science, wake up, you are in the Matrix

[tomjin]

science, wake up, you are in the Matrix. --------------Jin Guangnian

 

I have proved a lot of accepted theories in Physics are wrong.

 

Let me start with the mass of Earth. I found out human being still don't know the mass of Earth.

 

 

M=gR^2/G , this formula shows how we calculate the mass of Earth. It's too simple. Human being just pretend we know the mass of Sun, Earth, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn and so on.

 

In my research, I found out 3 mistakes in Mr Henry Cavendish torsion balance exp.

 

1 the distance between two balls is too close, the balls can't be treated as a point.

 

2 when we calculate the force between 2 balls on the ground, the law of universal gravitation probably is invalid. for example, there are 2 balls, the distance between them is 1m, each ball is 1kg. the force from Earth for one ball is 10 billions times as much as the force from the other ball.

 

3 GM in the law of universal gravitation is a constant for a celestial body. GM equal to 4π^2/k (A), k is from Kepler's third law. then M= A/G. which means, if G is wrong, then M is wrong as well, but GM is still a constant.

 

What the mass of Earth means to us.

 

if the mass of Earth is wrong, then the mass of sun, moon, Jupiter are wrong as well. Theories in Astrology, Earth science will collapse.

 

We can pretend we know everything about solar system for ever, or we wake up and face the truth now.

 

Jin Guangnian

[Nexium Tao]

Heh, your a pretty funny guy.

[CaptainPanic]

We can pretend we know everything about solar system for ever, or we wake up and face the truth now.

Ok.

 

Almost all physics is wrong. And all other science is wrong too?

 

What do we do next? What is the path to enlightenment? Show us the way.

[michel123456]

the distance between two balls is too close, the balls can't be treated as a point.

 

 

That happens to me too, my wife don't understand.

 

Theories in Astrology, Earth science will collapse.

 

Astrology?

Edited December 22, 2010 by michel123456

[lemur]

Ok.

 

Almost all physics is wrong. And all other science is wrong too?

 

What do we do next? What is the path to enlightenment? Show us the way.

If Newton's formulas turn out to have been false axioms woven into self-referential empirical validations, I don't think it should be denied. Is the method of measuring the Earth's mass based on circular logic and if not, how?

[CaptainPanic]

If Newton's formulas turn out to have been false axioms woven into self-referential empirical validations, I don't think it should be denied. Is the method of measuring the Earth's mass based on circular logic and if not, how?

Come on... let the guy who wrote the opening post explain the next step... I am too curious! No need to go in depth to the proof of his theory here.

Let's just assume that all physics is wrong... shall we? Please? Just this thread. Thanks.

 

tomjin, please explain what we must do next... I'm very curious to find out what we must do now that we accept that all science is wrong.

[lemur]

Come on... let the guy who wrote the opening post explain the next step... I am too curious! No need to go in depth to the proof of his theory here.

Let's just assume that all physics is wrong... shall we? Please? Just this thread. Thanks.

 

tomjin, please explain what we must do next... I'm very curious to find out what we must do now that we accept that all science is wrong.

 

Your sarcastic tone is abusive. By implying that he is going again "all science," it's as if he's doing more than just questioning something fundamental. You might as well say that people shouldn't question fundamental bases of science because they're sacred. That's not a very scientific attitude. If you had been working for the church when Galileo was arguing for heliocentric motion, you would have been the one saying, "so, Galileo, go ahead and prove to us how God and the entire bible is wrong."

[Mr Skeptic]

Your sarcastic tone is abusive. By implying that he is going again "all science," it's as if he's doing more than just questioning something fundamental. You might as well say that people shouldn't question fundamental bases of science because they're sacred. That's not a very scientific attitude. If you had been working for the church when Galileo was arguing for heliocentric motion, you would have been the one saying, "so, Galileo, go ahead and prove to us how God and the entire bible is wrong."

 

Galileo didn't start off by saying "Jesus, wake up, you're in the Matrix"

[lemur]

Galileo didn't start off by saying "Jesus, wake up, you're in the Matrix"

 

 

But if he had, he would have been correct, wouldn't he have?

[Ringer]

Galileo also used had evidence of his claims before he made such bold statements.

[the tree]

Galileo didn't start off by saying "Jesus, wake up, you're in the Matrix"

But if he had, he would have been correct, wouldn't he have?

