The Chapman Cycle

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity.

Wake wrote:
The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well.
So tell us about your faster than light transport.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.

Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D

Whereas you spouting completely disproved chemistry easily found in any chemistry text are humble as a church mouse. Showing a picture of yourself with a Congressman and telling us how he likes you?

I was nice to a Republican wasn't I ? Besides it's why he likes me that matters and that has to do with this thread and that is that CO2 might influence the occurrence of ozone in our atmosphere.
As for the chemistry, post a link. I posted a link where scientists acknowledge a relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone exists.

They stopped making Chloro-flouro-carbons in the 1990s

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

...deleted Holy Link...
Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919[/url]

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

...deleted Holy Link...
Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919[/url]

That eclipse did not falsify Newton's law of gravity. It is still in use today and it still works.

All the eclipse did was show that Einstein's adjustments to the observations of Mercury were not falsified.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

...deleted Holy Link...
Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919[/url]

That eclipse did not falsify Newton's law of gravity. It is still in use today and it still works.

All the eclipse did was show that Einstein's adjustments to the observations of Mercury were not falsified.

The observations made during the eclipse and described in the paper that I linked to did indeed falsify Newton's law of gravity.

Surface Detail wrote:
They showed that Einstein's theory of general relativity is a more accurate description of gravity than Newton's law.

Surface Detail wrote:
Of course, Newton's law gives results that are close enough for most purposes, but it gives significantly wrong answers when strong gravitational fields or high velocities are involved.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

...deleted Holy Link...
Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919[/url]

That eclipse did not falsify Newton's law of gravity. It is still in use today and it still works.

All the eclipse did was show that Einstein's adjustments to the observations of Mercury were not falsified.

The observations made during the eclipse and described in the paper that I linked to did indeed falsify Newton's law of gravity.

Nope. They accounted for the observation error that was made in the orbit of Mercury. That was all.

Surface Detail wrote:
They showed that Einstein's theory of general relativity is a more accurate description of gravity than Newton's law.

It isn't. It simply introduced another way to look at gravity.

Surface Detail wrote:
Of course, Newton's law gives results that are close enough for most purposes, but it gives significantly wrong answers when strong gravitational fields or high velocities are involved.

It works perfectly fine in high gravitational fields. Velocity is not a term in Newton's equation. It doesn't need to be.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

So which country didn't sign it?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

Surface Detail wrote:
Stop being such an idiot and read the paper that I linked to. Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity gave different predictions for the degree to which starlight would be deflected by the gravity of the sun. The observations made during the eclipse showed that Einstein, rather than Newton, was correct.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

So which country didn't sign it?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

So which country didn't sign it?

Taiwan, for one. They do, however, recognize the treaty anyway.

China apparently signed it and ignores it.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

I guess you never heard that E=MC^2 or energy and mass are interchangeable meaning that gravity has the same effect on energy that it has on normal matter. But with your eyes closed tightly enough you can pretend otherwise.

Or as it stated in the conclusions of that paper you quoted: "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity".

In other words - you're too stupid to even read the paper you're quoting.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

I guess you never heard that E=MC^2 or energy and mass are interchangeable meaning that gravity has the same effect on energy that it has on normal matter. But with your eyes closed tightly enough you can pretend otherwise.

Or as it stated in the conclusions of that paper you quoted: "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity".

In other words - you're too stupid to even read the paper you're quoting.

You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

James_ wrote:
@All,
How my experiment is factored is as follows:

(CO2 + H2O) + CO2..............................((CO2 - l) + (H2O + l)) + CO2
------------------------------ = CO2 & H2O > ------------------------------------------ =
........................................collide............................ CO2 - l............


(H2O + l) + CO2 = CH2O and O2

As I mentioned, if successful then there would be more research which would include verifying the process. Then at some point in the future this would be in probably both physics and chemistry books. At the same time if the above equation is right then it needs to be known.
The process shows momentum l being transferred from CO2 to H2O then the H2O molecule nteracting with a different CO2 molecule.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

I guess you never heard that E=MC^2 or energy and mass are interchangeable meaning that gravity has the same effect on energy that it has on normal matter. But with your eyes closed tightly enough you can pretend otherwise.

