424319 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Is there gravity in the process of falling body? The answer is not. Galileo demonstrated that the acceleration of falling body is not concerned with mass, volume and chemical elements. This is Galileo phenomenon. Newton and Einstein attempted to use their theory, gravity law or general relativity to explain Galileo phenomenon, but it is not perfect. All physics know this. All physics also know that many phenomena can not clarified by Newton’s gravity law. For example, Newton’s law of gravity can only perfectly explain why tides occur on the side nearest to it, but not on the other side. In fact, there is not necessary relation between the phenomenon of falling object and Newton’s law of gravity. We need a new time-space theory. Is it Pseudoscience and Metaphysics? Reference: THING AND ITS LAW (ISBN 1-58939-525-5), chapter 2: timedistance and timecurvature (the active and passive motion of time-space) and chapter 5: natural force(the duality of time-space and energy)published by Virtualbookworm.com publishing Inc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Why do you keep making all of these random posts everywhere? You are always quoting a similar subject, so put them all in the same topic. OK so we need a new theory. There are lots of Pseudo science theories, I have posted mine, and it allows for tides on all sides of the Earth. It doesn't help you much though does it? You have to wait for the concentual agreement from the big guns, otherwise no one agrees with you. Science is about maths, even if the maths hides a lot of errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 See Pinch, I knew you know about the method. I agree: pseudoscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 If you think about it isn't kinda unfair to call things that are possible Pseudoscience? I mean I agree with you, but doesn't pseudo mean false? And if there's a possiblity then should it be called that? Makes you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Pseudo means "fake," basically. Like "pseudorandom." It isn't random, it just seems like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 This is definitely pseudoscience, 424319 isn't quoting any established scientific journal, just a random book he's presumably hoping we all rush out and buy. Heres a tip - buy a real textbook and not whatever 'Thing and its law' is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 For example' date=' Newton’s law of gravity can only perfectly explain why tides occur on the side nearest to it, but not on the other side. [/quote'] The fact that many people do not understand the source of tides does not mean that that they are not explained by Newtonian physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now