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

There is science behind gravitation in the same sense that it was behind gravity. They are simply both woefully inadequate to describe observations

This is news to me.    Newtonian gravity worked fantastically well for hundreds of years, until it was noticed some observations did not fit the theory.   Importantly,  Newton himself thought the requirement for instantaneous action at a distance was a ridiculous idea.  Either way Newton could see his intellectually unsatisfactory theory fitted the observations that were then available and enabled successful predictions.   

As I already pointed out:

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.

So you tell me,  what are the observational reasons why our current view of gravity is "scientism"

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

We already know that plumb bobs do not point exactly towards the centre of the Earth and know that surface features have a huge effect when gravity is measured.  We knew hundreds of years ago a pendulum has a different period at the equator and knew hundreds of years ago the period changed for different latitudes.    Even in the 19th century it was possible to do a gravity survey on a ship out in the ocean, and even possible to have results so accurate it was possible to know in 1908 a ship would get a different gravity measurement using a pendulum if it sailed East compared to sailing West.   Until oil prospectors began using explosive charges in 1936 to do surveys, they were doing HORIZONTAL gravity surveys using Eötvös torsion balances which were so sensitive only flat land could be used, so any changes in elevation had to be bulldozed flat for a distance of several hundred meters.     So the idea the centre of mass is so far below the surface we cannot know in which direction it lies is just based on lack of knowledge of what is common scientific knowledge that anybody familiar with the history of science is going to be aware of.   Tamarack mine had magnetic ores, the original plumb bob was I believe made of steel, before other materials were used, but it was later demonstrated in other surveys the brass wires used at Tamarack could have sufficient magnetism to cause deviations.  (all this just from memory)

The errors involved are minuscule.

Does not the fact that errors are involved at all, provide a reason "to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?"   

GR and Newton are both wrong.  Our fundamental understanding is in error.

Quote from: Ski on August 12, 2016, 01:57:49 AM

There is science behind gravitation in the same sense that it was behind gravity. They are simply both woefully inadequate to describe observations

This is news to me. 

Not surprised.

Quote

The errors involved are minuscule.

Does not the fact that errors are involved at all, provide a reason "to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?"   

GR and Newton are both wrong.  Our fundamental understanding is in error.

You blithely claim that "GR and Newton are both wrong".

On what grounds? Where have you done sufficient research to be able to claim that?

And I go back to the question, just what did Cavendish and all those that followed him actually measure? The surely measured something!

Also, while measured values of G seem to have shown small variations (the currently claimed relative uncertainty is 4.7 x 10^-5) there appear to be no such variations in the GM product, in other words, the effects of G show no such variations. There are no corresponding variations in the orbital periods of satellites, etc.

And if Newton and Einstein are wrong, what do you have to offer?  UA

Yes. They are wrong. You can wring yourself in circles all you want to, but I won't change facts. On what grounds, you ask? On the grounds that they are in error, which you already conceded.  Are you always needlessly contrary? Do you frequently argue just to argue? How do you find the time and energy?

Yes. They are wrong. You can wring yourself in circles all you want to, but I won't change facts. On what grounds, you ask? On the grounds that they are in error, which you already conceded.  Are you always needlessly contrary? Do you frequently argue just to argue? How do you find the time and energy?

You have a funny idea of conceded. I quite openly stated that there was "a relative uncertainty is 4.7 x 10^-5".
I have said exactly the sam thing in many earlier posts. I would give you references, but the "Search" function is overloaded.
It's not something science denies, it's what leads to new discoveries and new theories.

You ask "Are you always needlessly contrary? Do you frequently argue just to argue? How do you find the time and energy?"
No, I am not "needlessly contrary" nor do I "argue just to argue"
only when the opponent does not have a convincing counterargument.
When I am convinced, you'll know!

So the whole of and Einstein is wrong because of a relative uncertainty is 4.7 x 10^-5!

So. I repeat:

You worry about an uncertainty of that magnitude, then push a theory that can't explain:

• The directions of sunrises and sunsets to within many tens of degrees.
  

  In Brisbane, Australia at the last summer solstice, on Dec 21, 2015 we had Sunrise 4:49 AM @ 117° or 27° South of East, on the current Flat Earth model, sunrise would be North of North East. Sunset  6:43 PM @ 242° or 28° South of West  on the current Flat Earth model, sunrise would be North of North West. And no, I didn't measure them to that accuracy, but I certainly noted that the sunrise direction was well south of East!

