What's wrong with physics?

[night912]

Einstein´s *rubber sheet gravity* which seemingly only is pushing down.

The reason why it seems to only be pushing down is because of physics. It's only a picture, so physically, the image is not moving. So it only seems like it is pushing down because what you see, is only an image of a planet from a digitalized picture, it is not the physical planet in space. I'm not a physicist, hopefully you gain a little bit of knowledge from that explanation. .

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason why it seems to only be pushing down is because of physics. It's only a picture, so physically, the image is not moving. So it only seems like it is pushing down because what you see, is only an image of a planet from a digitalized picture, it is not the physical planet in space. I'm not a physicist, hopefully you gain a little bit of knowledge from that explanation. .

View attachment 47880

View attachment 47878

View attachment 47877

What insanity is this? Pushing up, down, sideways?

Part of the problem is that instinctually people tend to be flat Earthers. That is why the typical illustration is interpreted as the Earth "going down". Even though "down" in space can only be towards a massive object. I

 

[Native]

More specifically, the assumption of an inverse square force proportional to both of the masses:

Correct, and this was also my intention to conclude as you do..

in other words, gravity.

Yes with YOUR words but not mine.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Wrong attitude once again.

Not an attitude.

Yes it is if you are interested to have a discussion with me regarding the assumption of an *apple-gravitation*.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct, and this was also my intention to conclude as you do..

Yes with YOUR words but not mine.

So you agree that the calculations require the assumption of gravity? I thought you didn't.

What is your position about the link between the calculations (using an inverse square law to determine motions) and the assumption of gravity (assuming an inverse square law)?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Wrong attitude once again.

Yes it is if you are interested to have a discussion with me regarding the assumption of an *apple-gravitation*.

The assumption is that there is a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance and proportional to both masses. From that assumption, it is possible to deduce the motions of the planets in detail. We call that force gravity.

 

[Native]

The reason why it seems to only be pushing down is because of physics. It's only a picture, so physically, the image is not moving. So it only seems like it is pushing down because what you see, is only an image of a planet from a digitalized picture, it is not the physical planet in space. I'm not a physicist, hopefully you gain a little bit of knowledge from that explanation.

Not at all. It´s all nothing but Einsteins speculative attempt to "explain" Newtons *occult agency apple-ideas* - which Einstein himself claimed was not a force at all.

 

[Native]

So you agree that the calculations require the assumption of gravity? I thought you didn't.

This is a nonsense argument conclusion and you know it!

I´m beginning to think you even don´t deserve to have a conversation with me.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a nonsense argument conclusion and you know it!

I´m beginning to think you even don´t deserve to have a conversation with me.

What is nonsense about it? The calculations are based on a force that decreases as the inverse square of the distance and is proportional to both masses. The calculations use, specifically F=ma and F=GMm/r^2.

So, *if* you are doing those calculations, you are assuming the existence of that force. Conversely, there is no reason to do those specific calculations unless you think there is such an inverse square force.

You said you agree with the calculations and disagree with the existence of that force. how do you reconcile those positions?

Once again: What is your position about the link between the calculations (using an inverse square law to determine motions) and the assumption of gravity (assuming an inverse square law)?

 

[Polymath257]

Not at all. It´s all nothing but Einsteins speculative attempt to "explain" Newtons *occult agency apple-ideas* - which Einstein himself claimed was not a force at all.

And Einstein's speculations have since been verified by observation.

 

[Native]

What is nonsense about it?

This is a non sensical argument:

So you agree that the calculations require the assumption of gravity? I thought you didn't.

You assert me to agree with your gravity which you by now should have grasped that I surely don´t.

 

[Native]

And Einstein's speculations have since been verified by observation.

You´re conflating the concept of *assumption* and hindsigt bias ad hoc assumptions for *evidence*.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You´re conflating the concept of *assumption* and hindsigt bias ad hoc assumptions for *evidence*.

Nope. He isn't. Let's discuss the nature of scientific evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a non sensical argument:

You assert me to agree with your gravity which you by now should have grasped that I surely don´t.

You have said you agree with the calculations. But those calculations are based on the assumption of gravity. The assumption of gravity is what motivates which calculations are done.

Specifically, the calculations depend on there being an inverse square force that is proportional to mass.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[Polymath257]

You´re conflating the concept of *assumption* and hindsigt bias ad hoc assumptions for *evidence*.

No, I am not. The assumption leads to a *prediction* that is different than alternative assumptions. Then, observations are made to see which of the assumptions made the correct prediction. That *is* evidence.

