Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?

  • 102 Replies
  • 2876 Views
Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:47:17 AM »
As technology progresses we have discovered that perhaps newton's theories are flawed. I would like for people to express their sentiments toward Albert Eisenstein and Steven Hawking as well. I would like some opinions on this topic.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2019, 11:52:17 AM »
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

*

Weebatron2000

  • 1
  • Space Cucumber
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2019, 02:24:08 PM »
Perhaps Lorenzo is trying to start up an army against all the non-believers however it saddens me to see his grammar is not on par with his intentions and lack of support for his endeavors. A Spanish man wanting to conquer the masses now were have we seen this in history before. With the progression of technology Lorenzo will only grow stronger and reaching heights as high as our world leaders themselves. 

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2019, 02:45:24 PM »
I'd more describe Newton's laws as limited to specific conditions than "flawed".  Even then, the limits of where they are applicable include virtually all mechanical engineering problems here on earth.  There's no need to bother with relativistic physics when designing cars, planes, power plants, or most other things.  So it's still very relevant.

Of course as well as coming up with relativity, Einstein was one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics.  Which is essential for understanding semiconductors, and therefore necessary for all electronics. 

Hawking's work is perhaps not so relevant to people's day to day lives.  Although to have achieved what he did with such a god awful debilitating illness is pretty inspiring.  He was an icon.   And "A Brief History of Time" is still a good for read for anyone with a passing interest in cosmology, who doesn't want to get bogged down in the maths.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2019, 02:51:59 PM by Unconvinced »

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2019, 02:47:17 PM »
As technology progresses we have discovered that perhaps newton's theories are flawed. I would like for people to express their sentiments toward Albert Eisenstein and Steven Hawking as well. I would like some opinions on this topic.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

I find it difficult to see how you can comment on work by either. What exactly are your credentials? What is your basis for  doubting either? I find it unlikely that you or anyone else on this site would have the facilities to carry out research on lets say black holes, that could either agree or disagree with Hawking. All you are basing your opinions on is other peoples work, and no doubt you will cherry pick and select the views that best suits your own particular prejudices. By all means have an opinion but remember your opinion is uninformed unless you have carried out valid research on your own. Now if you have, please provide a link.

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2019, 02:56:07 PM »
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

Isac Newton                 1624- 1727
James Clark Maxwell     1831-1879

I think you are forgetting that Newton died over 100 years before Maxwell was born. The fact that Pythagorus knew nothing about most of the things we take today for granted does not render what he discovered in geometry null and void. Regardless, the square of the hypotenuse is still equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, regardless of what you say, as does F=MA.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39835
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2019, 02:58:56 PM »
Perhaps Lorenzo is trying to start up an army against all the non-believers however it saddens me to see his grammar is not on par with his intentions and lack of support for his endeavors. A Spanish man wanting to conquer the masses now were have we seen this in history before. With the progression of technology Lorenzo will only grow stronger and reaching heights as high as our world leaders themselves.

Perhaps it's more likely Lorenzo is trying to start up an army of alts, such as yourself.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2019, 04:02:05 PM »
Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

It's also the position of most people playing football over the last few hundred years.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18418
  • Backstage
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2019, 05:20:07 AM »
Newton, Hawking and even Einstein are some names whose used by globularist team to deceive the world by hiding their behind.

"Hey. Why does atmospher not scattered to space by vacuum affect?".

"Shut up flather. Hawking said something prevent it".

"What prevent it?. In my opinion, the power of vacuum creates a pulling effect takes the atmosphere together with the satellite and other objects and even takes after shredding them.

"Shut up flatter. Do you know better than Hawking?"
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.





http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38272
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2019, 06:19:40 AM »
"What prevent it?. In my opinion, the power of vacuum creates a pulling effect takes the atmosphere together with the satellite and other objects and even takes after shredding them.
Luckily the universe doesn't care about your opinion. 

A vacuum is literally nothing (as in the absence of matter).  How can nothing create a pulling effect?
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: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2019, 06:56:11 AM »
How is a Soviet film director (Sergei Eisenstein) relevant to this debate ??

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2019, 06:58:08 AM »
Regardless, the square of the hypotenuse is still equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides

Geometry is not physics.

