| 28-06-2017 20:41 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
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 ?
No one has ever detected any dark matter. Einstein's ether was not dark matter. It was a substance that was once considered necessary for radio-magnetic waves to travel through space. Of course we know that it will travel through a complete vacuum.
It is extremely unlikely that there is such a thing as dark matter and a whole lot likelier that the frequency of black holes is large enough to supply the missing gravity fields. Virtually every other day they are detecting signs of yet another black hole. |
| 28-06-2017 21:54 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21583) |
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.
What about F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 is falsified?
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Do you see anything in the equation that masses must be moving at all?
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
No, we don't. We know that it cannot exceed the speed of light, that's all.
We do not know the speed of gravity.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-06-2017 21:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
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.
Observation is not science or math. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
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?
Observation is not a proof.
The equation F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 is still used today. It is completely accurate.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-06-2017 22:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Surface Detail wrote:
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,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-06-2017 23:25 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night 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.
Observation is not science or math. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
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?
Observation is not a proof.
The equation F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 is still used today. It is completely accurate.
The whole point of science is to produce theories that have predictive power. The only way that you can test whether they have predictive power is by using them to make a prediction and then checking by observation if the prediction matches reality. Predictions made on the basis of Newton's law match observations well when the bodies in question are moving a low velocities, but become inaccurate when they are moving at higher velocities, as observations of the precession of Mercury's orbit showed long ago.
The reason for this is intuitively obvious if you accept that gravity propagates at a finite speed. Imagine, for example, one body approaching another at a speed close to the speed of light. It passes at a distance R. Newton's law, which assumes instantaneous propagation of gravitational attraction, would predict the gravitational force between the bodies at the moment of closest approach to be given by F=G*(m1*m2)/R^2. However, this cannot be true if gravity propagates at a finite speed. In this case, the force at that moment must be some value less than F since the bodies are still feeling the gravitational force from some time before the closest approach. Predictions based on Newton's law of the trajectories of the bodies will therefore be wrong.
Edited on 28-06-2017 23:26 |
|
| 29-06-2017 00:17 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]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,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move". |
| 29-06-2017 01:10 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]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,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds. |
| 29-06-2017 01:19 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Tell you what - go to the moon and tell me that Newton's laws of gravity don't work within the limits of measurement. |
| 29-06-2017 02:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]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,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Newton's equation doesn't have a time component. He doesn't assume any particular speed of gravity. The equation doesn't depend on 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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-06-2017 02:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Tell you what - go to the moon and tell me that Newton's laws of gravity don't work within the limits of measurement.
You willing to buy him a one-way ticket?
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-06-2017 07:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Tell you what - go to the moon and tell me that Newton's laws of gravity don't work within the limits of measurement.
You willing to buy him a one-way ticket?
So you are afraid to answer the question. Not a surprise. |
| 29-06-2017 10:23 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm certainly not trying to diss Newton,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Newton's equation doesn't have a time component. He doesn't assume any particular speed of gravity. The equation doesn't depend on it.
As I've already explained, it is precisely the fact that Newton's law of gravity doesn't take into account the relative velocities of the bodies involved that makes it inaccurate! The greater the relative velocities, the less accurate the law becomes.
That's why it is impossible to accurately calculate, for example, the future position of Mercury using Newton's law. In contrast, Einstein's GR takes this relative motion into account and gives accurate results when used to predict the future positions of such bodies.
Edited on 29-06-2017 10:26 |
| 29-06-2017 21:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm certainly not trying to diss Newton,
You're trying to diss his theory of gravitational attraction though.
Surface Detail wrote:
He was one of the world's greatest scientists and I do, of course, teach his law of gravitation to my students. Why??? If it's been falsified as you say it has, what is the point???
Surface Detail wrote:
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.
Newton's law doesn't describe precession. Observation is not a proof.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein's GR is a better theory because it gives correct predictions where Newton's law does not.
Einstein's GR law doesn't describe precession either.
