MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Newton's (F)laws (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I dunno what this Bros bloke is about, but if a taste for electricity means he (or Komori) would rather think of circular orbits, he/they should bear in mind that, being central and inverse-square, Coulomb's electrostatic force would produce elliptical (which includes circular) orbits in exactly the same way that Newton's gravity is reckoned to.

If it's more about Faraday and induction than Coulomb and electrostatics, I grant you it's a different picture. But we weren't actually given a picture here.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We seem to be having a Cool Hand Luke moment here.

The fact gentlemen is that Newton neither proved that gravity (the force that makes object fall) was proportional to nor a property of matter.
His mass/gravity equation was unable to predict that which it was designed to accomplish.

By assuming all matter travelled in a straight line and proposing that the Earth and Moon were made of the same evenly spaced corpuscles by volume he failed to balance his equation with reality. Neither Halley nor anyone else at the time could make Newton's equation work. The situation after Newton's death only exacerbated the dichotomy when it was applied to other celestial bodies. It just didn't work. This isn't a assertion on my part, it is a fact.

There is no relationship between the force that caused objects to fall in a gravitational field and orbital motion. They are two separate forces. Newton may have proposed one force for two effects but he never proved it. So Occam's Razor doesn't apply.

Newton did not prove gravity was proportional and therefore a property of matter. His preposition that he could explain the orbit of the Moon around the Earth failed.

The British Royal Society was well aware of this predictive failure and in order to provide a believable solution simply reversed Newton's proposition thereby making the false assumption that it was actually the orbits of celestial bodies that could determine their mass. This totally unverifiable assertion was written into law and has become the basis for all celestial mechanics ever since.

There is no way to determine the mass of any celestial body anywhere in the universe. This has been borne out by present day observations. Orthodoxy still used the reversed Newton equation to determine mass for ALL stellar bodies. That includes comets and other stars like Sirius.

Newtonian science is about producing unfalsifiable CONCEPTS that can be quantified mathematically. Any FACT that contravenes these concepts is called an anomaly that will eventually be quantified mathematically. This has led to the missing matter anomaly that has been quantified by producing other unverifiable ad hoc concepts such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity Waves, God Particles, the list is endless.

Newton and his contemporaries were philosophers not scientists. They were interested in truths not facts. Modern science is no different. They are operating on principles that are over three hundred years old that were proposed by men who were ignorant of the reality of the universe. Rote learning in universities has taught everyone to accept concepts as facts and deny new facts that conflict with their concepts.
Modern science is not science at all it's still philosophy. Newton is no different from Doug Adam's Majikthise and Vroomfondel.

V: What we demand is solid facts.
M: No we don't. That is precisely what we don't demand.
M: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
M: Any one who goes out and finds a fact then we're straight out of a job aren't we.


If Newton was right then that's it. We can get on with something else more important. Everything his laws predicted would be ubiquitous. We don't need to spend billions on finding gravity waves and God particles or conjuring up Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Wormholes,
add your latest FAIRIE DUST here:..................................................

The universe would work exactly as predicted. Next job please.
But it doesn't.
The more rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty the more concepts there are to create and quantify mathematically. The more jobs there are and the more funding to attract.

The apsis, barycentres, assumed mass of celestial bodies, composition of matter in stars and planets are mathematical chimera that rely on you believing that Newton validated his theory. He didn't.
The fact that you can make a better version of Robin Hood doesn't change the fact that the entire story is a myth.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Newton did not prove gravity was proportional and therefore a property of matter. His preposition that he could explain the orbit of the Moon around the Earth failed.

The British Royal Society was well aware of this predictive failure and in order to provide a believable solution simply reversed Newton's proposition thereby making the false assumption that it was actually the orbits of celestial bodies that could determine their mass. This totally unverifiable assertion was written into law and has become the basis for all celestial mechanics ever since.


Komo, there is a basic misconception here. This doesn't prove the equation is incorrect... it simply means Newton put the wrong figures into it (because he made a wrong assumption about the mass of the Moon).

