Thread: Fundamental Errors in Newtonian Mechanics.

I believe that Newton made some very basic errors early on when founding his physics and that these errors have never properly been recognised by modern physicists and therefore corrected.

The first fundamental error in my opinion concerns the equation pertaining to Work Done:

Work Done = Force x Distance.

The equation appears so straight forward that at first sight it would hardly seem possible it were wrong.

But consider the following. A man pushes a given weight with a set, unchanging force of ‘F’ through a distance of ‘D’ therefore carrying out work in the process. Next the same man pushes a weight which is twice as heavy as the first with the exact same unchanging force of ‘F’ through the exact same distance of ‘D’.

Since he has pushed both weights with the same force of ‘F’ through the same distance of ‘D’ then Newton would tell us that in both instances he has performed the same amount of work because Work Done = Force x Distance. But how could he? In the second instance he pushed a weight which was twice as heavy as the first through the same distance and pushing with the same force of ‘F’ it would have taken him longer so surely he would have carried out more work in the process?

If the equation concerning Work Done is in error as we have just indicated then an equation that is ultimately derived from it, that for Kinetic Energy, would also therefore be wrong.

The equation in question is of course is K. E. = ½ mv².

Again this equation would seem fairly straight forward. If the mass is constant then the Kinetic Energy is proportional to the velocity squared.

But consider that if the Law of Conservation of Energy is to apply the energy supplied to an accelerating body causing it to accelerate must always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained. If it didn’t then conservation would be defied.

I would like you to picture a rocket accelerating in the frictionless environment of space. As the rocket engine burns fuel at a constant rate a constant acceleration is produced. The same amount of fuel therefore would be burnt accelerating from 0 to velocity ‘v’ as it would having accelerated from ‘v’ to ‘2v’. In both cases the increase in velocity is ‘v’.

However if you look at the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket having reached a velocity of ‘v’, it is obvious that its Kinetic Energy would be proportional to ‘v²’. However having obtained a velocity of ‘2v’ the rocket’s Kinetic Energy would now be proportional to ‘4v²’.

In other words after its velocity has doubled, the Kinetic Energy of the rocket would have quadrupled. This is simply because the Kinetic Energy is proportional to ‘v²’.
But surely the rocket would have burnt the same amount of fuel accelerating from 0 to ‘v’ as it did accelerating from ‘v’ to ‘2v’? So where has the extra energy come from if its Kinetic Energy is now four times as great even though the velocity has only doubled?

Something must surely be wrong? The energy supplied by the rocket engine should always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket but in this example it clearly doesn’t.

This equation for Kinetic Energy, K. E. = ½ mv², is still used today in Quantum Physics and Relativity.

Originally Posted by galexander

I would like you to picture a rocket accelerating in the frictionless environment of space. As the rocket engine burns fuel at a constant rate a constant acceleration is produced.

Don't be silly. As the rocket burns fuel it becomes less massive, therfore the same force, acting on a smaller mass produces a larger acceleration.

I think you need to do a little more study before you try to point out the 'errors' in Newton's thinking.


Welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by galexander

I believe that Newton made some very basic errors early on when founding his physics and that these errors have never properly been recognised by modern physicists and therefore corrected.

The first fundamental error in my opinion concerns the equation pertaining to Work Done:

Work Done = Force x Distance.

The equation appears so straight forward that at first sight it would hardly seem possible it were wrong.

But consider the following. A man pushes a given weight with a set, unchanging force of ‘F’ through a distance of ‘D’ therefore carrying out work in the process. Next the same man pushes a weight which is twice as heavy as the first with the exact same unchanging force of ‘F’ through the exact same distance of ‘D’.

Since he has pushed both weights with the same force of ‘F’ through the same distance of ‘D’ then Newton would tell us that in both instances he has performed the same amount of work because Work Done = Force x Distance. But how could he? In the second instance he pushed a weight which was twice as heavy as the first through the same distance and pushing with the same force of ‘F’ it would have taken him longer so surely he would have carried out more work in the process?

If the equation concerning Work Done is in error as we have just indicated then an equation that is ultimately derived from it, that for Kinetic Energy, would also therefore be wrong.

The equation in question is of course is K. E. = ½ mv².

Again this equation would seem fairly straight forward. If the mass is constant then the Kinetic Energy is proportional to the velocity squared.

But consider that if the Law of Conservation of Energy is to apply the energy supplied to an accelerating body causing it to accelerate must always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained. If it didn’t then conservation would be defied.

I would like you to picture a rocket accelerating in the frictionless environment of space. As the rocket engine burns fuel at a constant rate a constant acceleration is produced. The same amount of fuel therefore would be burnt accelerating from 0 to velocity ‘v’ as it would having accelerated from ‘v’ to ‘2v’. In both cases the increase in velocity is ‘v’.

However if you look at the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket having reached a velocity of ‘v’, it is obvious that its Kinetic Energy would be proportional to ‘v²’. However having obtained a velocity of ‘2v’ the rocket’s Kinetic Energy would now be proportional to ‘4v²’.

In other words after its velocity has doubled, the Kinetic Energy of the rocket would have quadrupled. This is simply because the Kinetic Energy is proportional to ‘v²’.
But surely the rocket would have burnt the same amount of fuel accelerating from 0 to ‘v’ as it did accelerating from ‘v’ to ‘2v’? So where has the extra energy come from if its Kinetic Energy is now four times as great even though the velocity has only doubled?

Something must surely be wrong? The energy supplied by the rocket engine should always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket but in this example it clearly doesn’t.

This equation for Kinetic Energy, K. E. = ½ mv², is still used today in Quantum Physics and Relativity.

No. Your assertions are wrong. Look at your original premises.

There is nothing wrong. The fact that the results seem wrong or counterintuitive to you does not mean they are wrong.

In the first example, the time of application of a force has nothing to do with work done. You can lean against a wall, applying force to the wall, all day long. You still are not doing work.

In the second example, if you account for the kinetic energy of the exhaust gas, it all works out.

Originally Posted by galexander

I believe that Newton made some very basic errors early on when founding his physics and that these errors have never properly been recognised by modern physicists and therefore corrected.

