Proof of the apple 'pulling' the earth?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are accused of fooling around with the truth. It is not done lightly as you seem to be intelligent enough to see into your own nonsense.

To wit, the inverse square law provides relative information. Information relative and unique to individual mass. That can be demonstrated with arithmetic. We all know that without posting the sums.

Newton decided it linked up masses without further explanation.



Should point out that in no way have you explained how or why Newton arrived at his law in this thread.

You did not take us to an articulation by Newton as to why or how he came up with his formula.

Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation.

That is what Newton gave us in Principia.

There is no mention in Principia of a deduction of unlike masses exerting a like 'pull' upon each other.

End of thread I think. Appreciate the mentions of binary stars and the like but if no-one can explain how the inverse square law connects up masses, we all know the laws a dud.

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else , by and through which their action maybe conveyed from one to another , is to me so great an absurdity that , I believe , no man who has in philosophic matters a competent facility of thinking could ever fall into it.”

By his own admission, Newton was flummoxed by gravity. Dead horses can only be flogged so much.

Never said smaller ones do not.

The 1.1kg mass was a 1kg mass. Think you are befuddling your self.

But through the arithmetic of opposing directions of the inverse square law is your answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, this is a bit of a first; someone has overturned Newton's law of gravitation.

But they haven't provided an alternative, and they haven't explained how the equations are wrong.
Or why scientists still use his equations to launch things into space. Strange, you think they might have noticed the big problem by now.

Alternatively, this is just a persistent illusion, a confused and drunken wander down a garden path that doesn't go anywhere useful.
After 10 pages and 182 posts, no-one except the thread opener understands a word of it.

Newton was wrong, we just have to accept it and accept that there aren't any alternatives, or there aren't any on offer, just a lot of rambling.

I wonder if this person can see that they haven't really said anything yet?

From the first post:

We see that the problem is, in fact, an inability to understand experimental evidence. Which is complicated by an inability to accept the possibility that one has not grasped certain fundamentals. And a certain level of stubborn pride in one's ability to 'see the truth', and accept no other explanations.

I think it's called being 'pig-headed'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's highly acceptable James R. You are not honest enough to discuss gravity with.

Not pig headed at all. I have acted in good faith with all posters. Not sure if that can be said the other way. I suppose the other side of that is other posters haven't the wherewithal to handle being wrong.

Anyway, Newton's law of gravity is clearly wrong.

There's a web page that explains it for you. It's very to the point and quite irrefutable. The basic problem is the inverse square law constant is not constant. It's proportional to quantity.



Those who check into this forum seem to be prejudiced in favour of Newton's law of gravity. Do not expect that prejudice to be cast aside anytime soon.

Anyway, been honest with anyone who has posted in this thread.

 

Well, I might go and get slowly pissed somewhere.

 

It's interesting, isn't it. Can understand your reaction. All the best with coming to grips with the constant as the hangover settles down.

 

wow, First off this is elementary physics. A force of one object hitting another object will be reflected to the other object. That old toy with four balls on strings where when you pull one back and let go the one on the far end shoots up and vice versa.

ALSO there is no Newton's law. It is Newton's theory. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Anything can (main wordis "can" not "will") be disproven.

If you need more info look up the post entitled scientific fact vs. scientific theory.

 

Newton's cradle

Because we don't make the rules, so we can only have a best guess. Unlike in mathematics where we make the rules.

 

there arent rules in mathmatics they are also theory's. there is pretty much nothing physical out there (and by physical i mean anything that is not from our imagination) that is a fact. As my physics teacher siad "If i cant prove you rdad is your dad, how can i prove quantum physics?" lolz.

 

Yes there are rules in mathematics.

Do you think someone discovered mathematics and then people started testing theories on it until we found the ones that fit best?