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
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. A theory either exists, or it doesn't. If a theory has been falsified, it no longer exists. The state of falsification is a binary state. The state of existence is a binary state. Does force = gravitional constant * (mass1 * mass2) / distance_between_them^2 or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
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. Observations are not proof. Observations can be a source of conflicting evidence, but nothing has conflicted with Newton's equation.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, this does not mean that Newton's law is useless.
Does the law exist or not? Do we still use it or not?
Surface Detail wrote:
It is very useful indeed under certain circumstances. That is true of any equation in science. We don't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate a frequency spectrum, for instance.
Surface Detail wrote:
All scientific laws represent models of reality. No, they represent theories. Each theory has a model associated with it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The process of science involves the creation of ever more accurate models of reality that cover an ever broader range of circumstances. You cannot change the model without destroying the old theory and creating a new one.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science is better seen, not a process of unveiling absolute truths about reality, but as a process of reflecting reality.
Define 'reality'. Do you believe there is such a thing as a Universal Truth? If so, what is Truth?
Who 'owns' it? Who defines it?
It seems to me you are teaching a paradox.
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force. The speed of light sets an absolute limit on the rate of propagation of any influence. It is precisely because Newtonian gravity assumes instantaneous propagation that it fails to match reality in systems involving high relative speeds.
Newton's equation doesn't have a time component. He doesn't assume any particular speed of gravity. The equation doesn't depend on it.
As I've already explained, it is precisely the fact that Newton's law of gravity doesn't take into account the relative velocities of the bodies involved that makes it inaccurate! The greater the relative velocities, the less accurate the law becomes.
I don't know why you figure you can add terms to an equation and still call it Newton's law.
Surface Detail wrote:
That's why it is impossible to accurately calculate, for example, the future position of Mercury using Newton's gravity law. Newton's gravity law does not calculate the future position of any planet.
Surface Detail wrote:
In contrast, Einstein's GR takes this relative motion into account and gives accurate results when used to predict the future positions of such bodies.
Einstein's GR laws can indirectly estimate the position of a planet though (by calculating forces acting on it over time).The reason is that you don't know all the forces acting on that planet over time.
I feel sorry for your students, being taught that either of these laws can calculate the future position of a planet, that Newton's gravity law isn't used anymore because it's been falsified, and that Einstein somehow had something to do with it by quoting an unrelated theory.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-06-2017 23:45 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Into the ....,
What surface detail as Wake both don't understand is that when precession starts the light or planet is moving away from the Sun earlier. Otherwise it would be post-cession. Gravity attracts, not repels. Dark matter could explain this. |
| 30-06-2017 01:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
James_ wrote:
Into the ....,
What surface detail as Wake both don't understand is that when precession starts the light or planet is moving away from the Sun earlier. Otherwise it would be post-cession. Gravity attracts, not repels. Dark matter could explain this.
Precession doesn't 'start'. It's always been there as long as the masses causing have been there.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 30-06-2017 03:25 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-06-2017 10:22 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
No force is transmitted instantaneously. The electrostatic forces between atoms in close proximity that constitute contact forces obviously take a negligible time to pass from atom to atom, but they are still transmitted at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The finite speed of transmission of forces only becomes apparent when considering forces acting over long distances. |
| 30-06-2017 22:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
No force is transmitted instantaneously. The electrostatic forces between atoms in close proximity that constitute contact forces obviously take a negligible time to pass from atom to atom, but they are still transmitted at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The finite speed of transmission of forces only becomes apparent when considering forces acting over long distances.
How long does it take the speed of light to travel zero distance?
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-07-2017 04:54 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
No force is transmitted instantaneously. The electrostatic forces between atoms in close proximity that constitute contact forces obviously take a negligible time to pass from atom to atom, but they are still transmitted at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The finite speed of transmission of forces only becomes apparent when considering forces acting over long distances.
How long does it take the speed of light to travel zero distance?
Your question makes no sense. Speed is an abstract noun; it cannot travel. |
| 01-07-2017 12:24 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Into the Night wrote:
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.