The first fundamental error in my opinion concerns the equation pertaining to Work Done:

Work Done = Force x Distance.

The equation appears so straight forward that at first sight it would hardly seem possible it were wrong.

But consider the following. A man pushes a given weight with a set, unchanging force of ‘F’ through a distance of ‘D’ therefore carrying out work in the process. Next the same man pushes a weight which is twice as heavy as the first with the exact same unchanging force of ‘F’ through the exact same distance of ‘D’.

Since he has pushed both weights with the same force of ‘F’ through the same distance of ‘D’ then Newton would tell us that in both instances he has performed the same amount of work because Work Done = Force x Distance. But how could he? In the second instance he pushed a weight which was twice as heavy as the first through the same distance and pushing with the same force of ‘F’ it would have taken him longer so surely he would have carried out more work in the process?

If the equation concerning Work Done is in error as we have just indicated then an equation that is ultimately derived from it, that for Kinetic Energy, would also therefore be wrong.

The equation in question is of course is K. E. = ½ mv².

Again this equation would seem fairly straight forward. If the mass is constant then the Kinetic Energy is proportional to the velocity squared.

But consider that if the Law of Conservation of Energy is to apply the energy supplied to an accelerating body causing it to accelerate must always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained. If it didn’t then conservation would be defied.

I would like you to picture a rocket accelerating in the frictionless environment of space. As the rocket engine burns fuel at a constant rate a constant acceleration is produced. The same amount of fuel therefore would be burnt accelerating from 0 to velocity ‘v’ as it would having accelerated from ‘v’ to ‘2v’. In both cases the increase in velocity is ‘v’.

However if you look at the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket having reached a velocity of ‘v’, it is obvious that its Kinetic Energy would be proportional to ‘v²’. However having obtained a velocity of ‘2v’ the rocket’s Kinetic Energy would now be proportional to ‘4v²’.

In other words after its velocity has doubled, the Kinetic Energy of the rocket would have quadrupled. This is simply because the Kinetic Energy is proportional to ‘v²’.
But surely the rocket would have burnt the same amount of fuel accelerating from 0 to ‘v’ as it did accelerating from ‘v’ to ‘2v’? So where has the extra energy come from if its Kinetic Energy is now four times as great even though the velocity has only doubled?

Something must surely be wrong? The energy supplied by the rocket engine should always equal the Kinetic Energy obtained by the rocket but in this example it clearly doesn’t.

This equation for Kinetic Energy, K. E. = ½ mv², is still used today in Quantum Physics and Relativity.

rubbish

Google "rocket equation" just for starts.

This crap belongs in Pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by galexander

A man pushes a given weight with a set, unchanging force of ‘F’ through a distance of ‘D’ therefore carrying out work in the process. Next the same man pushes a weight which is twice as heavy as the first with the exact same unchanging force of ‘F’ through the exact same distance of ‘D’.

And how do the two weights behave when he's pushing them? What are they moving on, to begin with - sliding on the floor, on wheels, on water, on balloons, in orbit?

And yes, as Ophiolite pointed out, you do need to study more. You need to study more before you even understand Newtonian mechanics properly, let alone find "faults" in it.

Yes I know school can be boring, and not all teachers are fascinating people, so it is only natural to revolt against them. But the stuff they teach you in physics comes from some of the most amazing minds in human history. And it has allowed our civilization to understand the Universe far better than any other civilization ever did, and to create just about all the technology we now have, from efficient water mains to cars to electric light to microwaves to CT scans to sewing machines to photocopiers to mobiles to coffee percolators to Martian probes, so please consider the distant possibility that some of it might be right.

Welcome to the forum.

If this is true, how are we able to send space probes exactly where we want to?

galexander, put some numbers into your example and you will see where you went wrong.

Like this:
Apply a force of 10 newtons on a mass of 10 kilograms for distance of 8 meters:

Acceleration = F/m = 1 meter/second *second
Length of Time the force needs to be applied = sqrt(2d/a) = 4 seconds
Velocity after 4 seconds = at = 4 meters/second
Work done = Fd = 80
Kinetic Energy = .5mv^2 = 80

Now apply the same force of 10 newtons on a mass of 20 kilograms for a distance of 8 meters:

Acceleration = F/m = 1/2 meter/second * second
Length of Time the force needs to be applied = sqrt(2d/a) = 5.657 seconds
Velocity after 5.657 seconds = at = 2.828 meters/second
Work done = Fd = 80
Kinetic Energy = .5mv^2 = 80

The same force applied over the same distance to two different masses results in the same amount of work being done and the same kinetic energy for both. What’s the problem?

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by galexander

A man pushes a given weight with a set, unchanging force of ‘F’ through a distance of ‘D’ therefore carrying out work in the process. Next the same man pushes a weight which is twice as heavy as the first with the exact same unchanging force of ‘F’ through the exact same distance of ‘D’.

And how do the two weights behave when he's pushing them? What are they moving on, to begin with - sliding on the floor, on wheels, on water, on balloons, in orbit?

And yes, as Ophiolite pointed out, you do need to study more. You need to study more before you even understand Newtonian mechanics properly, let alone find "faults" in it.

Yes I know school can be boring, and not all teachers are fascinating people, so it is only natural to revolt against them. But the stuff they teach you in physics comes from some of the most amazing minds in human history. And it has allowed our civilization to understand the Universe far better than any other civilization ever did, and to create just about all the technology we now have, from efficient water mains to cars to electric light to microwaves to CT scans to sewing machines to photocopiers to mobiles to coffee percolators to Martian probes, so please consider the distant possibility that some of it might be right.

Welcome to the forum.

But has it never occurred to you Leszek that when Newton came up with this stuff it was very early days and there was always JUST the chance that these early scientists could have got some of it wrong.

This is what I claim did happen.

I know it must come as a shock to the system but a good teacher will always admit to his and his own science's mistakes.

The problem is there are so few good teachers around.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

I would like you to picture a rocket accelerating in the frictionless environment of space. As the rocket engine burns fuel at a constant rate a constant acceleration is produced.

