Remember me
▼ Content

The Chapman Cycle



Page 2 of 3<123>
27-06-2017 01:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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
Edited on 27-06-2017 01:06
27-06-2017 01:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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 test was mathematical in nature. It showed that Galileo's constant of gravity was compatible with both near objects and the Moon's orbit. For a full description of the test, I suggest you read the theory for yourself.

Another test was done about 100 years later. The theory survived that test as well. The result of that test also gave us a weight of the entire Earth.

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


The speed of light is a measurement. It is not a theory of science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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


CFC's are still manufactured today. Most of the stuff that is used in developed nations is recycled. The rest is smuggled in from undeveloped nations that did not sign or recognize the Montreal protocol.

As for ozone, it is not affected by CFC's. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 01:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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 Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 01:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
27-06-2017 02:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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. They showed that Einstein's theory of general relativity is a more accurate description of gravity than Newton's law.

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.
27-06-2017 02:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 02:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 02:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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.
27-06-2017 02:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
27-06-2017 02:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 02:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
27-06-2017 02:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


You've already shown that you don't understand anything you're talking about. Einstein simply made an extension to Newton's law of gravitation so that it demonstrated that it would operate in the same manner on energy as normal matter.

Exactly why are you arguing about this when you didn't even read the paper?
27-06-2017 02:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
27-06-2017 03:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.

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

Now it's your turn to make still another ignorant statement.
27-06-2017 03:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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


This work is a deviation of Newton's work. If he and Liebniz didn't invent calculus then what would Einstein have done ? And if Planck didn't realize his constant what would Einstein have done ?
The answer is nothing. His work was based on what other scientists did. Kind of why with what I'm pursuing I'm going to limit myself to engineering. No one considers that science like anything else evolves as time goes by.

BTW, the 43 seconds of precession in the perehelion can also be accounted for if the Sun has an orbital path that it to follows just like the planets orbiting it have.
Edited on 27-06-2017 03:56
27-06-2017 10:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 27-06-2017 10:34
27-06-2017 15:14
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


Newton's work wasn't falsified. It could just as easily be said that space is warped. Before Newton there was Gallileo. We went from the Earth is the center of the universe to orbiting the Sun in our own solar system to a theory of gravity to a dense concentration of gravity warps the space it effects.
Just one question for you, okay ? Do you see a trend here ? It's that the amount of knowledge and understanding of both the universe we live in and the planet we live on is increasing.
If there is a problem it would be technology taking control of our lives and doing our thinking for us. At the same time if we agree with something that doesn't mean we're not thinking for ourselves.
An example is that I agree with both Newton and Einstein as well as the link you posted. I did downloaded the PDF.
Surface Detail, what Einstein might have shown is that gravity has it's own precession.

And Wake, if my experiment works then it would follow the trend that we are building on the base of knowledge that we have.
Edited on 27-06-2017 16:11
27-06-2017 16:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
27-06-2017 18:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@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.
Edited on 27-06-2017 18:34
27-06-2017 18:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
27-06-2017 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.

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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


All of those countries are quite capable of making CFC's. They (with a couple of exceptions) simply choose not to.

Making CFC's is not a difficult process.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.

Actually they do, but they don't do it publicly.
Wake wrote:
This is what is happening around the world in low income countries and this is COMPLETELY legal in the Montreal protocol.

A treaty is not 'legal' or 'illegal'. It is a treaty. It is an agreement between parties.

Yes, recycling CFC's conforms with the treaty. Manufacturing them does not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 19:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
27-06-2017 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.
No, it wasn't. we still use the law today. It is completely accurate.
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!
Newton's law doesn't predict a deflection. Einstein does.
Surface Detail wrote:
Newton's law and Einstein's theory made different predictions for the amount of deflection.
Newton's law doesn't predict a deflection. The deflection is an observation, not where the planet actually is. Newton's law still governs where the planet actually is.
Surface Detail wrote:
Observations showed that Einstein's theory, rather than Newton's law, predicted the deflection correctly.
Einstein showed why the observation is what it was. That's all.
Surface Detail wrote:
Hence Newton's law was falsified.

Newton's law is not falsified. We still use it today, even for the orbit of Mercury.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


Einstein did not show energy is interchangeable with matter. He shows the two are related. You can't change matter into energy or energy into matter.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 20:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
27-06-2017 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-06-2017 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.

Now you want to talk about photons? Yes. They contain mass. That part of the equation is rarely quoted.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-06-2017 02:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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. Newton's theory of gravity makes predictions that don't match observations. It predicts the wrong value for the deflection of starlight by the sun. It also predicts the wrong value for the precession of Mercury's orbit. These observations therefore falsify Newton's law of gravity.

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. 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. Of course, the error is insignificant for masses with low relative velocities; it does, however, become significant when their relative velocities are high.
28-06-2017 04:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
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.
Nope. We still use it today. It is completely accurate.
Surface Detail wrote:
Newton's theory of gravity makes predictions that don't match observations.
Newton's theory of gravity does not predict observations. Observations are not science or math.
Surface Detail wrote:
It predicts the wrong value for the deflection of starlight by the sun.
It does not predict a deflection at all.
Surface Detail wrote:
It also predicts the wrong value for the precession of Mercury's orbit.
It does not predict a precession at all.
Surface Detail wrote:
These observations therefore falsify Newton's law of gravity.
Nope. We still use it today.
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.
Newton's law of gravity does not concern itself with moving masses.
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.
An assumption. We do not know the speed of gravity. According to Einstein, it cannot be faster than 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.

What about Newton not using moving masses in his equation do you not understand?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-06-2017 06:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


Short answer;
CH4 + O2 > H2O
CH2O + O2 > H2O
CO2
28-06-2017 10:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 28-06-2017 10:57
28-06-2017 17:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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 ? It's gotten old. After all, you are saying that 200 years later they found out that he did not account for everything which is to say 43" of precession. Only 200 years it took for that to be realized. Why so long ?
I know, people like you are smarter than him. That's what you're trying to prove, right ?
28-06-2017 17:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
28-06-2017 17:56
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
Edited on 28-06-2017 17:58
28-06-2017 18:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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

I'm certainly not trying to diss Newton. He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Newton's law is indeed a very close approximation to reality - far better than the guesswork that preceded it - but it is not absolutely true, as was proved by observations such as the precession of Mercury's orbit. Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.

What I am getting at here is that it is naive in the extreme to talk in black and white terms about scientific laws being either falsified or not falsified, as some are wont to do here. Newton's law is an example of a law that has indeed been falsified in the sense that observations have been made that disagree with predictions made using it. However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless. It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances.

All scientific laws represent models of reality. The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
28-06-2017 18:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


Because you do not understand the first thing about physics you can proclaim absolutely anything as we've watched you do. All Einstein did was show that because of velocity, time was altered - not Newton.

But carry on with your demonstration of ignorance.
28-06-2017 20:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Umm, this line of discussion might actually prove educational. Why this would matter is because it shows without previous work to reference science stagnates.
The 2nd is perspective because we all have our own perspectives. An example is precession. It's the start of a new cycle before 360 degrees of orbit is completed. Why this matters (pun intended) is because space closer to the Sun could contain more dark matter. And by moving away from the Sun the density of dark matter decreases and energy is said to follow the path of least resistance. And since Einstein believed in an aether which today is called dark matter which accounts for the behavior of a spiral galaxy, who knows ?
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate The Chapman Cycle:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why the cycle before the industrial revolution.601-11-2018 01:40
The Milankovitch Cycle616-05-2018 04:55
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact