What's wrong with physics?

[Native]

What does cultural understanding have to do with physics?

Well apparently and understandable nothing to you - despite you own interest for these.

Physics fall under the category of Physical Sciences or Natural Sciences. It doesn’t concern itself with any culture, and cultural understanding don’t help with understanding physics.

You´re showing out your own lack of connecting things.

If really are interested in cultural studies then you are in the wrong realm of science. Cultural studies like sociology or anthropology belonged to the category of Social Sciences.

It is you who’s being irrelevant with nonsense.

I really would be seriously concerned for myself if someone with real knowledge and critical independent thinking said this to me.

In this case I´m not concerned at all.

 

[gnostic]

Newton is completely irrelevant to ancient observations and markings of the planetary motions.

I am talking of the natural and and overall notions of the planetary motions and not of your matemathics of a force which isn´t there. Besides this, ancient observations were pretty accurate, but how can a rejecter of philosophy know that.

The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, before Greek Natural Philosophy and Greek mathematics, believed that the Earth was FLAT, like disk. It was several Greek philosophers who proposed the Earth was spheroid in shape, as were the sun, moon and planets.

For example, the Egyptians thought of the Sun as a disk, not as sphere or spheroid like a ball or orb.

The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians have also thought the earth was stationary while the Sun and planets were traversing the Earth’s sky, hence they believed in geocentric planetary motion like Claudius Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s treatise on geocentric model would remain the standard model, despite being wrong.

There is Egyptian myth that Ra, assisted by his crew sailed the sky, from east to west, then enter the Netherworld, and during the night with them battling demons and monsters, with Ra beheading the serpent-demon Apophis (Apep), before their boat re-emerged from the Netherworld in the east horizon, to start the new day.

It is a fascinating myth, but based on false reality.

It was the Hellenistic astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos (flourished around the 3rd century BCE), who proposed a model of the heliocentric planetary motion. Much of what we know of Aristarchus’ works didn’t survive, had the late 3rd century BCE famous mathematician/astronomer/inventor from Syracuse - Archimedes - not write about Aristarchus’ heliocentric planetary motion.

Aristarchus’ heliocentric model, was unpopular, and didn’t gain any headway, until Nicklaus Copernicus, followed by Galileo Galilei.

But Polymath257 is right, Newton had a better understanding of the Solar System than the Bronze Age Egyptian astronomy and Babylonian astronomy.

 

[Native]

But Polymath257 is right, Newton had a better understanding of the Solar System than the Bronze Age Egyptian astronomy and Babylonian astronomy.

At least our ancestors didn´t invented heavy dark, holes, dark matter and dark energy as superstitious modern scientists. And they didn´t have a Big Bang nonsense too.

And, as they were able to have out of body cosmic journeys, Newtons silly "gravity" was no problem at all and neither was the stupid sending spacecraft out in order to gain cosmic knowledge.

 

[Native]

For example, the Egyptians thought of the Sun as a disk, not as sphere or spheroid like a ball or orb.

They certainly did not. But I´ll spare you for the real and logical explanation as you apparently and simply cannot take it in.

 

[gnostic]

At least our ancestors didn´t invented heavy dark, holes, dark matter and dark energy as superstitious modern scientists. And they didn´t have a Big Bang nonsense too.

And you think Ra sailing through the sky and the Netherworld better?

 

[Native]

And you think Ra sailing through the sky and the Netherworld better?

It would be to you too if you understod ancient myths and its factual astronomical and cosmological contents.

 

[joelr]

NO, it was first invented in galaxies because of a gravitational rotation anomaly. And the Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy. make your own conclusions.

If I made my own conclusions it would be crank. The success of gravity at atomic, millimeter, laboratory, geophysical, satellite, solar system and beyond (Pioneer) is stunning and beyond any doubt.

I´ve never said this is wrong. Newton could easily set the planetary motions on formulas as he knew of these empirical motions.

What I´m saying is that Newtons "g" is assumed from a false perception.

What false perception? At this point gravity has been confirmed in so many ways that it's not in question.

That´s what I´m saying too: "Gravity" is a pressure and not a pull.

If you are saying gravity is something else besides general relativity then link to a paper.

How do you think comets are develloping visible tails if there wasn´t a resistance on it´s velocity? Why is the Earth magnetic field stretched out? Read more here - Interplanetary medium - Wikipedia

Those magnetic fields can effect ions and electrons which is why we see a comets tail. There is no science to show any of that accounts for a comets velocity or space travel.