Don't be silly. As the rocket burns fuel it becomes less massive, therfore the same force, acting on a smaller mass produces a larger acceleration.

I think you need to do a little more study before you try to point out the 'errors' in Newton's thinking.


Welcome to the forum.

I had already seen this Ophiolite even before I wrote the article.

Don't assume ignorance simply because of omission.

Even taking into account the comparatively small loss of mass from the fuel burnt it still would not balance the equation.

You are simply splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by galexander

I had already seen this Ophiolite even before I wrote the article.

Don't assume ignorance simply because of omission.

Even taking into account the comparatively small loss of mass from the fuel burnt it still would not balance the equation.

You are simply splitting hairs.

I was not assuming ignorance; you were demonstrating it.

The bulk of the mass of a rocket is the fuel. I am not splitting hairs, I am pointing out the presence of a wig factory.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I am not splitting hairs, I am pointing out the presence of a wig factory.

Originally Posted by galexander

But has it never occurred to you Leszek that when Newton came up with this stuff it was very early days and there was always JUST the chance that these early scientists could have got some of it wrong.

To put it bluntly, I'll bet my last shirt on a dead horse in a derby sooner than a penny on Newton (and centuries of physics built upon his foundations) being wrong and you being right.

Harold and Mikelizzi have given specific answers to your doubts; why don't you bother to argue with them and defend your point?

EOT here. Dixi et animam meam salvavi.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

There is nothing wrong. The fact that the results seem wrong or counterintuitive to you does not mean they are wrong.

In the first example, the time of application of a force has nothing to do with work done. You can lean against a wall, applying force to the wall, all day long. You still are not doing work.

In the second example, if you account for the kinetic energy of the exhaust gas, it all works out.

Harold 14370 I said nothing about the time application of a force in my thread. I am curious, please explain your reference.

The exhaust coming out the back of the rocket does not account for the situation either. At most it would multiply the power of the rocket by two; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But this would still not account for the quadrupling effect of the Kinetic Energy.

You could even safely cancel out any consideration for the rocket exhaust anyway by simply including it within the efficiency ratio of the rocket engine.

Why not admit it Harold14370 you were simply clutching at straws when you said "it all works out".

Originally Posted by galexander

Harold 14370 I said nothing about the time application of a force in my thread. I am curious, please explain your reference.

You said "it would have taken him longer so surely he would have carried out more work." So, yes you did.

The exhaust coming out the back of the rocket does not account for the situation either. At most it would multiply the power of the rocket by two; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But this would still not account for the quadrupling effect of the Kinetic Energy.

You could even safely cancel out any consideration for the rocket exhaust anyway by simply including it within the efficiency ratio of the rocket engine.

Why not admit it Harold14370 you were simply clutching at straws when you said "it all works out".

I am not clutching at straws. I have actually worked out example problems involving conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, kinetic energy, and work, something you have apparently not taken the trouble to do. I will do an example for you later, when I have some time.

Okay, here is the example using discrete masses instead of a continuous flow of exhaust. Case 1: A ship weighs 100 kg and ejects a mass of 1 kg to achieve a final velocity of 1 meter per second. Case 2: A 100 kg ship ejects a mass of 1 kg to accelerate from 1 to 2 meters per second. You contend that case 2 should require more fuel, since it adds more kinetic energy.

In case 1 the 1 kg mass is expelled at 100 meters per second, by conservation of momentum. The ship gains a KE of 1/2mv^2 = 1/2*100*1=50 joules. The projectils gains 1/2*1*100^2=5000 joules. Total delta KE=5050.

In case 2 the initial KE of the system is 1/2*101*1=50.5J. The final KE of the ship is 1/2*100*2^2=200. The final KE of the projectile is 1/2*1*99^2=4900.5. Total delta KE of the system is 4900.5+200-50.5=5050.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by galexander

Harold 14370 I said nothing about the time application of a force in my thread. I am curious, please explain your reference.

You said "it would have taken him longer so surely he would have carried out more work." So, yes you did.

The exhaust coming out the back of the rocket does not account for the situation either. At most it would multiply the power of the rocket by two; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But this would still not account for the quadrupling effect of the Kinetic Energy.

You could even safely cancel out any consideration for the rocket exhaust anyway by simply including it within the efficiency ratio of the rocket engine.

Why not admit it Harold14370 you were simply clutching at straws when you said "it all works out".

I am not clutching at straws. I have actually worked out example problems involving conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, kinetic energy, and work, something you have apparently not taken the trouble to do. I will do an example for you later, when I have some time.

Just to underline my point Harold 14370, I could even argue that including the rocket exhaust actually makes the situation far worse for yourself.

Now not only have you to take into account the Kinetic Energy of the Rocket but also the Kinetic Energy of the rocket exhaust as well!

Ouch!

Your hand-waving style of argument won't get you anywhere. Do the math.

It is easy to dismiss something you don't quite understand by moving it into the pseudoscience section of the forum. @galexander is touching (unfortunately incorrectly) on something which paradoxically has found extensive place in philosophical texts, most notably in Hegel and his followers, but, sadly, has not migrated in physics. If one looks really carefully into the essence of motion one will inevitably see that Newton's second law In question is incomplete. It is not wrong but incomplete. I will not discuss this here, of course, because I don't agree with placing of such an important discussion under the heading 'pseudoscience' where, say, a creation such as Einstein's "theory" of relativity has its right place but I don't see it moved here by the owner of the forum.*

So you use rhetoric to escape the demands of a rigorous scientific explanation. Very convincing. Omnibus, if your intent is genuinely to inform then I regret to tell you that your approach stinks to high heaven. It seems more you wish to be provocative, disruptive and supercilious - quite a combination. I believe the shorthand internet term is troll.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So you use rhetoric to escape the demands of a rigorous scientific explanation. Very convincing. Omnibus, if your intent is genuinely to inform then I regret to tell you that your approach stinks to high heaven. It seems more you wish to be provocative, disruptive and supercilious - quite a combination. I believe the shorthand internet term is troll.