In physics you have to explain the cause of the phenomenon.

So, what you are basically saying is that the sun, the source of light, warmth and other kinds of radiation, is as a whole an electrically neutral body.

"Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.” "

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3817

'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says

“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”

Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.

Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.

Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.

His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.

If you are wondering, dear reader, what all this has to do with magnetism, the answer is as follows. Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism. Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.

Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."


Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 07:00:38 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2019, 08:12:18 AM »
Newton, Hawking and even Einstein are some names whose used by globularist team to deceive the world by hiding their behind.

"Hey. Why does atmospher not scattered to space by vacuum affect?".

"Shut up flather. Hawking said something prevent it".

"What prevent it?. In my opinion, the power of vacuum creates a pulling effect takes the atmosphere together with the satellite and other objects and even takes after shredding them.

"Shut up flatter. Do you know better than Hawking?"
That has literally never happened.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2019, 08:12:39 AM »
<cute story>

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

<Hey! A citation!!>

Newton hasn't been widely considered infallible since the early twentieth century when relativistic physics solved problems in celestial mechanics that classical physics couldn't explain. He wasn't considered infallible before that, either. Newton's basic laws of motion and gravitation, however, work well in everyday situations but they are incomplete and fail in conditions that most humans still rarely encounter.

Meanwhile, an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them what could be observed. There was no need to incorporate E&M because it did not play a significant factor in the motion of celestial objects (still doesn't in the vast majority of cases).

Regardless, the square of the hypotenuse is still equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides

Geometry is not physics.

In physics you have to explain the cause of the phenomenon.

Physics is the study of the nature and characteristics of matter and energy. You don't get to decree what physics has to do.

Quote
So, what you are basically saying is that the sun, the source of light, warmth and other kinds of radiation, is as a whole an electrically neutral body.

On the whole, it is. It's unlikely that it's perfectly neutral down to the electron, though. The sun's energy comes from nuclear processes, not electricity.

Quote
<irrelevant ramble about Newton>
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2019, 08:16:46 AM »
Again, you are describing a world of pure magic.

Here is what you wrote:

Meanwhile, an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them what could be observed.

Go ahead and explain the attractive mechanism.

You are using the word "attractive".

How does it work?

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Not even pure magic will be of help.

How does lake Ontario stay in place at a certain latitude on the outer surface of a sphere?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

There is no "attractive" mechanism, none whatsoever, which means the charade you are trying to sell to your readers is worthless.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2019, 08:32:05 AM »
<irrelevant ramble about Newton>

Newton's own words:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

Is this what you call "ramble"?

NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY WHATSOEVER, only A PRESSURE GRAVITY is being described by Newton.

Huygens dismissed the attractive mechanism:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."

Newton hid from his readers that he in fact used MAGNETISM to describe terrestrial gravity.


Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2019, 08:54:45 AM »
Regardless, the square of the hypotenuse is still equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides

Geometry is not physics.

In physics you have to explain the cause of the phenomenon.

So, what you are basically saying is that the sun, the source of light, warmth and other kinds of radiation, is as a whole an electrically neutral body.

"Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.” "

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3817

'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says

“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”

Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.

Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.

Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.

His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.

If you are wondering, dear reader, what all this has to do with magnetism, the answer is as follows. Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism. Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.

Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."


Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.

What you have to remember this is just you saying things that you believe in rather than anything supported by evidence.  Newtons laws on the other hand unlike any laws you have devised have formed the proven framework of both physics and engineering since the early 1700s
When the facts are examined in regard to the development of engineering and physics it is evident that Newton and his work have been pivotal. I think the facts have it rather than your beliefs.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2019, 09:06:41 AM »
The laws you are describing are caused by PRESSURE GRAVITY, not by any kind of an attractive structure.

If you accept the laws, YOU MUST accept the physical cause of these laws, both descriptions belong in the Principia:

Newton's own words:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

None other than the famed physicist, Huygens, dismissed the attractive mechanism:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."


Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2019, 09:21:42 AM »
Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

Read more carefully.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18418
  • Backstage
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2019, 09:24:09 AM »
"What prevent it?. In my opinion, the power of vacuum creates a pulling effect takes the atmosphere together with the satellite and other objects and even takes after shredding them.
Luckily the universe doesn't care about your opinion. 