If you are trying to find C from the equation AxB=C and you use the wrong value for A you will obviously derive an incorrect value for C... but it does not invalidate the equation, nor does it invalidate the equation: B/C=A.

What the Royal Society did was perfectly reasonable. They realised A was unknown and used the known value of C to derive it.

I am not saying what you have written here is all incorrect... just that none of the reasoning you have presented so far, proves orthodoxy wrong.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am also still waiting for him to answer the objections others have posted.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What the Royal Society did was perfectly reasonable. They realised A was unknown and used the known value of C to derive it.

What was known Chad?

Newton had no idea what caused motion so he ascribed it to God. Not only was motion, straight or otherwise unknown It was not possible to know.

Newton had no idea about the mass of the Earth and the Moon. He wrongly assumed them to be made of evenly sized corpuscles. The mass of planets was again something that was not possible to know.

Newton said he could use these two unknowable concepts to prove gravity was proportional to and therefore a property of matter. His equation failed to predict the orbit of the moon. So the cause of orbital motion remains unknown.

The only thing Newton knew as a fact was the result of Galilei's proof that all object fall at the same rate and that that rate is inversely proportional to distance from their point of release to the ground that arrested their motion.

Newton took an unknown, combined it with another unknown and produced a result that failed (no surprise there) thereby leaving the prediction -- orbital motion- an unknown.

So every part of you A,B,C was and still is unknown.

Newton and the Royal Society turned concepts into fact but concepts can never be facts unless there is proof and neither the Royal Society or Newton proved the concept that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of matter nor did they prove they could know as fact the mass of celestial bodies.

The Royal Society made a political decision not a scientific one and turned Newton's preposition backwards. If the equation couldn't predict the orbit of planets them we can just say the orbit of planets can predict the mass of those planets.

Who would question the word of the Royal Society. At the time they were science. No one could prove them wrong three hundred years ago and as luck would have it by the time science had the resources to actually verify their flawed consensus science had become a tool of politics and politics had become a tool of science.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sorry Komo, but it looks as though mathematics and logic are not your strong points... so you are struggling to get your argument off the ground.

Komorikid wrote:
Newton took an unknown, combined it with another unknown and produced a result that failed (no surprise there)...

Yes Komo, that's precisely what I was telling you... but how did he know he had failed?

He knew because (by observation) the orbit of the Moon was known... and his predictions didn't fit.

What the Royal Society then did was to transpose the equation and use its known (observed) orbital parameters to derive a value for its mass... (mass being the only truly unknown parameter).

This is how basic mathematics (and logic) work... and if you can't grasp that there is no point continuing with any of this.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You always know an argument is ill-founded when it avoids logic and instead tries to undermine the integrity of others:

"Newton and the Royal Society were a bunch of wankers and therefore..." simply doesn't cut it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What the Royal Society then did was to transpose the equation and use its known (observed) orbital parameters to derive a value for its mass... (mass being the only truly unknown parameter).

Chad, could you take a large temporary weight off my mind. We do have then an independent source for the mass of the Moon other than this Royal Society assumption? I wouldn't like to think we have been using a "necessary amount that proves the hypothesis" figure all this time.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Chad, could you take a large temporary weight off my mind. We do have then an independent source for the mass of the Moon other than this Royal Society assumption? I wouldn't like to think we have been using a "necessary amount that proves the hypothesis" figure all this time.

I really don't know Mick... maybe Brian or Dan could fill us in (they are much more clued up than me).

Newton and the Royal Society were working with two unknown masses (the Earth and the Moon) whereas we have the advantage nowadays of being able to use artificial orbiting bodies of negligible mass (in comparison to the body being orbited) to verify the mass of the Moon alone (or the earth or whatever) using Kepler's Third Law... where there are only three variables (mass of Moon, orbital radius and period) and two of them can be measured with great precision. If the equation didn't work we would not be able to place satellites in geostationary (or any other controlled) orbit.

