Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 illuusio, may I ask you if you are familiar with the scientific process? In modern physics things tend to work in a certain way. Maths is the language of how it works. Normally the ideal is to start with some basic assumptions. You set out these assumptions in the language of science, maths and then combine and manipulate them to make new predictions. These predictions are numerical and contain errors. Using numbers, predictions and errors is the ONLY way to objectively compare different models. Physics is the study, formulation and testing of mathematical models of the universe. A theory of everything would be mathematical, and in the regimes we know the other theories to work it would result in exactly the same answers. It'd have to because they are confirmed by observations in those regimes. Derivations from simple principles are a key method for finding out new predictions, just producing a formula and stating that it is true will not get you anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Aaa.. those numbers are rough estimate for rotational speed of Earth. 23 h 56 min... And that is supposed to be equal to....what? And how does that follow from your equation [math]G = \frac{1}{2} n_{1}n_{2}\cos \alpha[/math] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 <br />And that is supposed to be equal to....what? And how does that follow from your equation<br />[math]G = \frac{1}{2} n_{1}n_{2}\cos \alpha[/math]<br /><br /><br /><br /> It should be equal to (Universal) Gravitation constant measured. This equation implies that Gravitation constant is indeed not a constant. This is worrysome to astronomia! You can calculate normally Gravitation "force" with F = Gm1m2/r^2 but only when Earth is involved! Value for G will differ from systems to systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> It should be equal to (Universal) Gravitation constant measured. This equation implies that Gravitation constant is indeed not a constant. This is worrysome to astronomia! You can calculate normally Gravitation "force" with F = Gm1m2/r^2 but only when Earth is involved! Value for G will differ from systems to systems. I'm still waiting for you to do the math that shows why your interpretation of all of this is correct. Plug in some numbers and demonstrate the principles of your theory. And don't forget to explain what the numbers actually are (including units would help). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> It should be equal to (Universal) Gravitation constant measured. This equation implies that Gravitation constant is indeed not a constant. This is worrysome to astronomia! You can calculate normally Gravitation "force" with F = Gm1m2/r^2 but only when Earth is involved! Value for G will differ from systems to systems. Newtonian gravity pretty much works for the solar system. Your idea is therefore false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 <br />I'm still waiting for you to do the math that shows why your interpretation of all of this is correct. Plug in some numbers and demonstrate the principles of your theory. And don't forget to explain what the numbers actually are (including units would help).<br /><br /><br /><br /> I was in hurry, sorry! I do better example later I promise. Bottom line is that my formula gives Gravitational constant by calculating it on Earth. Sad thing is that that GC is not universal. <br />Newtonian gravity pretty much works for the solar system. Your idea is therefore false.<br /><br /><br /><br /> You missed the point. I update my theory with proper example later. Hope that will clear some air here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> I was in hurry, sorry! I do better example later I promise. Bottom line is that my formula gives Gravitational constant by calculating it on Earth. Sad thing is that that GC is not universal. <br /><br /><br /> You missed the point. I update my theory with proper example later. Hope that will clear some air here. We have experimental evidence that G is indeed universal. Thus your proposal is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 We have experimental evidence that G is indeed universal. Thus your proposal is wrong. No it's not universal. But show me your evidence. mmm.. how about this http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058 interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 No it's not universal. But show me your evidence. How about you actually show us your calculations and the derivations of the equations your proposing, as we've been asking you to do all along, rather than having us rehash the last 200+ years of physics for you. It's simpler that way, and generally the way science is done - you know, you make the claim, you provide the proof. Treating G as universally constant has worked for everything from orbiting satellites to landing men and equipment on the Moon and Mars, and predicting the orbits of asteroids, comets, and previously unseen planets (Pluto is still a planet as far as I am concerned damnit), so there's 50 years of successful space flight and far more years of planetary observations backing up the idea that it doesn't vary. You have a couple of half-assed equations that you haven't even explained very well, and a lot of hand-waving Do you understand why we might remain skeptical of your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Do you understand why we might remain skeptical of your position? Totally!!! ToEbi makes even me sick. I believe in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Evidence that G is universal is readily available, have a look into predicting orbits or the moon landings. Are you going to present anything other than unfounded bold assertions? It's getting a little dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Evidence that G is universal is readily available, have a look into predicting orbits or the moon landings. Are you going to present anything other than unfounded bold assertions? It's getting a little dull. How about proof? http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058 -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Where is your mathematical prediction of this effect? Preferably with a derivation not just made up. Without that, no, it's not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Where is your mathematical prediction of this effect? Preferably with a derivation not just made up. Without that, no, it's not proof. First law of ToEbi. Observations comply with it. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 First law of ToEbi. Observations comply with it. You need to be able to show this using maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) You need to be able to show this using maths. Well, you know Earths rotational speed (in seconds). Do the math yourself. There is deviations in G observations (previous link), first law works again. When you pick certain star you calculate G between Earth and the star. Calculated G effects surface G on Earth by gravitation illusion. Do you follow? Edited August 4, 2012 by illuusio -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 How about proof? http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058 One paper on ArXiv (i.e. not peer-reviewed, not duplicated) does not constitute proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) One paper on ArXiv (i.e. not peer-reviewed, not duplicated) does not constitute proof. Ok, splitting hair but you are right. With ToEbi we can calculate and predict found differences! Edited August 4, 2012 by illuusio -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ok, splitting hair but you are right. With ToEbi we can calculate and predict found difference! You've failed to address how Newtonian gravity works in the examples given, why should we continue giving your idea any time? It has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 You've failed to address how Newtonian gravity works in the examples given, why should we continue giving your idea any time? It has been demonstrated to be incorrect. You can read it from finished document later. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ok, I for one have reached the end of my patience with this. When you are ready to provide something other than "Because I think should work" as an argument, this might become interesting again. Until then, you may as well take up arguing for a flat earth. You'll have as much success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ok, that angle is too much in planetary scale. It fits better in atomic scale. I'll update my theory in near future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ok, that angle is too much in planetary scale. It fits better in atomic scale. I'll update my theory in near future! Doesn't sound like a theory of everything... A gravity theory that can't predict orbits observed in the solar system isn't going to hold much weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ok, here is updated version of ToEbi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Still not what was required to substantiate the claims you've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts