# Theory of Gravitation is Unscientific

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by discord5, Jun 6, 2001.

1. ### discord5Registered Senior Member

Messages:
88
reposting with a better title.....

5 Reasons Why the Theory of Gravitation is Unscientific

Reason #1 as to why the theory of gravitation is unscientific:

The theory proposes that a weak and attractive "gravitational" force exists between any two masses. However, for any force to be considered scientific, it must meet one important qualification. We must know the mechanism by which this force operates. This knowledge will allow us to control the force or will at least tell us the difficulties involved in controlling it. Over 300 years after it was first proposed, the "gravitational" force still does not meet this qualification.

Would you like to know more?

Reason #2 as to why the theory of gravitation is unscientific:

The theory does not predict the existence of any perceptible water tides on Earth because mathematical calculations show that the Sun and Moon simply do not have enough power to lift the water upward. A secondary theory (involving the idea of "tractive" forces) is used to try to patch up the failure of the main theory. However, this secondary theory is at odds with reality since it predicts the creation of giant tidal waves which come crashing down on coastlines at hundreds of kilometers (or miles) per hour. Furthermore, it is still predicted that the Sun and Moon should produce only one tide each, yet the Sun and Moon produce two tides on opposite sides of the Earth. A tertiary theory (involving the idea of "centrifugal" forces and an Earth which is spinning off-center) is used to try to patch up the failure of the main theory, but only in respect to the existence of the twin Lunar tides. There is no patch-up theory to explain the existence of the twin Solar tides.

Would you like to know more?

Reason #3 as to why the theory of gravitation is unscientific:

In 1798 Henry Cavendish performed an experiment using a torsion balance and lead balls to determine the "gravitational" proportionality constant, which is found in the equation for the "gravitational" force; he did not perform the experiment to search for a "gravitational" attraction between two masses since the "gravitational" force was already taken to be science fact, even though it has never been experimentally measured before Cavendish. Therefore, when a very weak attractive force was measured by the experiment no one raised the idea that this attraction could be due to some phenomenon other than the hypothetical "gravitational" force. In fact, no one ever used any other substance but lead balls in this type of experiment. To conclude that this experiment measures a "gravitational" force is unscientific. In fact, the door is wide open to the very real possibility that this experimentally measured attraction is due to the London force.

Would you like to know more?

Reason #4 as to why the theory of gravitation is unscientific:

The theory does not predict the stratification of masses on Earth and phenomena related to buoyancy. Why does hot air rise and cold air fall? In general, why are heavier atoms or molecules held more tightly and closer by the Earth than lighter atoms or molecules? For example, why do helium balloons rise while regular air filled balloons do not? In fact, the theory predicts that both helium and regular air filled balloons should feel the same downward acceleration or pull regardless of their mass differences, in contradiction to what is observed. If used as an alternative to the "gravitational" force, the London force can easily explain these phenomena.

Would you like to know more?

Reason #5 as to why the theory of gravitation is unscientific:

The theory proposes what is usually referred to as Isaac Newton's great insight: that an apple falls from the tree for the same reason that the Moon orbits the Earth. That is, what we would call "terrestrial gravity" is equivalent to "celestial gravity". However, this claim is supported by mathematical reasoning only, otherwise there is no scientific evidence to prove this claim. But there are, however, other reasons which suggest that an apple falling from a tree and the Moon orbiting the Earth have nothing in common.

Would you like to know more?

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8864/RF_Article1.html

3. ### rdeEukaryotic specimenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
278

Pity you didn't rewrite the article as well.

I couldn't be arsed refuting this point by point, but in brief:
Gravity is scientific because we can use the laws of gravity to predict future behaviour. Accurately. No-one's saying that general relativity is the whole answer, but that's far from saying that it's unscientific.

The moon doesn't lift the tide upward; in fact, no-one's claiming that it does.

Gravity affects helium balloons in exactly the same way as it affects aeroplanes; with a force that's proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. Helium balloons float in air because they're less dense; it's exactly the same reason that rubber duckies float in water. "the theory predicts that both helium and regular air filled balloons should feel the same downward acceleration or pull regardless of their mass differences, in contradiction to what is observed." is the dumbest sentence in the entire article, and one that shows the author is either taking the piss or on too many drugs.

5. ### Dark QuasarRegistered Member

Messages:
14
Gravitation

I think, that the autor of the article is.... not fully competent as in physics as even in a ToG. I'll take the first reason (it's a war

).

>>

The theory proposes that a weak and attractive "gravitational" force exists between any two masses. However, for any force to be considered scientific, it must meet one important qualification. We must know the mechanism by which this force operates. This knowledge will allow us to control the force or will at least tell us the difficulties involved in controlling it. Over 300 years after it was first proposed, the "gravitational" force still does not meet this qualification.

>>

ToG EXPLAINES how do it operates. Mass deformes the fourth dimension (space-time dimension) of our space. As i understand: in a even space, object is (if no forces affect/affected him) stationary, in the next moment of time he is in the same place, because the space and time are not deformed. But if we add some big mass, it will deform the space, squashing it near himself, and in the next moment of time object appears closer to that mass. Usually space is squashed in radial form, so object covers more space in the same periods of time (space is the more deformed, the closer it to this mass), while time progress. So in the next moment of time his velocity is multiplied. This is how object gets free-fall acceleration. This is how i think about it (difficult to explain, but you try to imagin all this).
Also i heard that the gravitational interaction media is a particle, called graviton. Scientist registered his action effect in the double neutron stars system (stars were loosing they energy, radiating graviton quants into space to attract themselves, what was predicted mathematically with help of ToG, and the energy values were the same). But modern equipment can't register single particle, because it's interacting is too weak.

7. ### JavierRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
56
Using common sense

All right,discord 5,you will(or not?) agree that there is a relation between density,radius,and the amount of matter or inertia that an object has,which is also called "mass",and equals weight on earth s surface in units :

Now seems clear that the sun is by far the largest of all the objects of the system,and assuming that there is no element lighter than hydrogen,we can safely calculate,relating the atomic weight of this element to its diameter, its minimal mass far larger than the sum of all the rest ,each of which orbits the sun,(and has in orbit,what a coincidence¡¡¡,minor bodies in turn) at the speed that would be exactly expected if gravity is acting at the distance that they re actually orbiting, whith such an accuracy,that allowed the robotic probes,launched from earth,not only to achieve a planet- target(with a ridiculously tiny projectile) that is thousands of times smaller than its orbit and moves at tremendous speed...but to use the newtonian acceleration of it to achieve a still further(and therefore tinier in relation to its elliptical path)planet in the same track(or equation)¡¡¡¡

The amount of fuel and potence of the motor used IN FACT to propell the manned rockets that went to space used no more no less than the expected effort to escape from the planet s attraction than the one calculated based on gravity theory,and so did to escape from the moon...

Not to mention that as long as Einstein performed his theory on Newton s studies, both geniuses must ve been wrong on the same subject ...

Last edited: Jun 17, 2001