Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By John Galt

Thread: Newton wrong on Gravity -

  1. #1 Newton wrong on Gravity - 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    OK - need some experts to chime in here please....


    Take a quick look at this website and let me know what you all think -
    scientific theory of gravity | gravitational science & force

    can download the 'improvements'....

    quick video version here....

    The Theory of Gravity - YouTube

    Thanks,

    Mike


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    The creator of that website is very ignorant about how gravity works. It seemed a bit odd when he mention, "the existing accepted theory of gravitation which was first published by Isaac Newton in 1687." It's almost like he has never heard of 2oth century physics.

    Given that his "discovery" is that the inverse square law does not describe tidal forces, it seems he doesn't even understand Newtonian gravity. Why would anyone think that an "anomaly" like that could go unnoticed? Why wouldn't he do the basic research to understand the math of tidal forces?

    And his "dimensional analysis" of is so ludicrously stupid that I gave up at that point.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Yes, Newton was wrong on Gravity, as Einstein showed. Newtons theories are a good approximation for most applications, but fail to predict things like the correct precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury.

    Einstein's General Relativity, on the other hand, does predict the correct precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury.

    So, does the model proposed in the OP predict the correct precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

    If not, then we already have a better theory. If it does make the correct prediction, the author will need to show how it is better than General Relativity in other ways, in order for it to have any merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Nevertheless the author has the humility to say this: "Note that at present, the above list represents nothing more than a set of related hypotheses conceived by one mind in relation to a given problem. It can mean nothing until it is examined and tested by technically competent independent authorities under strict principles of scientific method, applied to all of the data that is relevant to the problem in question."

    That is a distinct improvement on the last twenty nine proponents of a new theory of gravity we have had come through. It is, in fact, a proper reflection of the scientific method. Rather than doing a knee jerk reaction based on "Not another one" it might be more productive to point out the faults in a positive way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I thought my reply was quite positive, actually!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Sorry, Speedfreek, I agree - I was directing my comments more at Strange, who I thought was a little cruel given the writers serious recognition of the obstacles he does and should face. I thought yours was good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    That's not to say that Strange isn't correct in his analysis, however.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Nevertheless the author has the humility to say this: "Note that at present, the above list represents nothing more than a set of related hypotheses conceived by one mind in relation to a given problem. It can mean nothing until it is examined and tested by technically competent independent authorities under strict principles of scientific method, applied to all of the data that is relevant to the problem in question."

    That is a distinct improvement on the last twenty nine proponents of a new theory of gravity we have had come through. It is, in fact, a proper reflection of the scientific method. Rather than doing a knee jerk reaction based on "Not another one" it might be more productive to point out the faults in a positive way.
    That is a fair comment. My reaction was purely to the contents of his paper. I don't know if anyone has yet tried to explain how tidal forces work (*) and had their explanation rejected. Or maybe no one has explained this, and other basic errors, to him. Based on experience on this and other forums I jumped to the conclusion it was the former. That may have been unfair.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    Thanks - Mike
    Last edited by apcgenius; October 2nd, 2012 at 06:45 AM. Reason: Spam link removed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by apcgenius View Post
    I'm sure there must be something of value in there!?
    Why do you think this? The odds are enormously against it, so I am puzzled that you would say this. Optimism is a great thing, but ......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by apcgenius View Post
    Do I tell Merrick....???
    Is he a friend of yours? If so, maybe you can break it to him gently that he needs to look at the math of tidal forces and see that it is not just a matter of applying the inverse square law (although it is not much more complicated) and was all worked out by Newton in the Principia. And that G is a constant but not a pure number; it has the dimensions m3kg-1s-1.

    The theory is acres of pages beaten out on a worn out typewriter over many years!
    It is common, and slightly depressing, for people to spend many years developing their own personal theories, often based on a simple misunderstanding.