Or as it stated in the conclusions of that paper you quoted: "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity".

In other words - you're too stupid to even read the paper you're quoting.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

So which country didn't sign it?

All of those countries incapable of making CFC's.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was signed by every nation in the world. What is the point of lying about things that are easily verified?

No, it was not.

So which country didn't sign it?

Taiwan, for one. They do, however, recognize the treaty anyway.

China apparently signed it and ignores it.

And another prize for stupidity. China resells CFC's that were drained from scraped old-style refrigeration units for use recharging old-style refrigeration units. China does not manufacture any new CFC's.

Wake wrote:
This is what is happening around the world in low income countries and this is COMPLETELY legal in the Montreal protocol.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

You spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating your ignorance. Why is that? All Einstein did was show that energy was interchangeable with matter and followed Newton's law of gravity.

But apparently you think that he disproved gravity as you float around your mother's basement where you live continuously high on drugs.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.

Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.

This experiment falsified Newton's law/theory of gravity almost 100 years ago:

A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919

I guess you never heard that E=MC^2 or energy and mass are interchangeable meaning that gravity has the same effect on energy that it has on normal matter. But with your eyes closed tightly enough you can pretend otherwise.

Or as it stated in the conclusions of that paper you quoted: "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity".

In other words - you're too stupid to even read the paper you're quoting.

You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Surface Detail wrote:
Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection.

Surface Detail wrote:
Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly.

Surface Detail wrote:
Hence Newton's law was falsified.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

You spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating your ignorance. Why is that? All Einstein did was show that energy was interchangeable with matter and followed Newton's law of gravity.

Into the Night wrote:

The equation E=MC^2 does not mean mass and energy are interchangeable. Energy is one thing, mass is another. You cannot turn one into the other. Not even with nuclear reactions.

The equation shows a relationship between the two, that's all. It simply says that as the velocity of mass increases, energy increases and the effective mass with it (the rest mass is still the same).

Effectively, then, the faster something moves, the heavier it gets, and the harder it is to push it any faster.

This is probably one of the most misunderstood equations popularly quoted. It is just as badly taught in schools as Newton's law of motion (not three); or F=mA.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

You spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating your ignorance. Why is that? All Einstein did was show that energy was interchangeable with matter and followed Newton's law of gravity.

But apparently you think that he disproved gravity as you float around your mother's basement where you live continuously high on drugs.

You have clearly failed to grasp the point of the paper.

Look at the introduction:

"The purpose of the expeditions was to determine what effect, if any, is produced by a gravitational field on the path of a light ray traversing it. Apart from possible surprises, there appeared to be three alternatives, which it was especially desired to discriminate between--

1) The path is uninfluenced by gravitation.
2) The energy or mass of light is subject to gravitation in the same way as ordinary matter. If the law of gravitation is strictly the Newtonian law, this leads to an apparent displacement of a star close to the sun's limb amounting to 0".87 outwards.
3) The course of a ray of light is in accordance with Einstein's generalised relativity theory. This leads to an apparent displacement of a star at the limb amounting to 1".75 outwards."

The main result? The apparent displacement was measured to be 1".98 +/- 0".12, in rough agreement with Einstein's prediction. This was proof that the Newtonian description of gravity is incorrect and that Einstein's general relativity is correct. The experiment falsified Newton's theory of gravity and made Einstein an overnight sensation.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The equation E=MC^2 does not mean mass and energy are interchangeable. Energy is one thing, mass is another. You cannot turn one into the other. Not even with nuclear reactions.

The equation shows a relationship between the two, that's all. It simply says that as the velocity of mass increases, energy increases and the effective mass with it (the rest mass is still the same).

Effectively, then, the faster something moves, the heavier it gets, and the harder it is to push it any faster.

This is probably one of the most misunderstood equations popularly quoted. It is just as badly taught in schools as Newton's law of motion (not three); or F=mA.

Sorry Charlie - photons - a unit of energy - contain mass.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

You spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating your ignorance. Why is that? All Einstein did was show that energy was interchangeable with matter and followed Newton's law of gravity.

But apparently you think that he disproved gravity as you float around your mother's basement where you live continuously high on drugs.

You have clearly failed to grasp the point of the paper.