  
  The best any Flat Earth model can do is say that the sun "rises sort of towards the east" and sets "rises sort of towards the west".
  
  
• The appearance of sunrises, sunsets, moonrises and moonsets. They certainly seem to rise from behind the horizon and set behind the horizon.
  
  
• 24 hour day on the Antarctic circle at the summer solstice.
  
  
• The constancy of the apparent sizes (subtended angle) of the sun and moon from rising to setting.
  
  
• Moon phases, and how the same phase can be viewed by every that can see the moon.
  
  
• Solar eclipses, just try the explanation given in the Wiki  !
  
  
• Lunar eclipses, just try the explanation given in the Wiki  this one is a real joke  .
  
  
• The predictability of the times of sunrise and sunset, especially a jroa and John Davis claim that they are due to the imperfect clarity of the atmoplane or something to that effect.
  
  
• Why high-pressure air masses rotate one and low-pressure air masses rotate the other.

The "relative uncertainty" and mutually incompatible results aren't even the errors I was speaking of, but those, also, should suffice to show you they are in error.

The "relative uncertainty" and mutually incompatible results aren't even the errors I was speaking of, but those, also, should suffice to show you they are in error.

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about! AND you never comment on the simple observations we can see with our own eyes, yet that the FEers never properly address!

You claim "They are wrong. You can wring yourself in circles all you want to, but I won't change facts. On what grounds, you ask? On the grounds that they are in error, which you already conceded."


Mind you, my claiming or conceding anything means nothing anyway, but I am curious.

If I have made an error I'll admit it! But the Globe doesn't depend on anything that I say.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 12, 2016, 10:20:46 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 12, 2016, 01:57:49 AM

There is science behind gravitation in the same sense that it was behind gravity. They are simply both woefully inadequate to describe observations

This is news to me. 

Not surprised.

That is a strange reply.    I gave you detailed reasons why your comment gravity was unsupported would be news to anybody with any knowledge of the matter.

But more fool me.   I imagined for a moment you might actually be a genuine flat earther.

Most scientists, lacking the proper knowledge on the subject, do not understand that Newton based his centripetal pulling gravity ON AN ETHER MODEL.

What did Newton mean by attractive gravity?

If two bodies ARE PUSHED FROM OUTSIDE BY SOME FORCE, then they will be "attracted" to each other.


In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?



As I said, there is no better advocate than Newton for the ether pressure theory.


A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



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


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.



Recently it was discovered that Newton COPIED HIS LAWS OF MOTION from indian sutras.


https://archive.org/stream/thevaiasesikasut00kanauoft#page/n7/mode/2up

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Newton's laws of motion copied from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra.


Jesuit missionaries brought back the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra decades before Newton's time.

Suppose that the mass of an object is 'm' and in time interval 't', the velocity of the object changes from 'u' to 'v' due to the force acting on it. Then,

Initial momentum = mu
Final momentum = mv
Change in momentum = m(v-u)

Therefore, the rate of change of momentum = m(v-u)/t = ma (from Kanada's first law)

From Kandas second law,
force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum.
Or, p k ma
Or, p = kma (where k is a constant)

If m=1 and a=1, then
1 = k*1*1 or k = 1
Or, p = ma

Therefore, unit force is the one that produces unit acceleration in an object of unit mass.

Prashastpada



But Newton did not stop there.

He and Leibniz COPIED ALL OF THEIR RESULTS IN CALCULUS FROM INDIAN SUTRAS.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605


Origin of Calculus: How Mathematical Analysis Was Imported to India, Italy, France and England

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yuktibhasa.pdf

A relevant epistemological question is this: did Newton at all understand the result he is alleged to have invented? Did Newton have the wherewithal, the necessary mathematical resources, to understand infinite series? As is well known, Cavalieri in 1635 stated the above formula (the infinite series expansion for the sine function) as what was later termed a conjecture. Wallis, too, simply stated the above result, without any proof. Fermat tried to derive the key result above from a result on figurate numbers, while Pascal used the famous “Pascal’s” triangle long known in India and China. Though Newton followed Wallis, he had no proof either, and neither did Leibniz who followed Pascal. Neither Newton nor any other mathematician in Europe had the mathematical wherewithal to understand the calculus for another two centuries, until the development of the real number system by Dedekind.

The next question naturally is this: if Newton and Leibniz did not quite understand the calculus, how did they invent it? In the amplified version of the usual narrative, how did Galileo, Cavalieri, Fermat, Pascal, and Roberval etc. all contribute to the invention of a mathematical procedure they couldn’t quite have understood? The frontiers of a discipline are usually foggy, but here we are talking of a gap which is typically 250 years.