Like I said, get this discussion out of the pseudoscience section and I may reconsider my reluctance to discuss it.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So you use rhetoric to escape the demands of a rigorous scientific explanation. Very convincing. Omnibus, if your intent is genuinely to inform then I regret to tell you that your approach stinks to high heaven. It seems more you wish to be provocative, disruptive and supercilious - quite a combination. I believe the shorthand internet term is troll.

Like I said, get this discussion out of the pseudoscience section and I may reconsider my reluctance to discuss it.

That isn't within Ophiolite's power.

Drop the rhetoric and start talking about the evidence and I will consider it. Or don't bother. It makes no difference to me.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

That isn't within Ophiolite's power.

You mean I'm not omnipotent? That potion the man sold me was a con? Will I never learn?

Just in case anyone is interested in real science:

1. The rocket equation for the case of zero gravity and zero drag (like a rocket firing in outer space) relative to an inertial reference frame



where is the velocity of the exhaust gas relative to the rocket and is the change of the velocity of the rocket after the burn..

2. Newton's laws apply in an inertial reference frame. An accelerating rocket is not an inertial reference frame. So you either have to do you analysis in some convenient inertial frame, or you have to deal with some pseudo forces.

3. Even in an inertial frame the equation F=ma only applies in the case of constant mass. A rocket is not a constant mass system.

Newtonian dynamics works just fine for rockets, But you have to know what you are doing and apply it correctly.

This thread definitely belongs in Pseudoscience. It was moved here for good reason.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Just in case anyone is interested in real science:

1. The rocket equation for the case of zero gravity and zero drag (like a rocket firing in outer space) relative to an inertial reference frame



where is the velocity of the exhaust gas relative to the rocket and is the change of the velocity of the rocket after the burn..

2. Newton's laws apply in an inertial reference frame. An accelerating rocket is not an inertial reference frame. So you either have to do you analysis in some convenient inertial frame, or you have to deal with some pseudo forces.

3. Even in an inertial frame the equation F=ma only applies in the case of constant mass. A rocket is not a constant mass system.

Newtonian dynamics works just fine for rockets, But you have to know what you are doing and apply it correctly.

This thread definitely belongs in Pseudoscience. It was moved here for good reason.

What do you think you've done here? Presenting trivialities. That's easy. Going beyond trivialities is the difficult thing.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So you use rhetoric to escape the demands of a rigorous scientific explanation. Very convincing. Omnibus, if your intent is genuinely to inform then I regret to tell you that your approach stinks to high heaven. It seems more you wish to be provocative, disruptive and supercilious - quite a combination. I believe the shorthand internet term is troll.

Like I said, get this discussion out of the pseudoscience section and I may reconsider my reluctance to discuss it.

That isn't within Ophiolite's power.

Drop the rhetoric and start talking about the evidence and I will consider it. Or don't bother. It makes no difference to me.

I will only present the evidence if it's a free discussion without labeling it. You allow yourself to frivolously label discussions and move them into sections they don't belong to. Case in point, you moved the Maxwell equation discussion to pseudoscience discussion not because it was shown they are incorrect description of reality (and, therefore, are pseudoscience) but because you somehow didn't like The idea of tarnishing status quo.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

What do you think you've done here? Presenting trivialities. That's easy. Going beyond trivialities is the difficult thing.

galexander didn't even get the trivialities right. That's why this was moved to Pseudoscience.

you moved the Maxwell equation discussion to pseudoscience discussion not because it was shown they are incorrect description of reality (and, therefore, are pseudoscience) but because you somehow didn't like The idea of tarnishing status quo.

So the unconventional ideas you subscribe to include telepathy. How else could you presume to know the motivation for moving the thread? I trust you are a young person - fighting authority for the sake of it is something most of us grow out of, yet this is what you seem to be doing here.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Omnibus

What do you think you've done here? Presenting trivialities. That's easy. Going beyond trivialities is the difficult thing.

galexander didn't even get the trivialities right. That's why this was moved to Pseudoscience.

you moved the Maxwell equation discussion to pseudoscience discussion not because it was shown they are incorrect description of reality (and, therefore, are pseudoscience) but because you somehow didn't like The idea of tarnishing status quo.

So the unconventional ideas you subscribe to include telepathy. How else could you presume to know the motivation for moving the thread? I trust you are a young person - fighting authority for the sake of it is something most of us grow out of, yet this is what you seem to be doing here.

[/quote]

You're obviously wrong, considering the correct argument I gave regarding Maxwell's equations. As to your presumption regarding someone's age here, that's beyond commentary. That approach (to judge about things frivolously) is very telling also when it concerns scientific matters. You're wasting everybody's time with such comments.

My judgement is made upon your observations and comments in this thread. The judgement was not arrived at frivolously. The comment on age was a sincere hope that your misguided position is one that you will emerge from in time. The probability of that happening increases if you are currently young. (I have read and re-read my post. If you are not a native English speaker then your misunderstanding of it is wholly reasonable. If you are a native English speaker, implicitly claiming to be educated, then your misreading is either deliberate or symptomatic of poor reading skills.)

As long as you choose to avoid a sysematic and detailed accounting of your position and resort to rhetoric and equivocation then you must expect similar qualitative techniques to be employed in questioning your position. As soon as this thread reverts to a proper discussion of science, which you currently refuse to entertain, then I shall disappear into the shadows.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

My judgement is made upon your observations and comments in this thread. The judgement was not arrived at frivolously. The comment on age was a sincere hope that your misguided position is one that you will emerge from in time. The probability of that happening increases if you are currently young. (I have read and re-read my post. If you are not a native English speaker then your misunderstanding of it is wholly reasonable. If you are a native English speaker, implicitly claiming to be educated, then your misreading is either deliberate or symptomatic of poor reading skills.)

As long as you choose to avoid a sysematic and detailed accounting of your position and resort to rhetoric and equivocation then you must expect similar qualitative techniques to be employed in questioning your position. As soon as this thread reverts to a proper discussion of science, which you currently refuse to entertain, then I shall disappear into the shadows.