The force of the sun´s heat flow is not instantaneous either, from our point of view. But, observing a photon leaving the solar surface and arriving at earth includes time measured by us. From the photons point of view the distance(space) and the time passed makes no difference. Energy is the same both at the sun and when arriving at earth. So, even though radiation is influencing us from a point in time in the past, the action when arriving at earth is the same as "instantaneous", because the action is E=Q. No time included.
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.
I agree.
Gravity is thought to be a force radiating into space. Do we know of any radiation that doesen´t move at the speed of light?
The equation F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 is still used today. It is completely accurate.
When two bodies in weightlessness relative to space interact in an orbit, and the force is F=G(m1m2)/r^2 accelerating the orbiting body with the force F every second, I imagine that action as a cord between the points at center of mass in those bodies. This is from the centripetal force is used for explaining this interaction in the analogy of rotating around the center of mass when holding a weight in a rope. In the case of the rope and weight we have a force directed in opposite direction to the center of mass, an equal force of the rope in opposite direction towards the person holding it, a constant acceleration in straight angle from the direction of conserved energy of the weight and gravity pulling both bodies in direction towards the earth´s center of mass.
In space, the orbiting body have a force acting outwards, an equal force acting towards the system center of mass and an acceleration in angle, but no gravity acting on both bodies in a parallel direction. The acceleration is energy input in the constant motion of circular orbit, energy input in shape of a force doing work in angular acceleration and attraction, each second. In the constant G that force is defined as Nm^2, each second.
There is one thing missing in F=G*m1m2/r^2 in space. The shared force acting equally on both bodies perpendicular to the plane of motion. Without it the orbiting body is accelerated by the "chord" pulling with Nm^2 every second, but there is nothing keeping the "chord" from winding up around the body driving the motion (sun). Without the perpendicular equally acting force of gravity on earth, fixing your feet into the ground when accelerating the weight in the centripetal action, there is nothing preventing the orbiter in space from quickly ending up at the center of mass. G accelerates in a straight line towards the sun, there has to be an equal force in a straight line in the opposite direction to be stationary. To orbit you need an additional force in angle from the first line of action. All of them consume energy each second.
Imagine being in space holding a rope and weight. You are stationary and you pull on the rope with force enough for a scale to show g if attached to the other end. To keep the weight in place, you need equal opposite force. This is stationary, no motion. Add acceleration in an angle to the first forces to get rotation. Constant acceleration is needed to keep your pulling on the weight, g, balanced. What keeps rope from twisting up around you?
Nothing. F=G*m1m2/r^2 contain only two points and one dimension of force along a line. You need angular torque acting around the center of motion to keep them apart and in moving. And a parallel perpendicular force acting on both equally to keep r constant. It works to find the relative positions without motion, it fails as soon as anything moves in space.
On top of that, where does the energy needed for the force and work of gravity come from? We observe no other flow of energy than heat.
Charges are the only possible solution the way I see it.
The electric field inside a sphere of uniform charge:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html#c3
The equations are exactly what I use to calculate surface temperature:
1/2*TSI/(4/3)/(4/3)
Gauss law of gravity says that the volume must contain the sum of all sources, and it uses surface area instead of a force acting in a point. So:
TSI/(4/3)=σ(T_surface^4+T_tropopause^4)-(4*g^2)-(4/3*g^2)=0
T_surface is 1/2*(TSI(1361W)/(4/3)^2) which leads to 4/3*g^2=σT_tropopause^4
σT_tropopause^4 is the equivalent energy in the volume needed for an accelerating point force of gravity at 9.8W/m=9.8Nm/s which is equal to 96Nm^2=96W/m^2, equal a point source according to inverse square law at σT_surface^4.
So earth is easily defined as a sphere of uniform charge in an electric field, and it would explain orbits in the field from repelling and simultaneously attractive forces in charges, like we are used to in electricity.
