D H Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Really? I asked before, what time device was used to measure the time to a degree of accuracy of .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds??? I'm still waiting for an answer. Red herring. Those tests were never done accurately because there is not a timer available to measure to the degree of accuracy needed. Red herring. Also, calculating the mass of planets, stars, and moons using Newton's formula, and then claiming I'm wrong because the numbers don't add up using those "Newtonian calculated masses" is absurd. Red herring. Tell me the exact masses of the bodies, as accurately measured, not derived from Newton's formula. Red herring. Particle physicists used to flaunt the measured accuracy of the fine structure constant over lesser branches of physics such as dynamics and astronomy. No more. The verification of the equivalence principle currently stands as the most accurate result in all of physics. See this Physics World article for details. We know the equivalence principle is true to within a few parts in 1013. If this principle is not exactly true, the contradictions lie in those few parts per 1013. Your "theory" contradicts the equivalence principle, and not just to within a few parts per 1013. Any "theory" that assumes the relative gravitational acceleration of two objects toward one another is proportional to the difference of the masses will fail miserably in predicting the behavior of 61 Cygni.
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I never mentioned actual numbers, nor did I measure them. I decreased the mass on the beam and the acceleration increased. That contradicts Newton's "product" theory. If it was the "product," the acceleration would have stayed the same or decreased when the mass on the beam decreased. That didn't happen. So, your argument is based on the precision of measurements of all other experiments, but yours has ZERO accuracy?
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 exactly, we do not need to know the masses exactly we just have to look where they predict insanely different results, such as 61 cygni, according to your equation the stars should not orbit as fast as they do as they have nearly equal masses. but newtonian gravity says they should orbit around the speed they have been measured to.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Any "theory" that assumes the relative gravitational acceleration of two objects toward one another is proportional to the difference of the masses will fail miserably in predicting the behavior of 61 Cygni. Are they getting closer together?
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 according to general relativity, yes, but at an immeasurably small rate. so small infact that disturbances from other stars overwhelm the effect. but that is not the failure in itself, the failure is in the orbital period, where your equation is off by millenia.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 according to general relativity, yes, but at an immeasurably small rate. so small infact that disturbances from other stars overwhelm the effect. but that is not the failure in itself, the failure is in the orbital period, where your equation is off by millenia. The small rate of acceleration towards each other supports my theory, because they are so close in mass. I never mentioned "orbital periods."
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 ohh you meant the attractive acceleration, well then thats actually quite large i was talking about r decreasing with time due to gravitational radiation. and whether you mentioned orbital periods or not, we did.
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I never mentioned actual numbers, nor did I measure them. I decreased the mass on the beam and the acceleration increased. That contradicts Newton's "product" theory. If it was the "product," the acceleration would have stayed the same or decreased when the mass on the beam decreased. That didn't happen. So, your argument is based on the precision of measurements of all other experiments, but yours has zero accuracy?
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 You still haven't answered some of my questions directed towards you in this thread, and I'm still waiting. I don't claim to know everything (actually very little), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't stick to my guns and be rigorous in my claims. Which were these. And to remind you the burden of proof is on YOU.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 So, your argument is based on the precision of measurements of all other experiments, but yours has zero accuracy? Do you understand the concept of a NET force (f=ma)? The greater the net the greater the acceleration. The lower the net, the lower the acceleration. I don't need actual numbers to understand that. If I increase the net, and the acceleration increases, that proves that it's not the "product," it's the "net." 500-500=0 500-100=400 1000-50=950 1,000,000,000-1,000,000,000=0
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Do you understand the concept of a NET force (f=ma)? The greater the net the greater the acceleration. The lower the net, the lower the acceleration. I don't need actual numbers to understand that. If I increase the net, and the acceleration increases, that proves that it's not the "product," it's the "net." 500-500=0 500-100=400 1000-50=950 1,000,000,000-1,000,000,000=0 And that answers my point how?
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 And that answers my point how? Because I am not concerned with the actual numbers, only the concept. I do not have the resources to measure to the degree of accuracy required, and neither do you.