Proper discussion is to address the issue at hand and not offer incoherent blabber, unrelated to the issue, as you do. For instance, I clearly showed that Maxwell's equations cannot derive the emf observed experimentally in the unipolar generator which requires their abandoning as a proper mathematical description of the electromagnetic phenomena. You, on the other hand, resort to personal qualifications and talk outside of a proper scientific discussion. While it is understandable that, having found no reasonable recourse to a valid scientific argument, you need to choose a course of action, your choice isn't at all advisable. Restraint is what you should resort to. If you're lacking arguments, not saying anything is much more prudent behavior than filling the thread with unrelated talk.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Proper discussion is to address the issue at hand and not offer incoherent blabber, unrelated to the issue, as you do. For instance, I clearly showed that Maxwell's equations cannot derive the emf observed experimentally in the unipolar generator which requires their abandoning as a proper mathematical description of the electromagnetic phenomena.

This thread Omnibus, this thread. This thread is about galaxenders claims regarding Newtonian Mechanics. In this thread I have pointed out that he has made a gross error by ignoring the decrease in mass of a functioning rocket. You have made no contribution relative to this thread other than, in your own words, offer incoherent babble.

You are, apparently, defending galalexander's position because you think it is good to think outside the box. We are attacking his position because, to put it kindly, he is talking bollocks.

Refusal to participate because you do not like the context is a weak argument. Then, to actually participate with rhetoric strongly suggests you know you have no leg to stand on. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Defend galexanders claims. Show us how to go beyond the triviality of Dr. Rockets equations. Put up, or shut up.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Proper discussion is to address the issue at hand and not offer incoherent blabber, unrelated to the issue, as you do. For instance, I clearly showed that Maxwell's equations cannot derive the emf observed experimentally in the unipolar generator which requires their abandoning as a proper mathematical description of the electromagnetic phenomena.

This thread Omnibus, this thread. This thread is about galaxenders claims regarding Newtonian Mechanics. In this thread I have pointed out that he has made a gross error by ignoring the decrease in mass of a functioning rocket. You have made no contribution relative to this thread other than, in your own words, offer incoherent babble.

You are, apparently, defending galalexander's position because you think it is good to think outside the box. We are attacking his position because, to put it kindly, he is talking bollocks.

Refusal to participate because you do not like the context is a weak argument. Then, to actually participate with rhetoric strongly suggests you know you have no leg to stand on. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Defend galexanders claims. Show us how to go beyond the triviality of Dr. Rockets equations. Put up, or shut up.

Of course, I agree with your criticism of @galexander's position. Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law. Therefore, the law in question gives only limited description of motion. That, however, should be discussed in a proper section of the forum, not in the pseudoscience section. Correct understanding and description of motion is opposite to pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law.

Nonsense. As if Newton didin't know that bodies move somewhere, such as from a branch to the ground.

Newton's second law uses acceleration , which is the second derivative of the position in space over time . That's space aspect and time aspect for you.

Calm down. Be quiet for a moment (and by this I mean not even mentally repeating the drivel you've been treating us to). During this brief moment, try to understand both Newton and your adversaries in this thread. Then try to keep quiet for another moment and think what exactly you imagine is wrong with Newton's laws and what better laws you wish to propose. Then come back and say it, in clear mathematical formulas, not verbiage worthy of a muddleheaded politician.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law.

Nonsense. As if Newton didin't know that bodies move somewhere, such as from a branch to the ground.

Newton's second law uses acceleration , which is the second derivative of the position in space over time . That's space aspect and time aspect for you.

Calm down. Be quiet for a moment (and by this I mean not even mentally repeating the drivel you've been treating us to). During this brief moment, try to understand both Newton and your adversaries in this thread. Then try to keep quiet for another moment and think what exactly you imagine is wrong with Newton's laws and what better laws you wish to propose. Then come back and say it, in clear mathematical formulas, not verbiage worthy of a muddleheaded politician.

I got news for you. Newton knew bodies move somewhere but he didn't reflect it in his second law. That is clearly explained by Hegel (for your reference, a prominent German philosopher) and his followers. Unfortunately, as I said, Hegel's correct understanding of motion hasn't diffused into physics which has caused major conceptual problems in it leading to the crisis which physics experiences to this day.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law.

Nonsense. As if Newton didin't know that bodies move somewhere, such as from a branch to the ground.

Newton's second law uses acceleration , which is the second derivative of the position in space over time . That's space aspect and time aspect for you.

Calm down. Be quiet for a moment (and by this I mean not even mentally repeating the drivel you've been treating us to). During this brief moment, try to understand both Newton and your adversaries in this thread. Then try to keep quiet for another moment and think what exactly you imagine is wrong with Newton's laws and what better laws you wish to propose. Then come back and say it, in clear mathematical formulas, not verbiage worthy of a muddleheaded politician.

Calm down you too, you sound very immature and insecure, what makes you think that talking in mathematical formulas makes your arguments more valid? You are brainwashed by our schools, our media, and our scientific community, try to wake up if you can. The more confident you are the less math you'll need to use in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Myuncle

Calm down you too, you sound very immature and insecure, what makes you think that talking in mathematical formulas makes your arguments more valid? You are brainwashed by our schools, our media, and our scientific community, try to wake up if you can. The more confident you are the less math you'll need to use in your arguments.

By clearly stating his case using the language of physics, mathematics, he has demonstrated both understanding of the topic and scientific literacy. The more deeply one understands the subject, the more likely one is to state one's position precisely, and that often requires mathematics.

One can of course be extremely confident and eschew the use of mathematics altogether, That is the source of the characterization, " Often wrong, but never uncertain."

Confidence is not competence.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Myuncle

Calm down you too, you sound very immature and insecure, what makes you think that talking in mathematical formulas makes your arguments more valid? You are brainwashed by our schools, our media, and our scientific community, try to wake up if you can. The more confident you are the less math you'll need to use in your arguments.

By clearly stating his case using the language of physics, mathematics, he has demonstrated both understanding of the topic and scientific literacy. The moe deeply one understands the subject, the more likely one is to state one's position precisely, and that often requires mathematics.

One can of course be extremely confident and eschew the use of mathematics altogether, That is the source of the characterization, " Often wrong, but never uncertain."

Confidence is not competence.

How true. Read your last sentence once again.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

How true. Read your last sentence once again.

But competence breeds cinfidence, which is where I have the advantage over people like you.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Omnibus

How true. Read your last sentence once again.