The proof is then very much in the pudding. As Ishmael pointed out, astronomers are able to predict (decades in advance) using only the laws given by Newton and Kepler and the derived masses of the Earth, Moon and Sun, exactly where the Earth will be (in relation to the Sun) at any given time during its orbit (contrary to what Kk was trying to tell us)... all this tells us that the maths is fundamentally correct.

Although... as I said earlier to Komorikid:

I am not saying what you have written here is all incorrect... just that none of the reasoning you have presented so far, proves orthodoxy wrong.

Before we abandon the laws of Newton and Kepler we need to be presented with a set of equations which provide us with even more accurate results.

But given the erroneous data and fatally flawed physics we have been presented with thus far... they sure ain't gunna come out of this thread.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
...nor did they prove they could know as fact the mass of celestial bodies.


On the contrary. They defined mass as the degree to which bodies attract. That's all the word means. And by God yes they could measure the degree to which any two bodies were attracted to one another.

Mass is some quality of a thing, known apriori to exist, which is then determined by the application of a equation to the problem (that is, so far as I can tell, the bone of contention here!).

Mass is simply the result for "x" when the other values of the equation are known, and the object in question is assumed to behave as would a cannonball in flight -- or a communications satellite in orbit.

Now you can argue that "mass" is not an intrinsic quality of the object to which it is assigned and maybe you have a debate but you can't say the mass value is just made up -- or that it is "predicted".

[quote]The Royal Society made a political decision not a scientific one...[\quote]

Its stuff like this that makes your posts almost unreadable.

....and turned Newton's preposition backwards. If the equation couldn't predict the orbit of planets them we can just say the orbit of planets can predict the mass of those planets.


It doesn't "predict" the mass of a planet! Sheesh. What the hell is "mass" in your world anyway? Mass means nothing except in relation to Newton's laws. Mass is nothing but the degree of attractiveness of a body.

Now if you want to attack the association of mass with matter then, like I said, you might have a case. To do so, your best bet is to attack its universality. After all, if mass is a quality of matter then it must be consistent: The Earth must be equally attractive to both the Moon and the Sun.

If you can show that the Earth is more attractive to one body than another, then you will have shown that, whatever mass is, it is not an inherent characteristic of the matter that comprises the Earth.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Chad, could you take a large temporary weight off my mind. We do have then an independent source for the mass of the Moon other than this Royal Society assumption?


Again. What does the word "mass" mean?

It means nothing but the degree of *attractiveness* a given body has with respect to the whole of the rest of the universe.

We can measure how attractive is the moon by use of Newton's equations -- when we assume all other bodies in the universe, in relation to the moon, behave as do cannonballs in flight.

We use the same math we use for cannonballs, apply it to the Earth's path around the moon, and the result we call the moon's "mass".

Is the moon's mass an intrinsic quality of the matter that composes the moon? It appears to be so, in so far as the Moon is just as attractive to every other body against which we take our measure.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Newton had no idea about the mass of the Earth and the Moon. He wrongly assumed them to be made of evenly sized corpuscles.

It might be nice to see some actual quotes (that Newton stood by) on this, since it is so hard to imagine that Newton had no idea of density. I don't think Bros' assertions have so far proved to be enough to go on, I'm afraid.

The only thing Newton knew as a fact was the result of Galilei's proof that all object fall at the same rate

That shows the force is proportional to the mass: F = mg and g is constant.

that rate is inversely proportional to distance from their point of release to the ground that arrested their motion.

Huh?

...we can just say the orbit of planets can predict the mass of those planets.

But the orbit does not depend on the mass (because the force is proportional to the mass). Who says they deduced the masses from the orbits?

(by observation) the orbit of the Moon was known... What the Royal Society then did was to transpose the equation and use its known (observed) orbital parameters to derive a value for its mass

Moon's mass? No. But when measurements are precise enough, the location of the barycentre would give away the relative masses of Earth and Moon (and all masses are relative).

Chad, could you take a large temporary weight off my mind. We do have then an independent source for the mass of the Moon other than this Royal Society assumption?