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Who cares about actual numbers and comparing to reality, it's the concept that's important... Is something that is often believed by crackpots and is NOT scientific! Personally we might not have the ability to measure that precisely but we've access to papers written to people who do have access to the kit to do it and can read how they did it and read and understand their analysis...
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Because I am not concerned with the actual numbers, only the concept. I do not have the resources to measure to the degree of accuracy required, and neither do you. Then why do you keep bringing up the accuracy of time measurements?
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Then why do you keep bringing up the accuracy of time measurements? Because to say that a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate is incorrect. They don't fall at the same rate, and the only reason you THINK they do is because you can't measure to the degree of accuracy required. If you could measure to that degree of accuracy you would clearly see that the feather hits first, because the net is greater!
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Because to say that a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate is incorrect. They don't fall at the same rate, and the only reason you THINK they do is because you can't measure to the degree of accuracy required.And you have no accuracy because you have no measurements. Game over: you lose.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 And you have no accuracy because you have no measurements. Game over: you lose. What do I lose? Klaynos already told me the other two theories win, because they are more popular. Did I lose the popular vote? Damn, I hate it when that happens. edit: Do the experiment yourself and report back with your results.
mooeypoo Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Here: How do you measure a planet's mass? Capabilities of Various Planet Detection Methods (NASA Site) How can you measure the mass of the Earth or any other planet? That should get you started on some of the techniques that are used to find the mass of planets. ~moo
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 It's not about being popular, it's about making PREDICTIONS and testing these against REALITY! If everyone did every experiment ever before trying something new no new science would ever be achieved. We have to rely on the peer review system to move forwards, and frankly it works.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 It's not about being popular, it's about making PREDICTIONS and testing these against REALITY! If everyone did every experiment ever before trying something new no new science would ever be achieved. We have to rely on the peer review system to move forwards, and frankly it works. My theory predicts the feather hits first in reality. Peer review that. LOL Should we look at the atom using my formula? It doesn't miss a beat.
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 My theory predicts the feather hits first in reality. Peer review that. LOL Should we look at the atom using my formula? It doesn't miss a beat. That is not a mathematical prediction... your idea also has to be fallsifiable... An interesting point you raise, what is your predicted attractive force between an electron and a proton?
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 (edited) That is not a mathematical prediction... your idea also has to be fallsifiable... An interesting point you raise, what is your predicted attractive force between an electron and a proton? Huge, because it's not the product, it's the difference divided by the small distance. A=(L-S)/R2 Lets say the proton is 1 Lets say the electron is .0000001 Lets say the distance is .000000001 (1-.0000001)/.000000001=999,999,900 Who would have ever guessed? Edit: That's just an example to show how you end up with a large number from such small masses and distances. Edited October 5, 2008 by traveler
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Huge, because it's not the product, it's the difference divided by the small distance. A=(L-S)/R2 Lets say the proton is 1 Lets say the electron is .0000001 Lets say the distance is .000000001 (1-.0000001)/.000000001=999,999,900 Who would have ever guessed? Edit: That's just an example to show how you end up with a large number from such small masses and distances. Can you please use the real numbers, they can be found on wikipedia and are measured using effects that are not related to our theories of gravity at all.... mass spectroscopy. I'll even find the numbers for you if you like? (A sensible separation distance to use is the hydrogen atom radius)
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Can you please use the real numbers, they can be found on wikipedia and are measured using effects that are not related to our theories of gravity at all.... mass spectroscopy. I'll even find the numbers for you if you like? (A sensible separation distance to use is the hydrogen atom radius) OK, if you find the numbers I'll plug 'em in.
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Mass of proton: 1.67x10-27 Mass of electron: 9.11x10-31 Radius of hydrogen atom (separation distance): 52.9177x10−12 They're all in si so your answer should be in m/s/s as it's an acceleration, and then we can find a force from that using F=ma, or would you disagree with that?
Recommended Posts