Why would Einstein make his own gravity ideas if Newtons were OK?

Einstein refined Newtonian gravity. You can still get Newtonian equations from general relativity. But GR allows a more fine tuned measurement and gives deeper explanations for gravity.

Maybe you then politely should have asked into this - BEFORE rejecting the proposals.

NO I definitely reject your proposal that gravity is false. That was my polite way of saying you are not even making an argument. You are just saying gravity is wrong without demonstrating it and without giving an alternative model.

Why don´t you explain the "Newtons gravity" to me before taking the consensus assumptions for granted? If you can, you´ll be the first.

Why do you think I take gravity for granted?
At the atomic scale gravitational measurements using atom interferometry show stunning accuracy. The torsion balance experiments ended up being another success, moveable field masses were all in agreement, geophysical experiments agreed with predicted values as well as several other experiments.
GR tests with atomic clocks showed precise time delay as predicted, several different satellite systems, the 4 original tests have been confirmed and the Cassini spacecraft data has the most detailed proof of GR yet. More satellites are being prepared.

One proof of actual dark matter involves gravitation, a larger amount of gravitational lensing which suggests hidden mass. Lensing itself is another prediction of GR.

Your request doesn't make sense because Newton didn't claim to understand gravity, he just considered it a force.

If you can,

Ha, that's funny. The best source you have is a strawman joke article?
his points:
1) gravity is weak in comparison. - Wow so size does matter? Have him jump off a cliff and see how weak gravity is at a planetary scale. It's actually just the right strength, were it equal to EM everything would be a black hole.
2) no quantum solution. - This is what I get for reading science from the Washington Post
3)"The path seems straight only because you’re standing still relative to the Earth."
"We can just as easily argue — as Einstein did, expanding on Galileo’s ship/shore relativism that the rock isn’t falling toward the Earth"

- Did he write this article in 1890? Or is hinting at relativity as if it isn't a completely proven theory supposed to be funny? Thank you pop-sci for completely wasting my time.

All this has been dealt with. If you want to understand it I'm sure you can figure it out. For sure you can find better articles.

 

[Native]

If I made my own conclusions it would be crank.

Not necessarily in my opinion.

NO I definitely reject your proposal that gravity is false.

Ok then.

Your request doesn't make sense because Newton didn't claim to understand gravity, he just considered it a force.

Then you just believe in Newtons unsubstanciated assumptions and in all its modern connected assumptions of dark things, hole and energies.

To me, this sounds more of superstitious speculations and not science.

 

[night912]

It would be to you too if you understod ancient myths and its factual astronomical and cosmological contents.

So after being unable to defend your argument using science, being that it was based on pseudoscience, you resorted to using mythology now?
Hahahaha. Now you're trying to argue that the movement of the sun is because it's in a boat that sails across the sky. So is Ra's ship made up of magnets that's why the Earth has a magnetic field?


Be honest, you were watching Stargate when the idea of using Ra to argue against gravity, didn't you? Was it because of the scene towards the end of the movie where Ra was attempting to get away by flying up into space in his ship? Ra defying gravity in the movie had that much impact on how you view reality? It's not surprising.

PS.
Go watch the TV series. It's a lot better, they successfully combined mythology and science and made it into a great science fiction show. Just remember to not take all of the scientific jargon from the show as being scientific facts.

 

[Native]

So after being unable to defend your argument using science, being that it was based on pseudoscience, you resorted to using mythology now?
Hahahaha. Now you're trying to argue that the movement of the sun is because it's in a boat that sails across the sky. So is Ra's ship made up of magnets that's why the Earth has a magnetic field?

If you have no clues of what you´re talking about here, I suggest you to ask into what you obviously don´t understand instead of using your ignorance as arguments.

 

[night912]

If you have no clues of what you´re talking about here, I suggest you to ask into what you obviously don´t understand before using your ignorance as arguments.

Why don't you take your own words seriously. I wonder why the ignorant don't ever listen to their own suggestions regarding ignorance?

And no, you're wrong. I wasn't making an argument. I was simply making a point from observations regarding your ignorance of science.
I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your ignorance so you know that you need to do more research on it.

For example, in this very post, one of the reasons for commenting is to let you know that you are ignorant of the meaning of the word, "argument." This is so in the future, you can differentiate between what an "argument" is and what is not.