Neither GR or Newton explains the needed energy of the forces needed each second, curvature of space solves nothing. It just means that an equal force is needed to curve space. Newtons gravity is only linear without anything driving orbital/angular acceleration and no parallel position-fixing perpendicular force like earth surface gravity acting equal on both masses. The perpendicular parallel force of gravity in the "on surface motion" of rotation with a weight in a rope, is what balances the other forces in motion. F=G*m1m2/r^2 leaves a big hole there. Or what am I missing?
And we should write F(t)=G*m1m2/r^2 to remind us that there is Watt counting on the universal energy-meter each second. The energy needed for gravitational force doing work must be accounted for each second, and the only observed flow of energy is heat. We don´t even know how or by what this energy is produced, in spite of 100 years of intensive investigation and speculation.
Light/heat is the only universal energy observed flowing by humans at our position in the solar system, and gravity is indirectly observed from it´s action on light/heat Since they are the only observed universal expressions of energy, independent of us and our solar system, then it is very likely that they are intimately related.
F(t)=G*m1m2/r^2 only show mass and distance in the field and the force of mutual attraction displacing mass when doing work. But we need a -G for r to be constant, and we need torque for orbits, and we need repulsion to avoid all masses winding up into the sun.
Lot´s of words, does it make any sense?
It´s a bitch that the center of mass and the center of heat is located in the same place. It might have fooled us.
Edited on 01-07-2017 13:15 |
| 01-07-2017 12:40 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the ....,
What surface detail as Wake both don't understand is that when precession starts the light or planet is moving away from the Sun earlier. Otherwise it would be post-cession. Gravity attracts, not repels. Dark matter could explain this.
Precession doesn't 'start'. It's always been there as long as the masses causing have been there.
So masses cause motion by doing work when displacing other masses in orbits, by the force of gravity?
Such massive machinery with the obviously enormous flow of energy needed to keep motion constant, and no trace of the energy generation or flow? Is it electric? is it thermal? is it magic?
It's always been there as long as the masses causing have been there.
I refuse to accept an explanation saying that observation is explained by "always".
And why do we accept an explanation including dark matter and dark energy?
Dark "stuff" have not been observed, no one knows what it is or how it acts, it is not expected to ever be observed, it is present everywhere all the time and it is more powerful than anything we observe. It is used to explain what we don´t understand without giving any real answers.
Sounds pretty much like God to me.
Edited on 01-07-2017 12:42 |
| 01-07-2017 12:53 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Into the Night wrote:
Newton's equation doesn't have a time component. He doesn't assume any particular speed of gravity. The equation doesn't depend on it.
Yes it does. The force is in Nm^2 for G and Nm for g. Nm is equal to J/m/s and Nm^2 is equal to J/m^2/s, or W/m and W/m^2.
A "force" always need a supply of energy from a source. That supply is a flow of energy over time acting as a force displacing mass when doing work over time. There is no escape from time in Newtons equation. But if one wants to sweep problems under the carpet it is convenient to leave that out. |
| 01-07-2017 13:28 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Wake wrote:
Newtonian gravity is an instantaneous force, i.e., action at a distance, coupled to gravitational mass (conceptually different from inertial mass).
General Relativity is a local theory (no action at a distance). Einsteinian gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the coupling is between mass-energy and geometry; "matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move".
Yes.
Action at a distance is easily explained by making action local, not something caused by the source. Just like the sb-equation for a constant heat source and the heated body determines the rate of energy transfer by a change in the lower temperature absorbing/heated body, and not by action of the source. Local change in the field determines instantaneous change in the fields force acting on the local change.
Doesn´t that sound reasonable?
It also brings other consequences, like that a change of mean temperature of earth, when heated by constant and limited heat flow from the sun, is impossible.
The sb-equation say clearly that for bodies in vacuum engaged in heat transfer where the heat flow is constant from the source, that any change in temperature on earth inevitably means exactly equal lower rate of transfer from the sun. Climate science is deceptive, contradicting proven thermal physics without shame. |
| 01-07-2017 13:38 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
James_ wrote:
An example is what is climate ? Is it a state of being or is it ? we must first consider what a climate is or is not to consider chemistry. That is right, to consider chemistry we must first consider whether climate can be defined. Kind of a waste of my time.