But competence breeds cinfidence, which is where I have the advantage over people like you.

I said read you last sentence. I didn't say start praising yourself undeservedly.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

I said read you last sentence. I didn't say start praising yourself undeservedly.

Thank you for providing more evidence in support of my case,

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Omnibus

I said read you last sentence. I didn't say start praising yourself undeservedly.

Thank you for providing more evidence in support of my case,

Wrong impression. Evidence speaks otherwise, not the way you understand it. Same as in the case when discussing Maxwell's equations. It is obvious they collapse but you still believe otherwise. Holding on to party line cannot substitute for the truth in science.

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Wrong impression. Evidence speaks otherwise, not the way you understand it. Same as in the case when discussing Maxwell's equations. It is obvious they collapse but you still believe otherwise. Holding on to party line cannot substitute for the truth in science.

Neither can rhetoric substitute for evidence. In physics this needs to be in the form of equations or experimental data. You've made a rather specific claim in support of galexander and it would be appropriate for you to support that claim.

The "I know you are, what am I" back and forth that's starting to take over in this thread will get split out and deleted. It's not what we are here for.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Wrong impression. Evidence speaks otherwise, not the way you understand it. Same as in the case when discussing Maxwell's equations. It is obvious they collapse but you still believe otherwise. Holding on to party line cannot substitute for the truth in science.

Neither can rhetoric substitute for evidence. In physics this needs to be in the form of equations or experimental data. You've made a rather specific claim in support of galexander and it would be appropriate for you to support that claim.

The "I know you are, what am I" back and forth that's starting to take over in this thread will get split out and deleted. It's not what we are here for.

Evidence? I've given ample evidence requiring abandonment of Maxwell's equations.

As for @galexander, you're wrong. My claim is not in support of his specific claim, as I've stated more than once. You may find out what my point regarding Newton's law is provided you start a new thread in a proper section of this forum.

Isn't this when a mediator should come in?


In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny.
Sound familiar? John Stuart Mill.


I'm not picking any sides, just stop quibbling and answer the OP's question,
or perhaps provide your own perspective like DrRocket instead of nitpicking on minor issues like how to tie shoelaces.
And that certainly includes an insistence of a certain one way to do things.


"You're wrong."
"You're wrong."
"You're wrong."
"You're childish."
"You're childish."
"You're completely wrong."
"Look at how wrong you are."

The hell we'll get anywhere.
So reminiscent of Looney Tunes.

Now if everyone just holds their horses and just offers their alternative perspectives without denying what others say, wouldn't the world be a better place?



Someone who doesn't get it, doesn't get it until he gets it.


The hell quibbling will work.





Mediator aside, I do think mathematics as fairly accurate, but a mere approximating tool. At some point, it just breaks down.


Now can we have a more intelligible discussion and stop rejecting each other's ideas?

We're humans, and being rejected automatically floods open the amygdala.

that's the sad part about scientific concepts. Mathematics is discreet and correct, every time. Philosophical bull crap is what drags this whole thing under, the "at some point it just breaks down" additude is why this has devolved into what it is. The math stopped being looked at, and on the opposing mainstream side, no math is ever actually offered, aside from some that just pops out of thin air and has no substance or substantiating logic to back it up. No evidence has been given that meets a burden of proof against the theory, none, zip, nada. The basic premis behind classical mechanics works, and to a relative degree of accuracy at low relative velocities. Newtonian Mechanics works just fine for all intents and purposes of the original problem, and General Relativity/Quantum Electrodynamics covers everything else to a much higher degree of accuracy. Never is there any given mathematical evidence that invalidates any of these theories. They work fine, and are mainstream for a damn good reason. all "oppositions" to these theories are philosophical at best and horseshit at worst. And on that note, there is a massive reason philosophers are rarely included in modern physics texts, that being that they are rarely accurate on their thinking of how the universe works, in that they have no ability to give a model to predict events based on starting conditions. Newton, Faraday with the help of Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawking, and Witten all gave us mathematical models with which we could predict events to a relatively massive degree of accuracy. Seriously now, why don't we just drop it, and let this monstrosity of a thread die a natural, easy death. Mkay?

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law.

Nonsense. As if Newton didin't know that bodies move somewhere, such as from a branch to the ground.

Newton's second law uses acceleration , which is the second derivative of the position in space over time . That's space aspect and time aspect for you.

Calm down. Be quiet for a moment (and by this I mean not even mentally repeating the drivel you've been treating us to). During this brief moment, try to understand both Newton and your adversaries in this thread. Then try to keep quiet for another moment and think what exactly you imagine is wrong with Newton's laws and what better laws you wish to propose. Then come back and say it, in clear mathematical formulas, not verbiage worthy of a muddleheaded politician.

I got news for you. Newton knew bodies move somewhere but he didn't reflect it in his second law. That is clearly explained by Hegel (for your reference, a prominent German philosopher) and his followers. Unfortunately, as I said, Hegel's correct understanding of motion hasn't diffused into physics which has caused major conceptual problems in it leading to the crisis which physics experiences to this day.

if this is the man you are talking about, I am failing to understand how it helps your cause, seeing as how he did no work at all whatsoever in the field of physics, aside from taking a skewed view on gravity and the motion of planetary bodies that he labors hard from a philosophical perspective, and not a physics perspective in his dissertation paper. A high school physics student could see the blatant misconceptions contained in that drivel. In short, his opinion is bullshit, and unsubstantiated, not that it even deserves any attention to begin with. Hegel was even more ignorant than you are of these theories. Next time, present us with an actual physicist that agrees with your twisted views rooted in ignorance and self delusion, instead of appealing to a false authority who "thinks" about the concepts given and tries to find a way to make them "mean something" beyond what they are. And people wonder why this crap gets moved to pseudo...

I'm washing my hands of this crap as of now. I'm an undergrad who effectively took introductory physics courses and I understand that you don't understand. I'm good with that, and hope all lurkers on this forum can give your "thoughts" the same critical appraisal that the the more educated posters and I have given it.

Agreed. I'm out of here unless galexander wishes to return with some specific maths that supports his position.