PS.
I'm literally looking at the sun as I type this comment, and I don't see the sun in a ship sailing across the sky. Do I need some special equipment that you have in order to see Ra's ship?

 

[Native]

Why don't you take your own words seriously. I wonder why the ignorant don't ever listen to their own suggestions regarding ignorance?

And no, you're wrong. I wasn't making an argument. I was simply making a point from observations regarding your ignorance of science.
I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your ignorance so you know that you need to do more research on it.

For example, in this very post, one of the reasons for commenting is to let you know that you are ignorant of the meaning of the word, "argument." This is so in the future, you can differentiate between what an "argument" is and what is not.

Bla bla parottings.

PS.
I'm literally looking at the sun as I type this comment, and I don't see the sun in a ship sailing across the sky. Do I need some special equipment that you have in order to see Ra's ship?

Yes you have to have: The equipment of understanding ancient myths.

As said before: Just ask politely into the subject instead of expressing your emotional and sarcastic attitudes.

 

[blü 2]

At least our ancestors didn´t invented heavy dark

Heavy dark matter has been an hypothesis about the "dark matter" problem that so far has received little support. All the same, it was a scientific hypothesis expressed in falsifiable language, and like all properly framed failures, a valid part of science.

[black] holes,

Are you saying black holes don't exist? If you are, then from what evidence acceptable to science do you draw that conclusion?

dark matter

At present dark matter, the name of an undemonstrated hypothesis, is more the name of a problem ─ if you don't understand which problem then let me know ─ than the name of a solution, which it has not so far been able to claim to be.

and dark energy

Same again ─ an undemonstrated hypothesis, and so better regarded as the name of a problem, not of a solution.

as superstitious modern scientists.

Twice I've asked you to explain your position and twice you've run away. You haven't persuaded me that you command sufficient understanding, let alone authority, to tell science it's wrong. Even were your claim ultimately right, my statement would still be correct.

And they didn´t have a Big Bang nonsense too.

What is your refutation, in terms acceptable to science, that the present theory of the Big Bang is wrong?

You'd be a much more interesting controversialist if you could be regarded as knowing what you were talking about, instead of being magnetically attracted to dingbat notions. So I'd be delighted to receive a coherent and informed reply from you this time ─ and not from other people's papers and videos.

 

[Polymath257]

And in other developments, scientists measure the gravity from a 90 milligram object.

Researchers measure the gravity exerted by a 90 milligram object

Funny how that is possible with a non-existent force.

And, of course, we now have a picture in polarized light of the region around a black hole:

Event Horizon Telescope captures new view of black hole in polarized light

Funny how that is possible if black holes do not exist.

 

[Native]

And in other developments, scientists measure the gravity from a 90 milligram object.

Researchers measure the gravity exerted by a 90 milligram object

Funny how that is possible with a non-existent force.

And, of course, we now have a picture in polarized light of the region around a black hole:

Event Horizon Telescope captures new view of black hole in polarized light

Funny how that is possible if black holes do not exist.

Quote from - http://solar-center.stanford.edu/activities/jeff/Gravity.html

Physicists know about 4 fundamental forces. Two of them, the strong and weak nuclear forces, have to do with holding together the nucleus (the lump in the middle made from Protons and Neutrons) of an atom.

These 2 forces are important to how the Universe runs and how stars shine but you never see them working out here in the "real" world.

The other 2 forces are Gravity and Electromagnetism. Everything you and I know about the world we live in is from these 2 forces. Electromagnetism deals mostly with electrons talking to electrons. Everything you can see, smell, touch, hear or taste is electrons talking to electrons.

Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground and the Earth moving around the Sun. Now you know how hard it is to fight gravity (just how many pull-ups can you do?) so it must be a strong force, right?

Well, it turns out that Gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces, and it is not just a little bit weaker. It is weaker than you can even imagine!

Sounds like we are right back to the start of this lesson again. Let us put some real numbers on this.

The "weak" nuclear force is 10 to the 25th power stronger than Gravity. That is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

Electromagnetism - the force we know best - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

The "strong" nuclear force is 10 to the 38th power stronger than Gravity. That is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

Would you like a real, mind boggling picture for that? The diameter of the *smallest atom, Hydrogen, is about 10 to the -10 power meters.

The diameter of the *entire universe* is about 10 to the 26th power meters. So, the difference between the diameter of the smallest atom and the entire Universe is about 10 to the 36th power.