A vacuum is literally nothing (as in the absence of matter).  How can nothing create a pulling effect?

Simple like your question. "diffusion"
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.





http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2019, 09:30:18 AM »
For Newton, attraction = outward pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


Newton's own words:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.


Can you please describe what is meant by PRESSURE? How is this pressure caused?
What is the physical agent which causes the pressure on the obstacle?

" the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies "

« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 09:32:30 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2019, 11:06:46 AM »
Hard to be sure from that short quote, but it sounds like the surface pressure two masses exert on a third body placed in between them.  The third body that “hinders the meeting” is presumably in contact with both bodies.

Pressure doesn’t have to mean atmospheric (or ether) pressure, it can be any force acting over an area, regardless of what causes that force.  eg the pressure under my foot.

I can’t even begin to imagine why you think citing Newton of all people helps your case, when his universal law of gravitation is the exact principle you argue against?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 11:14:56 AM by Unconvinced »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2019, 11:24:20 AM »
Hard to be sure from that short quote

Assuredly it is very clear what Newton is describing.

but it sounds like the surface pressure two masses exert on a third body placed in between them. 

WHAT?

What surface pressure? Did you just use the word "pressure" to describe gravity?

Then, you are a full fledged flat earth believer.

The third body that “hinters the meeting” is presumably in contact with both bodies.

It is?

and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies

If the obstacle is in contact with both bodies, A and B, how then will the obstacle and body A move TOWARD the parts on which B lies?

Pressure doesn’t have to mean atmospheric (or ether) pressure, it can be any force acting over an area


Please read again.

" the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies "

It takes a single counterexample to demolish/invalidate a theory: Newton has just demolished the concept of attractive gravity.

Newton clearly states the following in the Principia: the pressure of body A exerted on the obstacle is greater than the pressure exerted by body B on it, therefore the stronger pressure will prevail, and the obstacle will move toward body B.

What then, is this pressure? What is the physical agent whereby it is being conveyed?

when his universal law of gravitation is the exact principle you argue against?

That universal law of gravitation IS NOT an attractive law of gravitation, as described by Newton in the same body of work.

The same work which puts forth the universal law of graviation is the same work which clearly describes PRESSURE GRAVITY to explain how an object moves toward another body.

You can no longer claim attractive gravity. EVER.


Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2019, 11:54:18 AM »
Again, you are describing a world of pure magic.

Here is what you wrote:

Meanwhile, an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them what could be observed.

Go ahead and explain the attractive mechanism.

It's called gravity. It has the effect of causing a mutual attraction between masses.

Quote
You are using the word "attractive".

Very good!

Quote
How does it work?

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

The mass of each water molecule is attracted to the combined mass of the rest of the earth.

Quote
Not even pure magic will be of help.

I wouldn't expect it to be. It's certainly not necessary.

Quote
How does lake Ontario stay in place at a certain latitude on the outer surface of a sphere?

See the answer above. Lake Ontario occupies a low area in the solid, mostly impermeable, crust caused by glaciation, and cannot move laterally where it's confined by its banks. Its level is mostly determined by the lowest point of the solid material that surrounds it, which is where it spills into the St. Lawrence River. Its level will vary slightly depending on rate of inflow, rate of outflow (including withdrawal by humans), seepage, and evaporation. It can't move south for the winter or north for the summer because there are rocks in the way.

This is quite basic stuff. Many elementary school children know this (except, maybe, the part about glaciation).

Quote
How do two gravitons attract each other?

That's one ongoing topic of research in modern physics.

Quote
There is no "attractive" mechanism, none whatsoever, which means the charade you are trying to sell to your readers is worthless.

You say that, but you're obviously wrong. Why is a rock accelerated downward when you drop it?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2019, 12:13:12 PM »

You can no longer claim attractive gravity. EVER.

That’s a bit of bold statement.  Things have moved on from Newton’s day, and we still don’t have a complete picture.

OK, I know Newton believed in the ether.  To be honest, I’ll have to check to see exactly how he thought that tied in with gravity.  It’s not something I previously felt the need to check.