Only if by "you're in the Matrix" he meant "the Earth revolves around the sun". Edited December 22, 2010 by the tree

[Spyman]

FYI, another "science, please, wake up, you are in the Matrix" thread, with a 'Mayan' catastrophe, hollow Earth, big eyed aliens and much much more...

[CaptainPanic]

Your sarcastic tone is abusive. By implying that he is going again "all science," it's as if he's doing more than just questioning something fundamental.

 

You might as well say that people shouldn't question fundamental bases of science because they're sacred. That's not a very scientific attitude. If you had been working for the church when Galileo was arguing for heliocentric motion, you would have been the one saying, "so, Galileo, go ahead and prove to us how God and the entire bible is wrong."

Ok, I exaggerated it a bit. The OP does not question all of science... only "a lot of accepted theories in Physics". Accept my apologies. The speculations forum is no place for jokes.

 

I note that you posed a valid and interesting question... and perhaps you should ask it again in a separate thread in the physics forum. Note (again) that this is the Speculations forum.

 

Anyway... since questioning something fundamental takes time... we might as well do a little thought-experiment. Let's assume that the OP is right, and that "a lot of accepted theories in Physics" are wrong. What do we do next?

[michel123456]

Ok, I exaggerated it a bit. The OP does not question all of science... only "a lot of accepted theories in Physics". Accept my apologies. The speculations forum is no place for jokes.

 

I note that you posed a valid and interesting question... and perhaps you should ask it again in a separate thread in the physics forum. Note (again) that this is the Speculations forum.

 

Anyway... since questioning something fundamental takes time... we might as well do a little thought-experiment. Let's assume that the OP is right, and that "a lot of accepted theories in Physics" are wrong. What do we do next?

 

Subscribe to the Science Forums and become a crackpot.

[lemur]

Anyway... since questioning something fundamental takes time... we might as well do a little thought-experiment. Let's assume that the OP is right, and that "a lot of accepted theories in Physics" are wrong. What do we do next?

I can think of at least two choices: 1) reason that history and progress that have occurred under "pseudoscience" are basically functional and good and conclude that the truth should be suppressed as much as possible to ensure the continuation of a 'benevolent' regime of false-consciousness. 2) reason that truth is ultimately a form of power that promotes good and therefore work toward critically exposing mistakes in science, no matter how core/radical, with the faith that the progress that results will make things better than before.

 

Personally, I choose #2 because I can't stand the idea of submitting to authority on the basis of false or arbitrary knowledge that has no other purpose than stabilizing social relation. If Newton invented his theories and equations as a means of passifying those who rebelled against the church by giving them convergent alternative ideas that would provide them with an alternative set of dogma with the same social-control function, for example, I would want to know that. So what exactly grounds measurements of the Earth's mass except Newton's equations and empirical measurements of falling objects? Are there multiple methods of measuring the Earth's mass (some of which not using Newton's equation) so that they can be checked against one another for convergence?

Edited December 23, 2010 by lemur

[mississippichem]

Are there multiple methods of measuring the Earth's mass (some of which not using Newton's equation) so that they can be checked against one another for convergence?

 

There's Lagrangian Mechanics. I can't say it wasn't influenced by Newton though, I don't know maybe someone else here does.

[lemur]

There's Lagrangian Mechanics. I can't say it wasn't influenced by Newton though, I don't know maybe someone else here does.

 

What I mean is that if the only data you have is the acceleration of gravity, then Newton's equation determines the mass of the Earth. If there's no other method for assessing the Earth's mass, then Newton's equation is determinant, right or wrong. Same thing with any other planet and Kepler's equations. You just assume you know the mass of Venus because of its orbit and you assume you know its distance from the sun due to its orbital period as well.

[michel123456]

What I mean is that if the only data you have is the acceleration of gravity, then Newton's equation determines the mass of the Earth. If there's no other method for assessing the Earth's mass, then Newton's equation is determinant, right or wrong. Same thing with any other planet and Kepler's equations. You just assume you know the mass of Venus because of its orbit and you assume you know its distance from the sun due to its orbital period as well.

 

IIRC it is the contrary. You calculate Venus's mass from a satellite orbiting Venus. See here.. Always through Newton.

[lemur]

IIRC it is the contrary. You calculate Venus's mass from a satellite orbiting Venus. See here.. Always through Newton.

 

So there's no way to test Newton's equation to see if it's correct? You just axiomatically assume that satellite orbital speed is determined by mass and distance and then attribute mass on that basis? Also, how is it even possible to measure the circumference of Venus or the altitude of something orbiting it?