Lots of things except any Royal Society assumption, I'd say. Gravimeters sent to the Moon, direct measurements of distance (tidal forces)... Someone else can look up all the "how do we know the mass of the Moon?" results on the web.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Lots of things except any Royal Society assumption, I'd say. Gravimeters sent to the Moon, direct measurements of distance (tidal forces)... Someone else can look up all the "how do we know the mass of the Moon?" results on the web.

One doesn't like to say it of Brother Crisp but when somebody says 'lots of things', then mentions two, then tells one to look it up on the web, one's AE hackles rise. The point is that if the speaker knows for a fact there are 'lots of things' he will readily name them. If he doesn't we are in the Land of Careful Ignoral. The suspicion in this case is that gravimeters, distances, tidal forces (any AE-ist worth his salt would note the very interesting bracket in the original) are both/all dependent on the orginal Royal Society assumption.

I don't say they are, as you know I do not understand these things, I merely say there are AE reasons for suspecting the possibility lurks somewhere in Bro Crisp's mind, and he certainly does understand these things.

In AE we call this 'lounging on giants' shoulders'.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

when somebody says 'lots of things', then mentions two, then tells one to look it up on the web, one's AE hackles rise.

It's a combination of being au fait-ish with the principles but not familiar with the actual methods, not thinking much through and knowing that there are lots of hits for "weighing the Moon". They say things like this:
    The Earth and Moon both revolve around this point every 27.3 days as the point revolves around the Sun. This "wobble" in the Earth's orbit causes nearby objects such as the Sun and planets to exhibit a periodic variation in their expected longitudes, and this variation is not hard to detect with careful measurements. It may even have been noticed in ancient times. Anyway, these fluctuations in observed longitudes were the basis of our best estimates of the Moon's mass, right up until the Ranger 5 lunar orbit mission in 1962.
The suspicion in this case is that gravimeters, distances, tidal forces are both/all dependent on the orginal Royal Society assumption.

I don't know what this Royal Society assumption is supposed to be, since the orbits of bodies don't tell us about their masses, but about the masses of the bodies they're orbiting. Observing the planets tells us whether the same value of GM for the Sun is borne out by all of them. (Apprently it is. Otherwise, Newton's equation would have been disproved right at the start.)
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What the Royal Society did was find a mathematical solution to a mathematical equation that was based on unsupported and unknowable facts. This may be mathematical logic but it has nothing to do with the reality of observation.

Mathematics is a way to describe facts. It cannot in and of itself create facts from concepts.

The proof of Newton's and the Royal Society's failure is in observation of the facts.

Newton's universal laws cannot predict the real motion we can see with our own eyes.
It cannot predict the composition of celestial bodies.

NASA's latest EPOXI mission to Comet Hartley 2 has reconfirmed this. It is a solid rock composed of material indistinguishable from asteroids. Its orbit cannot predict its mass or composition.

The close encounters with Wild 2, Tempel 1, Borrelly, Halley, and now Hartley 2 represent a 100% confirmation that comets are not icy dirt balls or dirty ice balls as universal gravitation says they should be.

It cannot predict the motion of galaxies.

It cannot predict the matter and mass of any object universally without resorting to more unverifiable mathematical solutions.
Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity Waves, Higg's Bosons and a plethora of imaginary and unprovable concepts have been given the illusion of proven facts by using mathematical logic.

Theses shimmering mirages are now accepted as incontrovertible facts by orthodox physics. 99% of the universe cannot be predicted by Newton without them.

Every new discovery adds another nail to the coffin of universal gravitation. The theory is merely a dead man walking and any hypothesis built on the corpse is doomed to rot away and turn to dust.

The more space probes we send into the cosmos; the more surprises that weren't even contemplated; the more anomalies that need to be explained away with more mathematical 'logic', the faster this body of lies will be laid to rest, with neither fanfare nor glowing eulogy.

Holmes said 'When you eliminate the impossible (Black Holes, Dark Matter, MOND etc) whatever is left no matter how improbable (Newton's Law's are a failure) must be the truth'

Thornhill put it more succinctly 'A history of unexpected discoveries and observational contradictions is the hallmark of a failed theory'.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

Jump to:  
Page 10 of 11

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group