I always thought that people kept researching physics because the newtonian theories weren't perfect. No scientific theory is.

It's normal that theories have flaws. Otherwise those millions of scientists would just sit on their ass and surf the internet all day.

Not that your criticism were on the mark though.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

I always thought that people kept researching physics because the newtonian theories weren't perfect. No scientific theory is.

This is right, Newton's mechanics was found to be limited in scope. It works perfectly for macroscopic bodies, and moderate speeds and gravitational fields.

For tremendous speeds, Newton's laws are just an approximation of the theory of relativity; this approximation gets worse as speeds approach .

For very small bodies, quantum mechanics takes over.

Funny and not-quite-Newtonian things also happen at and near black holes.

None of this has anything to do with Newton "not taking space into account".

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

I always thought that people kept researching physics because the newtonian theories weren't perfect. No scientific theory is.

This is right, Newton's mechanics was found to be limited in scope. It works perfectly for macroscopic bodies, and moderate speeds and gravitational fields.

For tremendous speeds, Newton's laws are just an approximation of the theory of relativity; this approximation gets worse as speeds approach .

For very small bodies, quantum mechanics takes over.

Funny and not-quite-Newtonian things also happen at and near black holes.

None of this has anything to do with Newton "not taking space into account".

No. Newton's mechanics doesn't work perfectly for macroscopic bodies, moderate speeds and gravitational fields notwithstanding the fact that Einstein's "theory" of relativity which you probably mean by mentioning 'theory of relativity' isn't a theory at all but is a creation based on internal contradictions.

Specify, in mathematical terms, a single one of these contradictions.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Originally Posted by Omnibus

Newton's second law is correct in the limited sense it is used practically, considering only the time aspect of that law. Motion, however, has also a space component which isn't reflected in that law.

Nonsense. As if Newton didin't know that bodies move somewhere, such as from a branch to the ground.

Newton's second law uses acceleration , which is the second derivative of the position in space over time . That's space aspect and time aspect for you.

Calm down. Be quiet for a moment (and by this I mean not even mentally repeating the drivel you've been treating us to). During this brief moment, try to understand both Newton and your adversaries in this thread. Then try to keep quiet for another moment and think what exactly you imagine is wrong with Newton's laws and what better laws you wish to propose. Then come back and say it, in clear mathematical formulas, not verbiage worthy of a muddleheaded politician.

I got news for you. Newton knew bodies move somewhere but he didn't reflect it in his second law. That is clearly explained by Hegel (for your reference, a prominent German philosopher) and his followers. Unfortunately, as I said, Hegel's correct understanding of motion hasn't diffused into physics which has caused major conceptual problems in it leading to the crisis which physics experiences to this day.

if this is the man you are talking about, I am failing to understand how it helps your cause, seeing as how he did no work at all whatsoever in the field of physics, aside from taking a skewed view on gravity and the motion of planetary bodies that he labors hard from a philosophical perspective, and not a physics perspective in his dissertation paper. A high school physics student could see the blatant misconceptions contained in that drivel. In short, his opinion is bullshit, and unsubstantiated, not that it even deserves any attention to begin with. Hegel was even more ignorant than you are of these theories. Next time, present us with an actual physicist that agrees with your twisted views rooted in ignorance and self delusion, instead of appealing to a false authority who "thinks" about the concepts given and tries to find a way to make them "mean something" beyond what they are. And people wonder why this crap gets moved to pseudo...

I'm washing my hands of this crap as of now. I'm an undergrad who effectively took introductory physics courses and I understand that you don't understand. I'm good with that, and hope all lurkers on this forum can give your "thoughts" the same critical appraisal that the the more educated posters and I have given it.

Of course, you're failing to understand. Let alone you don't even know what my views are. You present yourself as an opportunist who should be ignored out of hand even in an inappropriate section of a physics forum such as this one.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

that's the sad part about scientific concepts. Mathematics is discreet and correct, every time. Philosophical bull crap is what drags this whole thing under, the "at some point it just breaks down" additude is why this has devolved into what it is. The math stopped being looked at, and on the opposing mainstream side, no math is ever actually offered, aside from some that just pops out of thin air and has no substance or substantiating logic to back it up. No evidence has been given that meets a burden of proof against the theory, none, zip, nada. The basic premis behind classical mechanics works, and to a relative degree of accuracy at low relative velocities. Newtonian Mechanics works just fine for all intents and purposes of the original problem, and General Relativity/Quantum Electrodynamics covers everything else to a much higher degree of accuracy. Never is there any given mathematical evidence that invalidates any of these theories. They work fine, and are mainstream for a damn good reason. all "oppositions" to these theories are philosophical at best and horseshit at worst. And on that note, there is a massive reason philosophers are rarely included in modern physics texts, that being that they are rarely accurate on their thinking of how the universe works, in that they have no ability to give a model to predict events based on starting conditions. Newton, Faraday with the help of Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawking, and Witten all gave us mathematical models with which we could predict events to a relatively massive degree of accuracy. Seriously now, why don't we just drop it, and let this monstrosity of a thread die a natural, easy death. Mkay?

The above self-righteous text only helps your ego and nothing else. It is so wrong conceptually that it isn't even worth discussing it. You, for instance, seen not to know that not all math has physical meaning. Also, the fact that you consider all those theories listed by you right doesn't at all make them so. You've heard something about them and are doing what's convenient -- going with the mainstream. That's your shallow choice but in our free world who can tell you not to be shallow.

And still you fail to respond with anything of substance while criticising others for the same thing. However, those challenging the current consensus views have to do something more than hurl vague criticisms. They need to specify what is materially wrong with current theory, not make vague pseudo-philosophical objections to current theory.

At first I thought you were full of hot air. Now I suspect a vaccum would be a more accurate description. You can prove me wrong by meeting the implicit challenge of my first sentence. Do you have the intellect, the knowledge and the integrity to do so?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

And still you fail to respond with anything of substance while criticising others for the same thing. However, those challenging the current consensus views have to do something more than hurl vague criticisms. They need to specify what is materially wrong with current theory, not make vague pseudo-philosophical objections to current theory.