Here is another step by step demonstration:

Other pieces of circumstantial evidence include:

James Gregory, who first stated the infinite series expansion of the arctangent (the Madhava-Gregory series) in Europe, never gave any derivation of his result, or any indication as to how he derived it, suggesting that this series was imported into Europe.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/kerala-mathematics-and-its-possible-transmission-europe


This is RE science at its best: Kepler fudged his entire work, Nova Astronomia, and Newton copied his "laws" of motion from Indian sutras.


Newton copied his laws of motion from indian sutras.


Steve Lamoreaux's experiment defies and dismisses the concept of attractive gravity.

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox shows the biggest, inherent flaw in the newtonian approach.

Poincare discovered the fact that Newton's differential equations of motion lead to total nonsense from a mathematical point of view.



There isn't a single concept published by Newton that works.

None whatsoever.


That is why he was forced to admit:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

The Greatest and only rule in the world is: everything has mind and everything is living, so gravity should be a living thing, and contain a lot of other living things because everything is composed from other living things for ever and ever and for infinity.

moreover the explanation of gravity, when we know the reason for us keeping on ground is because other living things(just like everything else there is no other option),is false.

Quote

The errors involved are minuscule.

Does not the fact that errors are involved at all, provide a reason "to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?"   

GR and Newton are both wrong.  Our fundamental understanding is in error.

  Newton was not wrong. Lets say he just didn't measure things with such precision as we can now.

So you believe Gravity is a force. Interesting.

So you believe Gravity is a force. Interesting.

Did I say that? I said Newton was not wrong. Or can you show in the context of the Earth that law is false and you can't use it for making calculations on the Earth context?

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

The OP mentions the Cavendish experiment.

I have asked many times just what did Cavendish and the many following experimenters actually measure.

The only answers I get from Flat Earthers seem to be

• Ones denigrating Cavendish because he was autistic. Judging by some of his actions he probably was. Nevertheless he had an excellent reputation at the time and no-one seems to query the quality of his work in other areas.
  
  
• criticism of his technique, supposedly allowing wind currents to affect measurements or the presence of larger masses, such as the room ( which was to avoid wind currents  ).

But, measure something these experimenters certainly did. Current measurements show a relative uncertainty of about 5 x 10^-5 and the original Cavendish result was within about 1% of this.

Now, Sandokhan blithely claims that Miles Mathis (yes, he of the π = 4 "fame") demolishes Cavendish, but ignores the 50 or more other experiments yielding similar results.

Now, there may be all sorts of questions about the cause or even the reality of gravitation, but the question no-one seems prepared to answer is: Because they certainly did measure a force which seems to fit the Universal Law of Gravitation,


The only answers I want are to the question "Just what did Henry Cavendish measure?".

       

The only answers I want are to the question "Just what did Henry Cavendish measure?".
     

It is worth pointing out there are at least two companies making working college level Cavendish experiments either using lead or Tungsten for the large balls and there are instructions available for making your own similar small highly portable cavendish experiment so tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of students have calculated G using the same method.

 

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

Smart aren't you!
Newton didn't know GR, so he was wrong.

Now, just answer this.
What method would you use to for the path of an object dropped from an aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 m, flying horizontally at 100 m/s?
Keep it easy and neglect air resistance.

Are you going to
1) stay true to your "Newton is wrong claim" and use a full Tensor Calculus approach to GR,

2) compromise a little and say to yourself "it's only a little object and the plane is not all that fast" and use the Schwarzschild Metric or

3) go the whole hog and say to yourself "Old Isaac might have been wrong, but his theory gives answers that are 'good enough'."?

In other words what methods are used in practical, real world calculations?

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2016, 04:14:52 PM

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

Smart aren't you!
Newton didn't know GR, so he was wrong.

Now, just answer this.
What method would you use to for the path of an object dropped from an aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 m, flying horizontally at 100 m/s?
Keep it easy and neglect air resistance.

Are you going to
1) stay true to your "Newton is wrong claim" and use a full Tensor Calculus approach to GR,

2) compromise a little and say to yourself "it's only a little object and the plane is not all that fast" and use the Schwarzschild Metric or

3) go the whole hog and say to yourself "Old Isaac might have been wrong, but his theory gives answers that are 'good enough'."?

In other words what methods are used in practical, real world calculations?

