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

You are correct.  The wording in my post is wrong.      I am now struggling to word it correctly.      These are the ideas I wanted to highlight.

1.   Modern scientific views are based on the observation gravity behaves as if masses attract each other in proportion to their masses.
2.  The modern view of gravity is incompatible with a flat earth because plumb bobs would not point downwards once you move away from the North Pole
3.  Presumably because of 2,  Flat Earthers have attempted to falsify the modern view of gravity by claiming there is no science behind the modern view of gravity.
4.  Many if not all Flat earthers are inventing reasons why gravitational science is 'scientism' that has no basis in experimental evidence.  These inventions can easily be seen to be based on ignorance,  lack of knowledge and  inability to think scientifically.

However I was wondering if there are sensible ideas out there that enable the flat earth idea to work scientifically at least as far as Gravity goes.     For example if the earth is accelerating upwards is it sensible to think of the Earth and the atmosphere as a protected spaceship going faster and faster through space where by now it must be travelling at an enormous speed and if life here is to continue it must continue to go ever faster?   OK it is one of the best ideas but it is still ridiculous to think we are accelerating through space in an intelligently designed space ship with a protected atmosphere, while simultaneously space travel is regarded as impossible by flat earthers.

The acceleration model is interesting because it is based on the Newtonian laws FEs routinely reject. It would also have earth travelling at hundreds of times the speed of light by now and even a FEer has to see problems with that since the rest of the cosmos does not appear to be moving or we are all moving at the same pace thus raising even more questions.

Gravity is not only a good fit. It is the PERFECT fit.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 12, 2016, 12:58:48 AM

You are correct.  The wording in my post is wrong.      I am now struggling to word it correctly.      These are the ideas I wanted to highlight.

1.   Modern scientific views are based on the observation gravity behaves as if masses attract each other in proportion to their masses.

Well, I admire your willingness to admit your error. Some of your fellow globularists could learn a thing or two from you, and with that attitude, you may learn a great deal.
1) That is not entirely correct. Most views of gravitation are based on the SEM tensor, not mass. What about objects without mass? Other globularists treat gravitation as an actual force, but those ideas are not in vogue despite better predictive power than the current model. I suspect that we would see a move toward a modified gravitation and perhaps better understanding if the Orthodoxy had not such a stranglehold on its pulpits.

Quote

2.  The modern view of gravity is incompatible with a flat earth because plumb bobs would not point downwards once you move away from the North Pole

Isn't it possible that the CoM is far enough below the earth that this is not discernible?  It seems like a meaningless thought experiment if we don't know what the variables are and just assume we would see it. Interestingly enough, experiments have been performed with plumb bobs with some astonishing results (if you're a globularist). You should explore the Tamarack mine experiments.

Quote

3.  Presumably because of 2,  Flat Earthers have attempted to falsify the modern view of gravity by claiming there is no science behind the modern view of gravity.

There is science behind gravitation in the same sense that it was behind gravity. They are simply both woefully inadequate to describe observations and not "laws" by any demonstrable means. I'm sure that gravitation exists in some form or another. I am equally sure that we have not the slightest understanding of it or how it interacts with other fundamental forces, including perhaps those unknown to us.

Quote

4.  Many if not all Flat earthers are inventing reasons why gravitational science is 'scientism' that has no basis in experimental evidence.

You should corner one of your prophets until they admit that they really don't understand the phenomenon that is gravitation. Or continue reading wiki articles and primary school texts as though they were scripture. Up to you.  Orthodoxy's gravitation fails to match observations in a way that would devastate any thinking person's trust in it or the system which continues to espouse it.
You openly scoff a universal accelerator, but open your mind and heart to a "universal accelerator" of the Orthodoxy that is even more outrageous-- in staggering amounts! If one replaced the words "dark matter" with "fairies", or "dark energy" with "fairies pushing", it would not make the slightest difference to mainstream science's understanding of the universe.  It's tantamount to saying "fairies must exist otherwise our 'laws' don't work, and we'd be forced to admit we're wrong. And everyone knows our laws work."
Currently, the laws are working so well that according to the Orthodoxy if you add up all the billions of massive stars and galaxies together in their huge universe, they'd still be outnumbered by "fairies" 97 to 3. That's good science. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant and unable to think scientifically because I don't kneel at the fairy altar?  No, thank you.

At any rate,  you at least put some thought into your post and seem willing to learn. I wish more people would take your example to heart, but I suppose it's unlikely.

So, in short...

You ditch gravity because it doesnt explain the dark matter conundrum while perfectly explaining everything else in favour of universal acceleration which explains nothing at all in a coherent an meaningful way and makes zero accurate predictions?

Not really logical or clever, is it?

The comments about Relativity from some are interesting if only in how it demonstrates just how ignorant they are of what it is or the scientific method itself. Einstein didn't DEBUNK Newton. He modified it and improved it and made it a bit more accurate. Improving a theory is not debunking the previous one. And at nonrelativistic velocities, Newton is still spot-on.

Why does gravity so mess with flat earthers?  Since they are trouble by so many things, why does Gravity seemingly top their list?