I have come to the conclusion that climate is fiction. There is only weather.
At the same time if CO2 is not as stable as is claimed then that can change it's role in our atmosphere just as reducing O2 and increasing CO2 could possibly change the radiance of our atmosphere. Yet IBdaMann and Into the Darkness both state that changing the composition of something does not effect it's physical properties. Right !
First of all. Consider a constant limited flow of heat with a heat absorbing mass placed in it. Heating is, as I said, constant. Add more heat absorber to the limited constant flow. Remember that temperature is the average energy per molecule/unit mass.
Does the individual molecule have more or less energy available when more heat absorbing molecules share the constant limited flow of heat?
I dare you to say it has more energy available.
If anything changes, the important change will inevitably be measured as lower temperature.
Enter spirituality and the need to question reality and what is it.
Spirituality or thermodynamics, your choice. One of them have proven to be extremely succesful as a model describing reality. The other one still stands without any useful result. |
| 01-07-2017 20:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
No force is transmitted instantaneously. The electrostatic forces between atoms in close proximity that constitute contact forces obviously take a negligible time to pass from atom to atom, but they are still transmitted at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The finite speed of transmission of forces only becomes apparent when considering forces acting over long distances.
How long does it take the speed of light to travel zero distance?
Your question makes no sense. Speed is an abstract noun; it cannot travel.
So that bus heading toward you is abstract, yes?
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-07-2017 20:49 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Newton's equation doesn't have a time component. He doesn't assume any particular speed of gravity. The equation doesn't depend on it.
Yes it does. The force is in Nm^2 for G and Nm for g. Nm is equal to J/m/s and Nm^2 is equal to J/m^2/s, or W/m and W/m^2.
A "force" always need a supply of energy from a source. That supply is a flow of energy over time acting as a force displacing mass when doing work over time. There is no escape from time in Newtons equation. But if one wants to sweep problems under the carpet it is convenient to leave that out.
The Newton is an equivalency. It is used to describe how long it would take a mass to gain momentum, given a fixed amount of force. We call this 'acceleration', also expressed as m/s/s.
It is not talking about the speed of gravity at all. It is talking about the force required to accelerate mass. Whether it takes time for that force to 'arrive' makes no difference.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-07-2017 20:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the ....,
What surface detail as Wake both don't understand is that when precession starts the light or planet is moving away from the Sun earlier. Otherwise it would be post-cession. Gravity attracts, not repels. Dark matter could explain this.
Precession doesn't 'start'. It's always been there as long as the masses causing have been there.
So masses cause motion by doing work when displacing other masses in orbits, by the force of gravity?
Such massive machinery with the obviously enormous flow of energy needed to keep motion constant, and no trace of the energy generation or flow? Is it electric? is it thermal? is it magic?
It is gravity. Motion isn't constant. Acceleration is though.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It's always been there as long as the masses causing have been there.
I refuse to accept an explanation saying that observation is explained by "always".
So...you believe you can have two masses and not have gravity???
LifeIsThermal wrote:
And why do we accept an explanation including dark matter and dark energy?
Dark "stuff" have not been observed, no one knows what it is or how it acts, it is not expected to ever be observed, it is present everywhere all the time and it is more powerful than anything we observe. It is used to explain what we don´t understand without giving any real answers.
This is a speculation. It is not science.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Sounds pretty much like God to me.
False equivalence.
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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-07-2017 01:00 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In reality, of course, there is no such thing as an instantaneous force.
Tell me that contact force is not instantaneous.
No force is transmitted instantaneously. The electrostatic forces between atoms in close proximity that constitute contact forces obviously take a negligible time to pass from atom to atom, but they are still transmitted at the speed of light, not instantaneously. The finite speed of transmission of forces only becomes apparent when considering forces acting over long distances.
How long does it take the speed of light to travel zero distance?
Your question makes no sense. Speed is an abstract noun; it cannot travel.
So that bus heading toward you is abstract, yes?