Look at the introduction:

"The purpose of the expeditions was to determine what effect, if any, is produced by a gravitational field on the path of a light ray traversing it. Apart from possible surprises, there appeared to be three alternatives, which it was especially desired to discriminate between--

1) The path is uninfluenced by gravitation.
2) The energy or mass of light is subject to gravitation in the same way as ordinary matter. If the law of gravitation is strictly the Newtonian law, this leads to an apparent displacement of a star close to the sun's limb amounting to 0".87 outwards.
3) The course of a ray of light is in accordance with Einstein's generalised relativity theory. This leads to an apparent displacement of a star at the limb amounting to 1".75 outwards."

The main result? The apparent displacement was measured to be 1".98 +/- 0".12, in rough agreement with Einstein's prediction. This was proof that the Newtonian description of gravity is incorrect and that Einstein's general relativity is correct. The experiment falsified Newton's theory of gravity and made Einstein an overnight sensation.

Newton didn't describe gravity. He only produced an equation for its effect and how it was related to mass and distance.

The theory has not been falsified.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You don't seem to have understood my simple statement. I am not disputing the equivalence of mass and energy. I am pointing out that Newton's law was falsified by the observation described in the link.

Yes, the paper does indeed state that "a deflection of light takes place in the neighborhood of the Sun and it is the amount demanded by Einstein's generalized theory of relativity", i.e. not by the amount demanded by Newton's law. That is exactly the point I'm making!

Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection. Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly. Hence Newton's law was falsified.

You spend an inordinate amount of time demonstrating your ignorance. Why is that? All Einstein did was show that energy was interchangeable with matter and followed Newton's law of gravity.

But apparently you think that he disproved gravity as you float around your mother's basement where you live continuously high on drugs.

You have clearly failed to grasp the point of the paper.

Look at the introduction:

"The purpose of the expeditions was to determine what effect, if any, is produced by a gravitational field on the path of a light ray traversing it. Apart from possible surprises, there appeared to be three alternatives, which it was especially desired to discriminate between--

1) The path is uninfluenced by gravitation.
2) The energy or mass of light is subject to gravitation in the same way as ordinary matter. If the law of gravitation is strictly the Newtonian law, this leads to an apparent displacement of a star close to the sun's limb amounting to 0".87 outwards.
3) The course of a ray of light is in accordance with Einstein's generalised relativity theory. This leads to an apparent displacement of a star at the limb amounting to 1".75 outwards."

The main result? The apparent displacement was measured to be 1".98 +/- 0".12, in rough agreement with Einstein's prediction. This was proof that the Newtonian description of gravity is incorrect and that Einstein's general relativity is correct. The experiment falsified Newton's theory of gravity and made Einstein an overnight sensation.

Newton didn't describe gravity. He only produced an equation for its effect and how it was related to mass and distance.

The theory has not been falsified.

I'm afraid it has been falsified.

Surface Detail wrote:
Newton's theory of gravity makes predictions that don't match observations.

Surface Detail wrote:
It predicts the wrong value for the deflection of starlight by the sun.

Surface Detail wrote:
It also predicts the wrong value for the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Surface Detail wrote:
These observations therefore falsify Newton's law of gravity.

Surface Detail wrote:
In fact, Newton's law of gravity gives the wrong result for the force between any two masses that are moving relative to one another.

Surface Detail wrote:
In simple terms, this is because the force of gravity is not transmitted instantaneously, as Newton's law requires, but at the speed of light.

Surface Detail wrote:
Of course, the error is insignificant for masses with low relative velocities; it does, however, become significant when their relative velocities are high.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
How my experiment is factored is as follows:

(CO2 + H2O) + CO2..............................((CO2 - l) + (H2O + l)) + CO2
------------------------------ = CO2 & H2O > ------------------------------------------ =
........................................collide............................ CO2 - l............


(H2O + l) + CO2 = CH2O and O2

As I mentioned, if successful then there would be more research which would include verifying the process. Then at some point in the future this would be in probably both physics and chemistry books. At the same time if the above equation is right then it needs to be known.
The process shows momentum l being transferred from CO2 to H2O then the H2O molecule nteracting with a different CO2 molecule.