At first I thought you were full of hot air. Now I suspect a vaccum would be a more accurate description. You can prove me wrong by meeting the implicit challenge of my first sentence. Do you have the intellect, the knowledge and the integrity to do so?

This section is not the place to do that. I said that already.

Then I'm sure you have the correct one in mind? Create the appropriate threads, for the rest of us fear that a thread created by anyone else would be deemed another "inappropriate" place by yourself, giving way to more of your unsubstantiated claims.

Sox was even so kind as to create a separate thread labeled very specifically for you in the Physics section, Einstein's useless creation and its internal contradictions, which you never posted in! You cannot claim ignorance of its existence. I recall Sox calling attention to it in a post that you replied to, and you even commented on his statements about its existence. This is a prime example of the fact that you, quite frankly, are full of shit.

At this point, I feel no shame in making a personal attack against you. Someone should do all of us a favor and cut you off from your ISP so that we don't have to tolerate your less-than-worthless existence as a degrading skin-sack of meat with an intelligence quotient no greater than one measured for bag of rocks.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Then I'm sure you have the correct one in mind? Create the appropriate threads, for the rest of us fear that a thread created by anyone else would be deemed another "inappropriate" place by yourself, giving way to more of your unsubstantiated claims.

Sox was even so kind as to create a separate thread labeled very specifically for you in the Physics section, Einstein's useless creation and its internal contradictions, which you never posted in! You cannot claim ignorance of its existence. I recall Sox calling attention to it in a post that you replied to, and you even commented on his statements about its existence. This is a prime example of the fact that you, quite frankly, are full of shit.

At this point, I feel no shame in making a personal attack against you. Someone should do all of us a favor and cut you off from your ISP so that we don't have to tolerate your less-than-worthless existence as a degrading skin-sack of meat with an intelligence quotient no greater than one measured for bag of rocks.

He's expressing politely his view, you are not expressing it politely, at this point it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's all about disagreeing without being rude. Do you feel threatened by his different view? Are you worried about your "reputation"? If you are so confident and you are right and don't feel threatened just ignore him and be a gentleman, and he will ignore you of course.

Threatened? No

Worried about my reputation? No, and I'm not sure how that has been my concern at all.

I could ignore him, but it seems as though no one else does. His presence is pervasive and, above all, I am flat out annoyed by his arguments that lack any back-up by no one's fault but his own and his claims that remain flat-out ridiculous.

Did you read the second paragraph? Did you find the thread I spoke of? It's on the first page of the Physics section!

It is clear to me that significant number of us are frustrated with Omnibus for not stepping up to the plate by using a combination of "I don't have to because I have already clearly shown..." and "This is not the place to discuss...". That's been the "vast" majority of his arsenal.

I'm being purposefully rash, giving in to my frustration, because no one else has the balls to do it. Everyone else has been so diplomatic. If I were worried about my reputation, I would not have made such brash remarks. I feel better, that's what is important.

His presence is pervasive and, above all, I am flat out annoyed by his arguments that lack any back-up by no one's fault but his own and his claims that remain flat-out ridiculous.

giving way to more of your unsubstantiated claims.

This is a prime example of the fact that you, quite frankly, are full of shit.

At this point, I feel no shame in making a personal attack against you. Someone should do all of us a favor and cut you off from your ISP so that we don't have to tolerate your less-than-worthless existence as a degrading skin-sack of meat with an intelligence quotient no greater than one measured for bag of rocks.

At first I thought you were full of hot air. Now I suspect a vaccum would be a more accurate description. You can prove me wrong by meeting the implicit challenge of my first sentence. Do you have the intellect, the knowledge and the integrity to do so?

The above self-righteous text only helps your ego and nothing else. It is so wrong conceptually that it isn't even worth discussing it.

Of course, you're failing to understand. Let alone you don't even know what my views are.

All of you are sounding like emotional teens,
instead of engaging in intelligent discussion.

Please stop ruining your image as potential/current scientists.

Some of you are mature, for goodness sake.

I guess this is why wars in the world continue to rage on despite mediators.



And here's my proposal, if you do wish to continue arguing without acting like emotional teens:

-Provide at least a source from where your argument stems from, theory papers, books, philosophical contexts.

-Don't insult the person arguing. Isn't that a logical fallacy in it itself?
A wise person tests his own knowledge as well, don't be too quick to retaliate with all the knowledge you have gained through books. You are a human who can logically process information, not a reading machine.


Does it make sense to you that rain falls on you and you blame the sky?
Firstly, you forgot an umbrella,
and the cause of the rain isn't just the presence of the sky.

Now let's just continue with the OP's question and forgive everyone else, or just leave this thread to die.

Shortbus and his doppelganger uncle are a TROLL! Ignore him.

By the way Doc.

skin-sack of meat

Is that analogous to "Ass smells like hand"? 8)

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Then I'm sure you have the correct one in mind? Create the appropriate threads, for the rest of us fear that a thread created by anyone else would be deemed another "inappropriate" place by yourself, giving way to more of your unsubstantiated claims.

Sox was even so kind as to create a separate thread labeled very specifically for you in the Physics section, Einstein's useless creation and its internal contradictions, which you never posted in! You cannot claim ignorance of its existence. I recall Sox calling attention to it in a post that you replied to, and you even commented on his statements about its existence. This is a prime example of the fact that you, quite frankly, are full of shit.

At this point, I feel no shame in making a personal attack against you. Someone should do all of us a favor and cut you off from your ISP so that we don't have to tolerate your less-than-worthless existence as a degrading skin-sack of meat with an intelligence quotient no greater than one measured for bag of rocks.

You'd better worry first about your basic competence in the matters discussed. Read very carefully what I wrote to you in the thread devoted to Faraday's law and try to learn something. Physics is in the hands of opportunistic incompetents such as you and that's one of the reasons it is in crisis.

I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to carry out a normal discussion in Forums such as this. Opportunists, not quite versed in the matters under discussion move threads frivolously into sections they don't belong to and forcefully impose their schemes of understanding (trivial and at times quite wrong) leaving no room for free thought. One wonders what might the use for such forums be. Probably to maintain the goals of the official propaganda and nothing more than that.