"Bus" is a concrete noun; "speed" is an abstract noun. It seems you were paying as much attention in grammar lessons as you did in science lessons. |
| 02-07-2017 12:45 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Into the Night wrote:
The Newton is an equivalency. It is used to describe how long it would take a mass to gain momentum, given a fixed amount of force. We call this 'acceleration', also expressed as m/s/s.
It is not talking about the speed of gravity at all. It is talking about the force required to accelerate mass. Whether it takes time for that force to 'arrive' makes no difference.
You are right about the speed. But when you say that the equivalence is the relation between force and gain of momentum, I guess you agree on that time is part of the equation? |
| 02-07-2017 13:24 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Into the Night wrote:
It is gravity. Motion isn't constant. Acceleration is though.
Yes, we call it gravity. Nevertheless, it is a force which needs the constant supply of energy equivalent to the work being done. That energy must be either thermal or electric, right? What other types of energy do we know of that flows around us in the universe? It has to be one of those two, right?
Or do you prefer supernatural dark energy or some other unicorn?
So...you believe you can have two masses and not have gravity???
I try not to depend on faith. My point of view is that gravity is a force claimed to originate in mass, and that 100 years of intensive search for the source of gravity in mass has produced 0 win. So my conclusion is that mass as the cause of the work being done by gravity has been ruled out. Or do you need another 100 years without a result to start looking for other solutions?
I don´t believe anything about two masses and gravity. And we will never be able to investigate the relationship between mass and gravity, because we would need to eliminate all other forces to see if two masses can exist without gravity. Which would mean that we need to create a parallel universe without radiation where we can put those masses and measure the interaction. But then of course, the measurement itself would interfere with the state.
Anyway, nobody has a clue or even a fraction of a clue to the relationship between the force of gravity radiating from mass, and the mechanism in mass creating the force. So the claim that mass cause gravity is only an assumption which I consider biased and I exclude it to give room to other explanations.
Our present state of ignorance includes the fact that gravity radiates from bodies of mass, and we only know of one type of energy flowing through bodies in a radiating manner, and that is heat. The most conservative conclusion that can be made based on observations, is that there is a single flow of energy in the universe in the shape of heat, and from deltaU=Q-W the only logic conclusion is that gravity is part of that flow as the fraction of work being done by the flow of heat. Gravity is the exact definition of work.
So, I believe nothing. But the first law of thermodynamics gives no other solution than: yes, you can have two bodies of mass without gravity, if there is no heat flow(or energy flow). But of course, those bodies would not be able to exist without gravity or heat flow. So mass is caused by radiative energy flowing as heat and work(gravity), mass doesn´t cause anything.
This is a speculation. It is not science.
What is?
Dark matter is per definition speculation. It is nothing more than a thought which still has found no confirmation. Was that what you meant?
False equivalence.
Why? Because you think that in religion all fantasies are invalid models of reality, but in physics fantasies have higher value?
What I wrote was a description of dark matter in relation to proven science, you can switch the concept "dark matter" to "God" and the description is still valid in relation to physics. Why is there a difference between the mystic presence and force of the almighty dark matter and the almighty God?
Both dark matter and God are guesses about the nature of reality. One might say that dark matter is guess work based on knowledge and therefore it could be called a "qualified" guess work. But it doesn´t make a difference, a qualified guess is still nothing more than a guess. God and dark matter are equivalent in relation to physics.
Edited on 02-07-2017 13:28 |
|
| 02-07-2017 22:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21583) |
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is gravity. Motion isn't constant. Acceleration is though.
Yes, we call it gravity. Nevertheless, it is a force which needs the constant supply of energy equivalent to the work being done. That energy must be either thermal or electric, right? What other types of energy do we know of that flows around us in the universe? It has to be one of those two, right?
No, it doesn't. There are several forces. We can't explain the origin of any of them. All of science does nothing but explain their effects.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Or do you prefer supernatural dark energy or some other unicorn? Dark matter and dark energy are both speculations.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
So...you believe you can have two masses and not have gravity???