Why doesn't this occur in normal burning of natural gas? There is a LOT of energy released and the byproducts are nothing more than water and CO2. There isn't even a trace of Formaldehyde.

Into the Night wrote:
What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?

Newton's law of gravity gives the wrong answer for the force between moving masses because it doesn't take their relative velocities into account. If you use Newton's law of gravity to calculate, for example, the position of Mercury at some point in the future, you get the wrong answer. This was already known over 100 years ago.

The simple reason for this is, as I said, that that the force of gravity is not transmitted instantaneously. One body feels a gravitational force from the place where another moving body used to be at some time in the past (the time taken for the gravitational force to propagate between the bodies), not where it is now.

P.S. Actually we do know that gravity is propagated at the speed of light. Really, the speed of light, c, is better thought of as a more fundamental "speed of causation" and represents the limiting speed for any kind of transmission.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?

Newton's law of gravity gives the wrong answer for the force between moving masses because it doesn't take their relative velocities into account. If you use Newton's law of gravity to calculate, for example, the position of Mercury at some point in the future, you get the wrong answer. This was already known over 100 years ago.

The simple reason for this is, as I said, that that the force of gravity is not transmitted instantaneously. One body feels a gravitational force from the place where another moving body used to be at some time in the past (the time taken for the gravitational force to propagate between the bodies), not where it is now.

P.S. Actually we do know that gravity is propagated at the speed of light. Really, the speed of light, c, is better thought of as a more fundamental "speed of causation" and represents the limiting speed for any kind of transmission.

Why is it that you are so insistent that Newton IS wrong ?

Surface Detail wrote:

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?

Newton's law of gravity gives the wrong answer for the force between moving masses because it doesn't take their relative velocities into account. If you use Newton's law of gravity to calculate, for example, the position of Mercury at some point in the future, you get the wrong answer. This was already known over 100 years ago.

The simple reason for this is, as I said, that that the force of gravity is not transmitted instantaneously. One body feels a gravitational force from the place where another moving body used to be at some time in the past (the time taken for the gravitational force to propagate between the bodies), not where it is now.

P.S. Actually we do know that gravity is propagated at the speed of light. Really, the speed of light, c, is better thought of as a more fundamental "speed of causation" and represents the limiting speed for any kind of transmission.

Why is it that you are so insistent that Newton IS wrong ?

Because observations of reality prove that he is wrong. More interestingly, why do people here insist that Newton's law of gravity is correct despite the fact that experimental observations have shown that it is not correct?

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?

Newton's law of gravity gives the wrong answer for the force between moving masses because it doesn't take their relative velocities into account. If you use Newton's law of gravity to calculate, for example, the position of Mercury at some point in the future, you get the wrong answer. This was already known over 100 years ago.

The simple reason for this is, as I said, that that the force of gravity is not transmitted instantaneously. One body feels a gravitational force from the place where another moving body used to be at some time in the past (the time taken for the gravitational force to propagate between the bodies), not where it is now.

P.S. Actually we do know that gravity is propagated at the speed of light. Really, the speed of light, c, is better thought of as a more fundamental "speed of causation" and represents the limiting speed for any kind of transmission.

Why is it that you are so insistent that Newton IS wrong ?

Because observations of reality prove that he is wrong. More interestingly, why do people here insist that Newton's law of gravity is correct despite the fact that experimental observations have shown that it is not correct?

And yet you're not faulting Johannes Keppler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler) whose observations Newton used. Yet you are agreeing with astronomers who "proved" Einstein's theory. You are over looking this. Apparently Keppler didn't notice it ? And all this means is that you're faulting Newton because astronomers weren't able to observe the discrepancy in Mercury's orbit until about 1859. Not sure how that is Newton's fault.

I like what this guy says;
There is no sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. What relativity did is expand the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Special relativity extended the range to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even GR is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the centre of black holes. We expect that some future theory (string theory?) will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52165/newtonian-gravity-vs-general-relativity-exactly-how-wrong-is-newton

Surface Detail wrote:

James_ wrote: Why is it that you are so insistent that Newton IS wrong ?

Because observations of reality prove that he is wrong. More interestingly, why do people here insist that Newton's law of gravity is correct despite the fact that experimental observations have shown that it is not correct?