 

[night912]

Should be: "You can't have the CALCULATIONS without an assumption of a force".

Does that calculation work for any force or just for the force known as gravity?

 

[Native]

Does that calculation work for any force

Yes it does.

Specifically, the calculations depend on there being an inverse square force that is proportional to mass.
How do you reconcile that?

I reconcile this:
"Atmospheric pressure, also known as barometric pressure (after the barometer), is the pressure within the atmosphere of Earth. The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa (1,013.25 hPa; 1,013.25 mbar), which is equivalent to 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi.[1] The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth, that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 1 atm.

In most circumstances, atmospheric pressure is closely approximated by the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of air above the measurement point. As elevation increases, there is less overlying atmospheric mass, so that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation. Pressure measures force per unit area, with SI units of Pascals (1 pascal = 1 newton per square metre, 1 N/m2). On average, a column of air with a cross-sectional area of 1 square centimetre (cm2), measured from mean (average) sea level to the top of Earth's atmosphere, has a mass of about 1.03 kilogram and exerts a force or "weight" of about 10.1 newtons, resulting in a pressure of 10.1 N/cm2 or 101 kN/m2 (101 kilopascals, kPa). A column of air with a cross-sectional area of 1 in2 would have a weight of about 14.7 lbf, resulting in a pressure of 14.7 lbf/in2".
-------------
Regarding the very calculations, it doesn´t matter if you call these theoretical equations and conditions for *Gravity* or *Atmospheric Pressure*.

BUT it of course and logically goes all wrong when superimposing this *Newtons occult gravity* all over in the Universe (and take it as an explanation of cosmic formation in generally) as the calculations only applies for terrestrial and celestial planetary PRESSURE matters.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes it does.

I reconcile this:
"Atmospheric pressure, also known as barometric pressure (after the barometer), is the pressure within the atmosphere of Earth. The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa (1,013.25 hPa; 1,013.25 mbar), which is equivalent to 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi.[1] The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth, that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 1 atm.

In most circumstances, atmospheric pressure is closely approximated by the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of air above the measurement point. As elevation increases, there is less overlying atmospheric mass, so that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation. Pressure measures force per unit area, with SI units of Pascals (1 pascal = 1 newton per square metre, 1 N/m2). On average, a column of air with a cross-sectional area of 1 square centimetre (cm2), measured from mean (average) sea level to the top of Earth's atmosphere, has a mass of about 1.03 kilogram and exerts a force or "weight" of about 10.1 newtons, resulting in a pressure of 10.1 N/cm2 or 101 kN/m2 (101 kilopascals, kPa). A column of air with a cross-sectional area of 1 in2 would have a weight of about 14.7 lbf, resulting in a pressure of 14.7 lbf/in2".
-------------

His is all true, but completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing. We were discussing the solar system, not gravity on the Earth.

But, even on Earth, this fails to explain what we observe.

Regarding the very calculations, it doesn´t matter if you call these theoretical equations and conditions for *Gravity* or *Atmospheric Pressure*.

BUT it of course and logically goes all wrong when superimposing this *Newtons occult gravity* all over in the Universe (and take it as an explanation of cosmic formation in generally) as the calculations only applies for terrestrial and celestial planetary PRESSURE matters.

Of course it makes a difference! First, in the *solar system* there is no atmospheric pressure. And that is what we were talking about: describing the motion of the planets. THOSE calculations explicitly involve an inverse square law force. And, in the solar system, those calculations agree with observations.

You have said you agree with the calculations. But there is no way to separate the calculations from the assumption of gravity. The *first* step in the calculations is to set up the total force on each planet, which uses the assumed inverse square law. That gives a system of equations to solve. After they are solved, the positions of the planets at any time is given. But that system of equations *explicitly* has that inverse square law in them.

So, you can't have it both ways. You can't say the calculations are correct AND that you disagree with the theory of gravity. The two are the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Einstein´s *rubber sheet gravity* which seemingly only is pushing down.

Ow boy.....


View attachment 47893

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a non sensical argument:

You assert me to agree with your gravity which you by now should have grasped that I surely don´t.

You are not making any sense at all.

Seems like you just agree with everything @Polymath257 said concerning the calculations and the inverse square of the distances and proportional to the masses involved and then only disagree with labeling that "gravity".

You can call it "poppykock" if you want. As long as it's clear that it concerns the inverse square of the distance in proportion to the masses.

You can call it whatever you want while the rest of the world labels that "gravity".