That means that if you measured the gravitational attraction between the electron and proton in a Hydrogen atom, it is about the same amount of force as the electromagnetic attraction of an electron and a proton at opposite sides of the Universe!

If that does not boggle your mind, your mind is unboggleable! Gravity is *really* weak!
----------------------
Still some conventionalist have this silly superstitiously invented occult force to govern the entire Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Quote from - http://solar-center.stanford.edu/activities/jeff/Gravity.html

Physicists know about 4 fundamental forces. Two of them, the strong and weak nuclear forces, have to do with holding together the nucleus (the lump in the middle made from Protons and Neutrons) of an atom.

These 2 forces are important to how the Universe runs and how stars shine but you never see them working out here in the "real" world.

The other 2 forces are Gravity and Electromagnetism. Everything you and I know about the world we live in is from these 2 forces. Electromagnetism deals mostly with electrons talking to electrons. Everything you can see, smell, touch, hear or taste is electrons talking to electrons.

Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground and the Earth moving around the Sun. Now you know how hard it is to fight gravity (just how many pull-ups can you do?) so it must be a strong force, right?

Well, it turns out that Gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces, and it is not just a little bit weaker. It is weaker than you can even imagine!

Sounds like we are right back to the start of this lesson again. Let us put some real numbers on this.

The "weak" nuclear force is 10 to the 25th power stronger than Gravity. That is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

Electromagnetism - the force we know best - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

The "strong" nuclear force is 10 to the 38th power stronger than Gravity. That is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

Would you like a real, mind boggling picture for that? The diameter of the *smallest atom, Hydrogen, is about 10 to the -10 power meters.

The diameter of the *entire universe* is about 10 to the 26th power meters. So, the difference between the diameter of the smallest atom and the entire Universe is about 10 to the 36th power.

That means that if you measured the gravitational attraction between the electron and proton in a Hydrogen atom, it is about the same amount of force as the electromagnetic attraction of an electron and a proton at opposite sides of the Universe!

If that does not boggle your mind, your mind is unboggleable! Gravity is *really* weak!
----------------------
Still some conventionalist have this silly superstitiously invented occult force to govern the entire Universe.

Yes, the force of gravity from the whole Earth acting on a refrigerator magnet isn't enough to make it fall.

But that refrigerator magnet doesn't affect how a plastic ball falls nearby.

BOTH E&M and gravity are long distant forces. E&M is important in many situations, for example in the plasma surrounding a black hole or near a neutron star. Magnetic fields affect cosmic rays (which are subatomic particles). But gravity is what keeps planets in orbit.

E&M tends to affect mostly small objects, where gravity isn't strong enough to affect the motion. For things the size of even small asteroids, though, gravity is the dominant force.

YOU, on the other hand, want to completely deny that gravity even exists. That is difficult because we can directly measure the force of gravity between two 90 milligram objects.

 

[Native]

Yes, the force of gravity from the whole Earth acting on a refrigerator magnet isn't enough to make it fall.

But that refrigerator magnet doesn't affect how a plastic ball falls nearby.

Of course not. The weight of the air does all the jobs:

YOU, on the other hand, want to completely deny that gravity even exists.

Of course as I don´t believe in ghostst.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course not. The weight of the air does all the jobs:

It does the same in a vacuum. No air pressure in a vacuum.

Once again, you fail to consider that magnetism is insignificant in this situation.

Of course as I don´t believe in ghostst.

Except that it isn't a ghost.

The ball will fall in a vacuum chamber where there is no 'weight of the air' because there is NO AIR.

You consistently ignore this simple fact.

 

[Native]

It does the same in a vacuum. No air pressure in a vacuum.

Well don´t make the vacuum then. And don´t put the refrigirator in it." even don´t exist naturally in outer space too.

The ball will fall in a vacuum chamber where there is no 'weight of the air' because there is NO AIR.
You consistently ignore this simple fact.

Oc clourse I do as I´m only dealing with the very basics of natural conditions and not what happens when fiddling with these.

 

[Polymath257]

Well don´t make the vacuum then. And don´t put the refrigirator in it." even don´t exist naturally in outer space too.

BUT THINGS STILL FALL IN A VACUUM.

This means that air pressure is NOT what makes things fall.

Oc clourse I do as I´m only dealing with the very basics of natural conditions and not what happens when fiddling with these.

then you aren't doing science.