For the sake of argument, I’ll agree for now.

So from this he devised his law of universal gravitation, which explains how the heliocentric model works (at least until relativity came along).  I’m sure you are aware of the formula, so no need to post now.

Are you saying you accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?  And your main beef is from Einstein onwards?

If so, how does this fit in with the flat earth?

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2019, 12:23:03 PM »

"Hey. Why does atmospher not scattered to space by vacuum affect?".

"Shut up flather. Hawking said something prevent it".

"What prevent it?. In my opinion, the power of vacuum creates a pulling effect takes the atmosphere together with the satellite and other objects and even takes after shredding them.

"Shut up flatter. Do you know better than Hawking?"

Strawman. Not a position anyone except you takes.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2019, 12:56:30 PM »
It has the effect of causing a mutual attraction between masses.

Please describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

This is the issue you are dodging.

Obviously you cannot, so then you are telling your readers that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by pure magic.

The mass of each water molecule is attracted to the combined mass of the rest of the earth.

By all means, please explain HOW each water molecule is attracted to the combined mass.

Have you ever thought about this preposterous statement?

Do you understand the implications of having a string of gravitons connect the inner core of the Earth to each water molecule of lake Ontario, or to yourself for that matter?

Why is a rock accelerated downward when you drop it?

Obviously you haven't got a clue.

NEWTON, PRINCIPIA:


https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.


Can you please describe what is meant by PRESSURE? How is this pressure caused?
What is the physical agent which causes the pressure on the obstacle?

Please read again.

" the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies "

It takes a single counterexample to demolish/invalidate a theory: Newton has just demolished the concept of attractive gravity.

Newton clearly states the following in the Principia: the pressure of body A exerted on the obstacle is greater than the pressure exerted by body B on it, therefore the stronger pressure will prevail, and the obstacle will move toward body B.

That universal law of gravitation IS NOT an attractive law of gravitation, as described by Newton in the same body of work.

The same work which puts forth the universal law of graviation is the same work which clearly describes PRESSURE GRAVITY to explain how an object moves toward another body.

You can no longer claim attractive gravity. EVER.



Are you saying you accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?

Just read Newton's words:

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

The law based on mass and distance is null and void on a spherical Earth, given the pressure gravity described above.

Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2019, 01:16:31 PM »
So you don’t accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?

And you’re saying his work is logically inconsistent?

Is that right?

A simple yes or no would be nice to clarify your position.  If you just quote more Principia, I’m probably still not going to get your point.


*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22366
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2019, 01:46:42 PM »
For Newton, attraction = outward pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
I'm not ignoring the latter part but simply want to comment on the purpose in Isaac Newton's letter to Robert Boyle.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, , and Coulomb Inverse Square Law, , are called a "Laws" because they describes how gravitation or electric charges behave and not why.
But were derived as a result of experimental work and neither had any attached "theory" as to "why" at the time.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation resulted from experimental work by Galileo, Hooke and Newton himself an in addition the, at least approximately, known distance to the moon and
Columb's Inverse Square Law from observations as early as 600 BC and by Benjamin and then experimental work by Columb himself.

But the thing to stress is that both of these are the mathematical expression of experimental work and don't attempt to say "why" nor purport to claim to apply in every situation.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is called Universal only that it seemed to apply universally here on earth and between earth and astronomical bodies.

Now to Isaac Newton's letter to Robert Boyle:
That letter is simply Newton's attempt to find a reason why gravitation should behave in that way and is little more than a conjecture to explain gravitation by an external force due to aether.

As such it could be called an attempt to develop a "Luminiferous Aether Theory of Gravitation" but it in no way diminishes his "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 02:52:08 AM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4411
Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2019, 01:54:20 PM »
So you don’t accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?

Do you like water lilies?



Imagine what a gravitational force caused by pressure, would do to the plant life on a lake (as an example) on a spherical Earth: the force needed to keep in place trillions of billions of gallons of water would crush to the ground any life form in no time at all.

And you’re saying his work is logically inconsistent?

Exactly, just as Newton realized the same thing after all:

“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.

 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 02:01:22 PM by sandokhan »