I try not to depend on faith. My point of view is that gravity is a force claimed to originate in mass, and that 100 years of intensive search for the source of gravity in mass has produced 0 win. So my conclusion is that mass as the cause of the work being done by gravity has been ruled out. Or do you need another 100 years without a result to start looking for other solutions?
I don´t believe anything about two masses and gravity. And we will never be able to investigate the relationship between mass and gravity, because we would need to eliminate all other forces to see if two masses can exist without gravity. Which would mean that we need to create a parallel universe without radiation where we can put those masses and measure the interaction. But then of course, the measurement itself would interfere with the state.
Anyway, nobody has a clue or even a fraction of a clue to the relationship between the force of gravity radiating from mass, and the mechanism in mass creating the force. So the claim that mass cause gravity is only an assumption which I consider biased and I exclude it to give room to other explanations.
Our present state of ignorance includes the fact that gravity radiates from bodies of mass, and we only know of one type of energy flowing through bodies in a radiating manner, and that is heat. The most conservative conclusion that can be made based on observations, is that there is a single flow of energy in the universe in the shape of heat, and from deltaU=Q-W the only logic conclusion is that gravity is part of that flow as the fraction of work being done by the flow of heat. Gravity is the exact definition of work.
So, I believe nothing. But the first law of thermodynamics gives no other solution than: yes, you can have two bodies of mass without gravity, if there is no heat flow(or energy flow). But of course, those bodies would not be able to exist without gravity or heat flow. So mass is caused by radiative energy flowing as heat and work(gravity), mass doesn´t cause anything.
Since you believe there is nothing that you cannot explain, you are also saying there is no gravity, there is no electricity, there is no weak or strong force, there are no atoms or molecules, there is no kinetic or potential energy, there is no mass, there is no momentum, there is no acceleration, there is only The Void.
Science has no explanation for the origin of mass, energy, or any kind of force. Without these, you have none of the others.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
This is a speculation. It is not science.
What is?
Dark matter is per definition speculation. It is nothing more than a thought which still has found no confirmation. Was that what you meant?
We don't know if there is or how much dark matter may exist. We've never seen it. There isn't enough to obscure our view of the stars if there is any, so we cannot measure it.
The existence of dark matter was speculated to explain certain things astronomers are observing. Dark energy was created the same way.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
False equivalence.
Why? Because you think that in religion all fantasies are invalid models of reality, but in physics fantasies have higher value? No, because you are trying to equivocate a personage with speculation about nonliving things.
Neither dark matter no dark energy is given any form of intelligence by those who speculate on their existence. God is given a form of intelligence.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
What I wrote was a description of dark matter in relation to proven science, you can switch the concept "dark matter" to "God" and the description is still valid in relation to physics. Why is there a difference between the mystic presence and force of the almighty dark matter and the almighty God? One is a substance, one is a force, one is an intelligence. Lumping all that together is a false equivalence. It is like comparing apples to rocks because you can throw both of them. Only one of them is good to eat, however.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Both dark matter and God are guesses about the nature of reality. One might say that dark matter is guess work based on knowledge and therefore it could be called a "qualified" guess work. But it doesn´t make a difference, a qualified guess is still nothing more than a guess. God and dark matter are equivalent in relation to physics.
No, they aren't. People do speculate about both, but that is the end of 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
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-12-2023 20:46 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5712) |
James_ wrote:
Hmm, link deleted by someone who is not the moderator because the discussion will be limited to ...
Into the Dark Ages, I have to wonder about you. After all you did not know that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 2 separate documents. This is only a problem because you explained them as one document.
Then with science you keep saying no to a consensus. And when you do this you can demonstrate nothing. All you want is a debate where nothing can be referenced. That in and of itself is a circular argument.
This could be your way of saying I am in the wrong place.
Hey James, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments to the constitution.
So were you born stupid or did your mother drop you one time too many
Dum dum dum
Sorry kid, there is no way that you worked for Boeing not even as a janitor
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 19-12-2023 20:54 |