Since almost two centuries earlier astronomers had been aware of a small flaw in Mercury's orbit around the Sun, as predicted by Newton's laws. As the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury orbits a region in the solar system where spacetime is disturbed by t he Sun's mass. Mercury's elliptical path around the Sun shifts slightly with each orbit such that its closest point to the Sun (or "perihelion") shifts forward with each pass. Newton's theory had predicted an advance only half as large as the one actually observed. Einstein's predictions exactly matched the observation.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-general-relativity-clarify-about-mercury

That was all I meant, In this particular regard Newtonian Gravity is wrong.

The acceleration model is interesting because it is based on the Newtonian laws FEs routinely reject. It would also have earth travelling at hundreds of times the speed of light by now...

 

Sorry, I stopped reading here, because I didn't want to waste any more time being arrogantly "educated" and lectured by a scientific illiterate.

Quote from: rabinoz link=topic=67664.msg1809155#msg1809155

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

I don't believe I ever claimed that any scientist "advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation", if fact I simply cannot fathom what you meant by "Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation".
 
What I said was that "Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction", in the sense of extending to regions Newton never envisaged. 

All I claim is that "everyday calculations" on and near earth are almost invariably done using Newtonian Laws of Motion and Gravitation and not using GR. Contrary to what John Davis would have us believe the curvature of space anywhere in the solar system is almost immeasurable, especially near earth. Spacetime might be curved slightly, but it is predominantly in the time component not the spacial component. The clocks in GPS satellites run around 45 us/day fast compared to "on earth"  clocks.

I do understand that almost all orbital calculations are initially performed using purely Newtonian mechanics, then examined to see if corrections are needed.

If you have first hand contrary evidence I would be glad to hear it. 

In almost all cases the Newtonian laws are adequate. In most cases where they are not a small relativistic correction can be applied.

Do you really think GR is used in designing a bridge, an aircraft or even a space vehicle?

The solution of any but the simplest situations (eg small object moving around a massive one) using GR alone is way outside most the capability of most engineers and probably most scientists.

Sure, those dealing in cosmology and I suppose particle physics simply have to use it.

You do really love to laud it over us mere mortals with your superior understanding of physics, yet I have never seen any plausible explanations in your theories for numerous things I see with my own eyes.

I have tried to point these out in numerous posts, but usually simply get ignored.

Well, I admire your willingness to admit your error. Some of your fellow globularists could learn a thing or two from you, and with that attitude, you may learn a great deal.

The irony in that statement from you is shocking

I gave you irrefutable evidence which you dismissed and didn't accept your mistake

double standards and cognitive dissonance are your only backup

Does any of those cancel the other one?
Does GR denies Newtonian completely, or just its accuracy?
How inaccurate Newtonian really is in everyday life?

Let's think about it:
Let's introduce an object with mass of exactly 1 kg.
Can we calculate the difference in force?
Let's see, for example, in San Francisco, where g is exactly 9.800 m/s^2
How strong would Newtonian force pull the object down, and how strong would GR force pull?

Quote from: rabinoz link=topic=67664.msg1809155#msg1809155

3) Even General Relativity does not falsify Newtonian Gravitation but applies a correction¹ for extremely high mass situations.

Ermm, what?     Can you name one scientist,  globular or otherwise, who advocates Newtonian gravity in place of gravitation?  Newton's gravity is already out of vogue among the Orthodox; you need no help from me.

I'm not sure about scientists, but I'm willing to bet that just about every working engineer in the world (round or flat) will take Newton over Einstein every time.

The irony in that statement from you is shocking

I gave you irrefutable evidence which you dismissed and didn't accept your mistake

double standards and cognitive dissonance are your only backup

The only thing I've seen you do is spam the complaint feature and fill my email with nonsense. There was also some petulant whining about you being the only person willing to talk about FET, and everyone was ignoring you including other roundies because you were being boorish.

In short:
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you

Does any of those cancel the other one?
Does GR denies Newtonian completely, or just its accuracy?
How inaccurate Newtonian really is in everyday life?

Newtonian gravity results in a solution that is typically a close approximation for GR's gravitation. Neither actually works, but by all means ignore that and call the 97-3 fairy-to-physical ratio good enough for scientific work.

Let's see, for example, in San Francisco, where g is exactly 9.800 m/s^2
How strong would Newtonian force pull the object down, and how strong would GR force pull?

 

Quote from: SpJunk on August 12, 2016, 05:45:37 AM

How inaccurate Newtonian really is in everyday life?

Newtonian gravity results in a solution that is typically a close approximation for GR's gravitation. Neither actually works, but by all means ignore that and call the 97-3 fairy-to-physical ratio good enough for scientific work.

Your claim "Neither actually works". Well, what is the famous "Ski Gravitational Hypothesis" then?
I guess you're joining John Davis and correcting the "mess" left by Euclid, Newton and Einstein!

OK then, please calculate the error in a geostationary satellite's orbital radius we get using Newtonian Gravitation.

To make it easy assume the earth is perfectly spherical and neglect any other bodies (the moon, other planets, sun etc)

And don't do it by just applying "GR" a correction to the Newtonian Gravitation.

I made the point, and stand by it, that is almost all calculations involving gravitation, including orbital calculations, GR is simply not used.

The errors involved are minuscule.