Do we really KNOW *gravity*?

[Clara Tea]

Subject: Do we really know gravity?

OBS: BEFORE replying, try to think outside the squared boxes.

We think that a mass automatically creates gravity. The problem is that gravity is an energy. It requires energy to make it. Newton did not explained that. And it is STILL not explained today.

Gravity must have an energy source to be created. Our laws of physics tell us that but we have ignored this fact.

The data indicates that hydrogen and helium make up nearly all of the nuclear matter in the universe. The most abundant element, hydrogen, accounts for 74% of the mass while helium contributes 25%. Heavier elements comprise less than 1% of the total.

How does this fits with the *gravity* suggestions?

Again, gravity is not free. That is impossible. Other explanations are needed!

What are your thoughts of this?

 

[Clara Tea]

Gravity is not energy. No energy is expended by exerting gravity (if so, the planets and stars would be losing a lot of energy and fall out of orbit).

Light and matter both have gravity. Matter is made of trapped light.

 

[Deidre]

If we were traveling closest to a black hole, we’d “know” it quite well.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

Plese apply some scientific logics here. An unexplained force which needs another black force, isn´t something to set on equations and calculations because it´ll all end up in dark sentenses.

And if that combination is able to predict actually observed motions in new contexts, that is all that is required.

But you have to understand it dynamically and logically before you get into serious prediction troubles!

The logics says:
1) You have a force which assumingly works when lauching spacecrafts and satellites.
2) Your assumed force doesn´t work on the galactic scale.
3) You don´t have a universal force. Something is wrong and if keeping onto it will logically make lots of false assumptions and predictions, the first evidential example = *dark matter*.
4) This *force assumption* needs seriously revision and adjustment, and very likely have to be discarded.

The launching of spacecrafts and satellites can be done without implying Newtons idea in his *occult agency of gravity* just by calculating the escape velocity itself. You don´t have to mix Newton into this at all, and even the planetary orbital motions have been known long before Newton.

Even bird brains have known instinctively of *Newtons´s Escape Velocity* and other *gravitational laws* for millions of years - said the Natural Philosopher.

 

[Native]

Gravity is not energy. No energy is expended by exerting gravity (if so, the planets and stars would be losing a lot of energy and fall out of orbit).

How do you think it succeded planets to orbit the Sun before Newton got himself into his mess?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

Plese apply some scientific logics here. An unexplained force which needs another black force, isn´t something to set on equations and calculations because it´ll all end up in dark sentenses.

The logics says:
1) You have a force which assumingly works when lauching spacecrafts and satellites.
2) Your assumed force doesn´t work on the galactic scale.
3) You don´t have an universal force. Something is wrong and if keeping onto it, will logically make lots of false assumptions en masse, the first example *dark matter*.
4) This *force assumption* needs seriously revision and adjustment, and very likely discarded.

The launching of spacecrafts and satellites can be done without implying Newtons idea in his *occult agency of gravity* just by calculating the escape velosity itself. You don´t have to mix Newton into this at all.

Even bird brains have known instinctivily of *Newtons Escape Velocity* and *gravitational laws* for millions of years - said the Natural Philosopher.

LOL!! How do you think that escape velocity is calculated?

If you want a discussion you need to get rid of your false terminology. Otherwise you only make yourself look dishonest since you use pejoratives that you cannot justify.

 

[ChristineM]

not confused.....

time is not a forceor substance

it is only a quotient
one man made type of measure divided by another man made measure

Entropy and the arrow of time are not man made, in fact they were here for billions of years before life evolved

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

Plese apply some scientific logics here. An unexplained force which needs another black force, isn´t something to set on equations and calculations because it´ll all end up in dark sentenses.

But you have to understand it dynamically and logically before you get into serious prediction troubles!

The logics says:
1) You have a force which assumingly works when lauching spacecrafts and satellites.
2) Your assumed force doesn´t work on the galactic scale.
3) You don´t have a universal force. Something is wrong and if keeping onto it will logically make lots of false assumptions and predictions, the first evidential example = *dark matter*.
4) This *force assumption* needs seriously revision and adjustment, and very likely have to be discarded.

The launching of spacecrafts and satellites can be done without implying Newtons idea in his *occult agency of gravity* just by calculating the escape velocity itself. You don´t have to mix Newton into this at all, and even the planetary orbital motions have been known long before Newton.

This is just factually wrong. You need to use Newton's laws at every stage, not just the calculation of the escape velocity. The computation of the amount of thrust needed to change orbits is based on Newton's laws. The choice of orbit is dictated by Newton's laws. being able to get two spacecraft to meet up in space at the same location and time is based on Newton's laws.

And no, the planetary orbits have NOT been known for a long time. The first approximation was known. Then Kepler found a second approximation that was more accurate. Then Newton found out how to get a *much* better approximation. And then Einstein added to that.

The orbits were NOT known past a very basic first approximation prior to Kepler and then Newton. Again, you are simply factually wrong about the history involved. Based on what was understood prior to Newton, it would be impossible to put a satellite into orbit.

Even bird brains have known instinctively of *Newtons´s Escape Velocity* and other *gravitational laws* for millions of years - said the Natural Philosopher.

Um, no they have not. They have never needed to deal with escape velocities. They may have an intuitive feel for gravity, but that is very, very far from understanding it in detail.

