# Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

1. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
You can read again. My statements for the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" are quite different from Newton's statements for "Law of Ineria".

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Newton in your words (taken from II.6): "The motion of a particle at any instant of time will depend on all the forces being applied to the particle at that instant of time and the motion of the particle at the previous instant of time. Thus if no force is applied to the particle at any instant of time, the particle will remain in the same state of motion as the previous instant of time."
You in your words (Taken from the second text, point #1): "If no force is applied to the particle at any instant of time, the particle will remain in the same state of motion as the previous instant of time."
(Bolding mine.)

Please point out the difference(s) for me.

5. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
This I derived from Newton's "Law of Inertia".

This statement is my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

If you see the statements for Newton's "First Law of Motion" or "Law of Inertia"; that is quite different.

7. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Oh, so your "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" is simply a reformulation of Newton's First Law. Got it.

8. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Statement of my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" is quite different from Newton's Law of Inertia; though the basic philosophy remains the same. My Instantaneous Law of Inertia can be applied to mass-less particles or any dynamic quantity. Newton's Law of Inertia is limited to F=ma.

9. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Newton's first law can also be applied to massless particles.
Ah, so you are saying your law is a generalized version of Newton's first law. Can you give some examples of other dynamic quantities to which it can be applied? (In your first two texts you only mention particles.)

10. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Give me some examples to prove your point.

Yes.

You can read about the four unknown forces which I have observed. Examples are provided there. Links for this are mentioned in my profile page.

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law
"The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object's speed and the direction of its motion; therefore, the statement that the object's velocity is constant is a statement that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant."
Nowhere does it mention the need for a particle with mass?

I will start reading the other two texts soon, thanks.

12. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Seems you have not understood Newton's Law of Inertia. To understand the first law, you can also read his second law of motion.

OK.

13. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
No, one does not. The law stands on its own. Please point out to me what in the first law needs further explanation to make sense.

14. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
In NM, force is defined by his second law. That is F=ma. For massless particles you cannot use this formula for force.

15. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Not sure if it's defined or just given in the second law. However, it does not matter, as I'm not talking about the whole of NM, I'm talking about the First Law in isolation. Nothing in the first law contradict its application on massless particles.

True, but I'm not doing that.

16. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
The term "force", you used in the first law; what does it mean. If it is not F=ma.

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
I can define a force like: F = 1/r, where r is the distance to some other object. It's not what we see in nature, but it works fine for Newton's First Law.
I can define a force with a strength of 1 in the direction of any red object. It's not what we see in nature, but it works fine for Newton's First Law.

It doesn't really matter what the force looks like; the First Law only gives a description of how the velocity of an object is affected by the (net) force acting upon it.

18. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Sure, you can define force anyway as you wish for Newton's First Law. But this definition of force should also be able to explain Newton's second and third laws of motion.

You revisit your post #168. In the first law, net force is zero. So, Newton's First Law does not describe how the velocity of an object is affected by the (net) force acting upon it, because the net force is zero. Seems you made a wrong statement. Perhaps you were trying to explain Newton's Second Law. Newton's Second Law do explain how velocity of an object is affected by the (net) force acting upon it.

19. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,194
Your belief that Newtonian gravity does not bend light is (not surprisingly) wrong. You do not even understand the theory of gravity that you are basing your absurd guess at a TOE on.

Hope this helps to enlighten you... (I am not holding out much hope on that!)

Newtonian light bending.

From the article
Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity predict that the Sun will bend the starlight, but the extent of that bending is different.

20. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
??? Seems you made some unrelated explanation.

Anyway, answer this. Why it is difficult to reconcile QM with GR?

Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
No it doesn't. My claim was that Newton's first law handles massless particles just fine. The second and third law do not come into play. You cannot use law #2 and #3 when considering law #1 as an isolated law.

Wikipedia's text is wrong here; there's an "if and only if" missing. It's in the formula right below it's expressed correctly.

Post #165: You say that your law is different from Newton's, because yours handles massless particles. In other words, you claim that Newton's first law doesn't handle massless particles.
Post #166: I say that it does.
Post #167: You ask me for examples.
Post #168: I give a general answer: the law does not refer to masses of particles, or any properties that only apply to massive particles. Therefore, the law does not make a distinction between massive and massless particles. The law must either handle both, or neither. We both agree the law handles massive particles. Ergo, it must also handle massless particles.
Post #169: You claim that I have not understood the law, without giving any reason. You point to the Second Law.
Post #170: I say that you pointing to the Second Law is irrelevant in this discussion, as we are not talking about it.
Post #171: You bring up the Second Law again.
Post #172: I once again point out that the Second Law is irrelevant in this discussion.
Post #173: You ask what I then mean by "force".
Post #174: I give some examples of hypothetical forces that work perfectly find for massless particles.
Post #175: You acknowledge that these indeed work out. And you then again incorrectly start referring to the second (and third) laws, and say that I have made a wrong statement.

Please point out my wrong statement.

No, I was not. I just gave a definition of a force. What does that have to do with Newton's Second Law?

For Newtonian mechanics, yes. Not for the forces I have defined.

You keep pointing to the Second Law in order to prove that the First Law cannot handles massless particles, as if you cannot find any issues in the First Law when it comes to handling massless particles. Funny that...

22. ### nebel

Messages:
2,294
would that not imply that there was a space framework in place to have at least energy everywhere in the right places.
was there time then. timespace? or energytime? Do you not think the universe was smaller in the past?of course,
We must have been in the big bang, and everyone else everywhere too, how else could we have arrived here, so
:are you including expansion ?

23. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,403
it did cross my mind that if the universe is continually increasing in content and volume, then is there some different methamactical definition to explain this action ?
the simple terms of "expansion" seem to fall short of the scientific function...
increasing its volume & content at the same time...
"getting bigger"
is it actually expanding if its entire content is actually increasing ?
thus the area it covers is rendered irrelivant to the nature of its size by its nature of content ?