Newton was wrong.  His theory only gives an approximately correct answer and is obviously wrong in some famous cases like the transit of mercury or whatever it was.

Given Newtons concerns about instantaneous action at a distance, and just how stupid he thought that idea was and how he called into question the thinking ability of anybody who would buy into it,  I can imagine he would have been delighted to have been eventually been proven to be wrong.

I have asked many times just what did Cavendish and the many following experimenters actually measure.

I'm not sure exactly what he measured, to be honest. There seems to me to be a high number of variables and potential noise/force from both inside and outside the system. I think gravitation interacts with the EM field (and possibly fields unknown to us) in ways the Orthodoxy has not tried to address.
I have not read that Cavendish was autistic, but that is interesting trivia, if true. While not a slight on him in the least, there was contemporary criticism of his experimental method, but it has been basically forgotten/hidden.

Now, there may be all sorts of questions about the cause or even the reality of gravitation, but the question no-one seems prepared to answer is:

What did Cavendish and all the others measure?

Because they certainly did measure a force which seems to fit the Universal Law of Gravitation,

Again,  I'm not sure precisely because we do not know the method of gravitation in bending spacetime, nor do we understand how gravitation interacts with other fundamental forces. Additionally,  there may well be forces we have not yet documented. The fact we consistently get mutually exclusive results should indicate to you that we do not have a sound enough grasp on the phenomenon of gravitation itself nevermind how it interacts with other fields.

3) go the whole hog and say to yourself "Old Isaac might have been wrong, but his theory gives answers that are 'good enough'."?

The thread title is: "What logical reasons are there to believe Newtonian gravity is wrong?"

Newtonian Gravity is wrong. So is GR for that matter.

The question was not "Does NG conform approximately to observation under certain circumstances?"  If that was the question it would quitr obviously have a different answer.

So is GR for that matter.

You are a stickler for keeping to the thread when you want to avoid a direct answer!

Then what about a direct answer to why GR is wrong then? And on whose evidence does the answer rest.

Is GR consistent with all observations? No. Therefore it is wrong.

Why is this a semantic debate for you?

Rotational velocities of the outside rim of large galaxies would be one way GR/SR is incorrect.

Rotational velocities of the outside rim of large galaxies would be one way GR/SR is incorrect.

Only if Dark Matter is falsified.

Is dark matter falsifiable?  That is like saying you can prove Big Foot or faries are not real.

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

  Still, Newtons law is applicable and usable in every day life in the Earth context and does not give wrong answers. Ergo, Newton was not wrong.

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2016, 04:14:52 PM

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

  Still, Newtons law is applicable and usable in every day life in the Earth context and does not give wrong answers. Ergo, Newton was not wrong.

So he's demonstrably wrong always,  but sometimes under specific, limited circumstances his wrong answers are close enough to to actual answers that we should call him "not wrong". Interesting definitions you're choosing there. 
Is this like a "No incorrect antiquated theory left behind" thing where we should just continue promoting ideas or people regardless of their abilities?  Are you afraid of hurting Isaac's feelings? I assume he prefers correction to error.

Is dark matter falsifiable?  That is like saying you can prove Big Foot or faries are not real.

If you are ignorant, this sounds like a valid proposition.

Quote from: zork on August 20, 2016, 02:35:56 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2016, 04:14:52 PM

Sure. Newton posits that gravity is a force. Gravitation is not a force, but a pseudo force.  Ergo, Newton is wrong.

  Still, Newtons law is applicable and usable in every day life in the Earth context and does not give wrong answers. Ergo, Newton was not wrong.

So he's demonstrably wrong always,  but sometimes under specific, limited circumstances his wrong answers are close enough to to actual answers that we should call him "not wrong". Interesting definitions you're choosing there. 
Is this like a "No incorrect antiquated theory left behind" thing where we should just continue promoting ideas or people regardless of their abilities?  Are you afraid of hurting Isaac's feelings? I assume he prefers correction to error.

It's actually more like, Newton's law of gravitation is correct in the majority of cases.

Is GR consistent with all observations? No. Therefore it is wrong.

Why is this a semantic debate for you?

Is the Flat Earth model consistent with all observations? No. Therefore it is wrong.

No, it is not a semantic debate, it's very real!

I have presented in other posts quite a number of "everyday" observations that are inconsistent with the Flat Earth model.

No-one seems to have a reasonable explanation for those and many more!


Of course it's so much easier to bamboozle people on topics like this.