 

[Polymath257]

not confused.....

time is not a forceor substance

it is only a quotient
one man made type of measure divided by another man made measure

But the same could be said about distance, or velocity, or pressure, or charge, or anything else that is physical.

Time can be measured. It has properties, being affects by mass and energy.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you think it succeded planets to orbit the Sun before Newton got himself into his mess?

That sentence made no sense. Could you rephrase it?

 

[Revoltingest]

time is not a forceor substance
it is only a quotient

You just showed that time exists.

Do you think matter exists?

 

[ratiocinator]

and then later to say.....time does not exist
it is an illusion

He didn't say time was an illusion, he said the distinction between past, present, and future was an illusion. The concept of space-time is central to his theory of general relativity.

 

[Native]

This is just factually wrong. You need to use Newton's laws at every stage, not just the calculation of the escape velocity. The computation of the amount of thrust needed to change orbits is based on Newton's laws. The choice of orbit is dictated by Newton's laws. being able to get two spacecraft to meet up in space at the same location and time is based on Newton's laws.

You just don´t get my point at all despite my numerous attempts to get you to look out of this

Remember? I once offered you a chance to a cooperation on all this. You rejected my offer and now I don´t bother anymore trying to explain what you STILL reject to take into your box.

And no, the planetary orbits have NOT been known for a long time. The first approximation was known. Then Kepler found a second approximation that was more accurate. Then Newton found out how to get a *much* better approximation. And then Einstein added to that.

We have these successions:

Ancient Creation Myths
Prehistoric
Early Discoveries
Greek
Medieval
Up to Newton
Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543)
Tycho Brahe (14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601)
Johannes Kepler ( 27 December 1571 – 15 November 1630)
Sir Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955)

Obviously and evidently Newton´s (gravitational guess) works is based on the shoulders of former observations.

In fact Newton builded his works on ancient ancestral shoulders and forward to his own time - as we all do, or shall do.

 

[Polymath257]

You just don´t get my point at all despite my numerous attempts to get you to look out of this
View attachment 47251

Nope. All you have done is offered your own black box. But yours doesn't work nearly as well in getting probes to Mars or in describing the orbits of the planets.

Remember? I once offered you a chance to a cooperation on all this. You rejected my offer and now I don´t bother anymore trying to explain what you STILL reject.

And I have yet to see anything substantial in your offerings. You have given a few glittering generalities, but have refused to actually make any predictions concerning actual observations to test your ideas.

We have these successions:

Ancient Creation Myths
Prehistoric
Early Discoveries
Greek
Medieval
Up to Newton
Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543)
Tycho Brahe (14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601)
Johannes Kepler ( 27 December 1571 – 15 November 1630)
Sir Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955)

Obviously and evidently Newton´s (gravitational guess) works is based on the shoulders of former observations.

In fact Newton builded his works on ancient ancestral shoulders and forward to his own time - as we all do.

And each step was an improvement in accuracy over the earlier ones. Newton's work dramatically improved the accuracy of the predicted orbits as compared to the observed orbits. THAT's why it was adopted.

But agreeing with observation doesn't seem to be important to your system. Making predictions to actually test your ideas doesn't seem to be important.

Which is fine. But it means you aren't doing science.[/QUOTE]

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. All you have done is offered your own black box. But yours doesn't work nearly as well in getting probes to Mars or in describing the orbits of the planets.



And I have yet to see anything substantial in your offerings. You have given a few glittering generalities, but have refused to actually make any predictions concerning actual observations to test your ideas.



And each step was an improvement in accuracy over the earlier ones. Newton's work dramatically improved the accuracy of the predicted orbits as compared to the observed orbits. THAT's why it was adopted.

But agreeing with observation doesn't seem to be important to your system. Making predictions to actually test your ideas doesn't seem to be important.

Which is fine. But it means you aren't doing science.

We should note that Newton's work didn't predict orbits
as accurately as General Relativity, eg, Mercury's.

 

[Polymath257]

We should note that Newton's work didn't predict orbits
as accurately as General Relativity, eg, Mercury's.

Very true. That extra 43 seconds of arc per century was significant at this level of accuracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Very true. That extra 43 seconds of arc per century was significant at this level of accuracy.

Ultimately, it's all about models making useful predictions.
Which model is best, eh.

 

[Polymath257]

Ultimately, it's all about models making useful predictions.
Which model is best, eh.

Exactly. But it amazes me the level of accuracy involved in testing between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. In an orbit that completes a cycle every 88 days, to be accurate to 43 seconds of arc in a century seems incredible to me. And that is what Newton was able to do. Einstein is accurate below .1 second of arc per century.

Given the Kepler was using measurements made without telescopes and where the precision of Tycho's observations was about 1 arc minute (and Kepler didn't get that level of accuracy), the claim that the orbits were 'known' prior to Newton to the accuracy implied is simply silly.

 

[Thief]

Entropy and the arrow of time are not man made, in fact they were here for billions of years before life evolved

the movment is real
decay is real
the measure is a tool.......in your head

 

[Thief]

You just showed that time exists.

Do you think matter exists?

quotients are in your head
and there is plenty of space for that

so.....space is real
matter is real
movement is real

but time is a MEASUREMENT

now.......stuff that into the space....in your head

feel better?