    Does there truly exist an updated theory that is on the money so to speak??
    Einstein's theory of relativity. Although it is almost certainly not the last word.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    @John Galt - I am not even slightly scientific - creative? Yes. Definitely a fish out of water here, but that is why I thought it would be a great place to test Merrick's life work basically. Mike
    Last edited by apcgenius; October 2nd, 2012 at 08:44 AM. Reason: irrelevant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    @Strange - Thanks. I really value your heart in the matter and may even try to get Merrick on here in a new thread. You must be a great person. Thanks, Mike
    Last edited by apcgenius; October 2nd, 2012 at 08:45 AM. Reason: merrick joined
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Be aware, his idea wll not be well received here, so unless he is prepared for brutal, honest criticism....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by apcgenius View Post
    @John Galt - I am not even slightly scientific - creative? Yes. Definitely a fish out of water here, but that is why I thought it would be a great place to test Merrick's life work basically. Then again, I believe in God and have raised the dead on several occasions and seen many, many people 100% healed of cancer, paralysis and Leukemia just by placing hands on them and praying in faith with absolute unshakeable belief - and I guess somewhere there are scientific answers to those phenomena too. I don't have enough faith for most medical procedures and nor do I believe in them! I believe in Jesus Christ and miracles as the evidence I have witnessed is overwhelmingly in favour. I believe in people and their ideas generally, but also have enough wisdom to get to the heart of a matter (try selling your house and blowing all the money traveling the world for several years studying every major religion on earth to find the Truth and then finally learning the fact, that unless the Truth finds you... there is no hope!). Do scientists understand Creation yet? Are they divided or united? Does n't science get kind of humbled at the Truth? Optimist? ok - guilty as charged. Mike
    Thank you for your reply and your honest recognition that you are fish out of water in this place.

    It is unlikely that I could ever convince you, therefore I shall not try, but science does indeed have an explanation for the phenomena you refer to, but it completely undermines what you think is happening,

    You ask if scientists understand creation yet, as if it was significant that they don't. Was that your intent and if so why do you think it is significant?

    Scientists are united in their preference for the application of the scientific method and sometimes currently divided on what that method is telling us in some specific instances.

    Science has never concerened itself with a capitalised truth. Many scientists are in awe of how things work, but science is an objective process without emotion.


    In the search for an ever closer approximation to the truth scientists consider it reprehensible, many would say immoral, to allow feelings, desires, biases, whatever to colour their interpretation of the facts. I'm afraid that the facts in this case seem to point to Merrick being quite wrong. I am always saddened when I see someone in their latter years promoting an idea which is obviously wrong. It can seem as if the meaning of their life is wrapped up in the idea and if they are proved wrong then their life is meaningless. To devote so much energy in a wasted enterprise is tragic.
    Lynx_Fox and KALSTER like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    To John Galt and others...
    Merrick is here with me and has just read these comments. This is his reply...
    Dear Mr Gault,
    I congratulate you on being the only commentator on my work so far, to recognize the strict application of the scientific method in its production.
    None of the many other commentators apparently knows anything of the scientific method, nor of it's application. None have tried to find fault with the hypothesis or with my justification of it. They have resorted only to personal abuse and to casting doubt on my knowledge of Physics and some, even of my sanity.
    Thank you and I would like to further discuss the matter with you, as I find you to be the only sensible person so far to reply.

    Merrick Sims
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Merrick,
    thank you for your kind words. I wish to mount a defence of other fellow members who have been perhaps a little precipitate in their criticism. The difficulty is that they have all been witness to many truly crazy ideas, presented by individuals obssessed and blinded by their pet theory. Some of these 'theorists' have invested decades in their hypothesis, others - literally - have dreamt them up the night before. A few even sound initially reasonable, then reveal that they got the idea from a visiting alien, or that the hypothesis is actually well known, but is being suppressed by a global conspiracy of communists/ capitalists/greengrocers - make your own choice.

    Faced with such an ongoing flood of nonsense one can readily fall prey to the belief that all 'theories' will fall into the same category. Statistically this is quite a safe bet; scientifically it is unjutified. I mention this because the other members who have commented on your thoughts are much better placed to give them a balanced and meaningful assessment than I. I therefore ask tow things:

    1. I ask the other members to set aside any intial reactions and enter a dialogue with Merrick, with the intention of pointing out specific faults you think exist in the science of his proposal.
    2. I ask Merrick to forget the intial reactions, fuelled as they were by a long history of unsuccessful proposals.

    In short, lets start afresh. I will be happy to participate, but I doubt I will be able to add much on the substantive side.
    KALSTER and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. I ask the other members to set aside any intial reactions and enter a dialogue with Merrick, with the intention of pointing out specific faults you think exist in the science of his proposal.
    I have attempted to do this in Merrick's other thread.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. I ask the other members to set aside any intial reactions and enter a dialogue with Merrick, with the intention of pointing out specific faults you think exist in the science of his proposal.
    See my post #3
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The Gravity of Newton and the gravity of Einstein
    By jsaldea12 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Newton was wrong again.
    By mikeyg40s in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 29th, 2009, 11:56 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 15th, 2009, 07:23 PM
  4. Newton, and newton meters
    By dejawolf in forum Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 18th, 2007, 05:58 PM
  5. What's wrong with this gravity concept?
    By kojax in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 13th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •