MODIFICATION OF NEWTON'S GRAVITY LAW

persepolis11
persepolis11: HI
PLEASE WATCH MY VISUAL ARTICLE IT'S ABOUT OF MODIFYING GRAVITY LAW, IT'S MY RESEARCH RESULT


I'M WAITING FOR YOUR VIEWPOINT IN THIS CASE
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I lasted for only a little more than two minutes of that.

Hint: Pretty space pictures and a terrible, thumping sound track to not equate to actual science.

Here's my challenge to you:

Write a synopsis of what your information is, and copy it here so people can read it instead of subjecting themselves to that horrible video.

11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: But SITS... this had pretty space pictures and a thumping techno soundtrack... logic would dictate that his theories must therefor be sound.

I took one for the team and actually sat through this abomination. Percy is suggesting that the Universe is in fact contracting, not expanding. And according to Percy, Newton and Einstein are wrong, and Red Shift is a myth. His proof of this?... because Newton and Einstein are wrong, that's why.

Percy has found that if he conveniently makes alterations to the currently accepted laws of gravity, then the new altered laws will support his crackpot ideas. His new laws once modified appropriately, will in fact constitute proof of his theories... regardless of how the new laws are contrary to what we observe in the known Universe.

This gives me a great idea.... I think I'll make changes to the laws of Economics, stating that everyone on the planet must deposit one dollar into my bank account..... thereby proving that I am a billionaire.
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

You didn't actually watch that entire video, did you?



11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: LOL. Actually, when I realized the beginning was all questions, I skipped to the half-way point and continued from there. Even that gave me a headache... for a few different reasons.
11 years ago Report
0
persepolis11
persepolis11: do you know any about astronomy or physic?
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Yes I do Persy. I most certainly do.

But one thing I'm curious about... why the heck would you desire to re-write the established laws of gravity?? Newton wrote the original book on the matter, and Einstein smoothed out the wrinkles. It all fits with what we observe in the Universe. Do you truly believe that you can trump Einstein and debunk the theory of General Relativity? Do you have a better explanation for the red-shift of distant galaxies, other than the fact that they are moving away from us?

Your video is merely a bunch of wild speculation and twisted logic. I saw no physics whatsoever in it and no explanations for your strange notions... other than you saying that you'll let us know when you figure it all out. How can you expect anybody to take that seriously?

11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I guess some people like to pretend to know about stuff.

11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I'm not quite sure what Perse is getting at here, and 1 minunte of that video was enough for me, but Corvin has raised an interesting point about Einstein's relationship to Newton.

Corvin, you describe it as Einstein smoothing out the wrinkles that Newton left. I'm guessing most people from a scientific background would be happy with this characterization. Many (most? ) philosophers of science would not be. I posted a little on this the other day....

Topic: Religion

(last post near bottom of page 1)

From this position, Newton's ideas about gravity are simply wrong - albeit perfectly adequate for sending rockets to the Moon. On Newton's account, gravity is some kind of occult (unobservable and undetectable) force, transmitted at infinite speed across any distance, with no energy expended. I don't think anyone believes in this notion of gravity any more.

As for general relativity, yes of course it's the most "empirically adequate" theory we have at the moment for events at the macro level; but as we all know I think, it's hopelessly inadequate at the level of the very small. It cannot possibly be "true" or at least completely true.

How we define what it means to be "partly true" or "approximately true" is a for another day. (A broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Does that mean it's partly true? )


@ "It all fits with what we observe in the Universe"

Well, perhaps, but theories about aliens can account perfectly well for crop circle phenomena. This example is a little flippant, but it illustrates a valid point. No one denies that if the theory is true, it would account for all the data. At the same time, of course, most of us feel that while it is an explanation of sorts, it's far from being the "best explanation".

Relativity has been one of our most successful theories ever. However, it's been clear from almost the very beginning that, at the very least, it cannot be the "whole truth" (whatever that means).

And especially in recent years, it has taken on a very worrying (for some) "ad hoc" characteristic - that is to say, it keeps getting saved by resort to "patches" (dark matter, dark energy, etc) which seem to serve no purpose other than to save the theory, while adding no extra functionality of their own.

With all due respect to Prof Einstein, when an inner tube has been patched up enough times, it's usually a sign that it's time for a change. Right now, however, we don't have a replacement inner tube available and so the theory remains.
(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

The video isn't getting the best reviews here, is it?

11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: ^^ Yeah, it needs some Sinatra in the background. "Fly Me to the Moon" perhaps
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Anything beside that monotonous crud on there.

Why is it that all of those nonsensical videos always feature that horrible style of music?

11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I think it's supposed to hypnotize you, and turn you into a drooling idiot... then you would be in the right frame of mind to believe the drivel he puts on the screen. It was just giving me a headache... I clicked the mute button.

Oh, and good point Colin, about the incomplete nature of Relativity theory... even Einstein felt that it was incomplete... but many of the implications of it have been proven, such as time-dilation, and how a rotating mass pulls space-time along the rotation... also gravitational manifolds were predicted... basically there were little variations observed with the motion of the heavenly bodies that purely Newtonian laws couldn't account for, and Einstein did do a decent job of filling in many of these blanks.

But even Einstein knew that something vital was still missing, and he drove himself mad searching for a Unified Theory that had eluded him. But one man can only do so much to advance theory... and he passed the torch to people like Hawking. But you have to give Einie credit for one thing... Newton satisfactorily explained what gravity was doing... Einstein explained what gravity "was". (most common people still can't wrap their head around it though.)
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
1
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Why do all of the UFO, conspiracy, aliens, etc. videos all have such shitty soundtracks? Is there something about the psyche of the typical person that believes that shit that also makes them attracted to that cheez-whiz music?

11 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: Maybe it's a chicken/egg thing.... I think maybe listening to too much of that may turn your brain to jelly... and then you start believing in all kinds of weird crap... but you would have to have a brain of jelly to be listening to it to begin with.
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ Corvin

Hey dude. I've absolutely (sorry ) no problem giving credit to Einstein. His theories of relativity were truly astounding intellectual achievements

But....

SITS could've told you that word "proven" makes me awfully nervous. "Confirm" is a better choice, but even this tends to give people the wrong impression, i.e. they feel if a theory is "confirmed" then it is now true.

Confirmation of a theory is better thought of as the theory surviving a test - it has not (yet) been falsified. Each instance of confirmation is likely to raise our confidence in the theory, but exactly how or to what extent the theory is "confirmed", if indeed it is at all (Popper), is a vexed notion. Maybe another thread....

A theory can never be proven by observational evidence. To do so is to commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent".

Consider - If P then Q

If P is true, we can infer with certainty that Q is true; if Q is true, we infer at our peril that P is true

cf "If you are a penguin (P), you have a heart (Q)"
"If my theory is true (P), X will be observed (Q)"

If you are sure you are a you can infer with certainty that you have a
On the other hand, if you first verify that you have a you would be a rash man/penguin to infer the antecedent from the consequent

Likewise, if relativity is true, the bending of light, say, MUST occur. But to infer from light bending that relativity is true is fallacious.



What impressed so many philosophers about Einstein's theories is that they not only accounted for all the existing data, but they made "bold and surprising" predictions, as you noted. No one had ever suspected the existence of phenomena such as the bending of light by massive objects. This provided astonishing "confirmation" of general relativity when it was first observed after WW1.

Unfortunately, history shows us that even if a theory makes such bold predictions, which are subsequently confirmed by observation, the theory can still turn out to be wrong. A noteworthy example is provided by the 19th century battle between the corpuscular theory and the wave theory of light.

It was calculated that Fresnel's wave theory had the apparently absurd consequence of predicting a bright spot being produced at the center of the shadow of a disc (or something like that LOL - you'd better Google for details). This bright spot was later observed - an astounding confirmation. But as we know, the wave theory of light is now considered to be wrong.
(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Ok, just did my own Googling ..... (from Wiki)


The original Poisson-spot experiment was carried out in the beginning of the 19th century and played an important role in the history of science. Then it turned out to be the deciding experiment of whether light is a particle or a wave. It is thus a great example of a so-called experimentum crucis. It only turned out much later (in one of Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers) that light can be equally described as a particle (wave-particle duality of light).

At the beginning of the 19th century it became more and more evident that light does not simply propagate along straight lines (Thomas Young published his double-slit experiment in 1807 [5]). However, many still favored Isaac Newton's corpuscular theory of light[6], among them the great theoretician Siméon-Denis Poisson. In 1818 the French Academy launched therefore a competition to explain the properties of light, where Poisson was one of the members of the judging committee. The civil engineer Augustin-Jean Fresnel entered this competition by submitting a new wave theory of light[7]. Poisson studied Fresnel's theory in detail and of course looked for a way to prove it wrong being a supporter of the particle-theory of light. Poisson thought that he had found a flaw when he argued that a consequence of Fresnel’s theory was that there would exist an on-axis bright spot in the shadow of a circular obstacle, where there should be complete darkness according to the particle-theory of light. We mentioned before that the Poisson spot is not easily observed in every-day situations, so it was only natural for him to interpret it as an absurd result and that it should disprove Fresnel's theory.

However, the head of the committee, Dominique-Francois-Jean Arago, and who incidentally later became Prime Minister of France, decided to perform the experiment in more detail. He molded a 2-mm metallic disk to a glass plate with wax[8]. To everyone's surprise he succeeded in observing the predicted spot, which convinced most scientists of the wave-nature of light. In the end Fresnel won the competition, much to Poisson's chagrin. Arago later noted that the phenomenon (which was later to be known as Poisson’s Spot or the Spot of Arago) had already been observed by Delisle [9] and Maraldi[10] a century earlier.
11 years ago Report
0
persepolis11
persepolis11: wish you see the video to the end of it. then we could debate about it better
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Why not just tell us your own thoughts. Why do we need music and video?
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Because it's much easier to just point at the video, rather than actually HAVING thoughts to tell us about.

11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Persy's mind is Jello..... this happened when he was born..... or it could be a chicken/egg thing.
11 years ago Report
0
persepolis11
persepolis11: if you like just click like . i will tell u more details this is so important issue. i want to rise my viewers
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: "rise your viewers"?

Have you found a cure for gravity?


11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that ...

11 years ago Report
0
persepolis11
persepolis11: to avoid of any doubt i have done an experiment which proves what i said .if you have been
followed my video to the end of it i told i'm ready to upload the move of that experiment
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

(laughs)

Okay. Go ahead. Upload your "move." I'm sure everyone would love to see your "move."



11 years ago Report
0
Page: 12