Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

A New Clue to Explain Existence (More matter than antimatter

Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jun 2010, 5:30 am

Inventor wrote:
The Big Bang produced many things, most did not last, and the real question of what started something from nothing is still unanswered. Post Bang, Newton works to explain how gravity forms stars, and some ten billion years later they explode and spew matter of a higher order about.

Newton also covers how that formed planets, and a lot of space junk.

.


Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified empirically. It does not account for the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Take a look at the law of mutual gravitation. It assumes that gravitational interaction is instantaneous. Gravitational interaction is bounded in speed and not instantaneous. Also the gravitational field itself gravitates, something that Newton's theory did not predict. The best practical demonstration of the inadequacy of Newton's law of gravitation occurs when the relativistic corrects of the GPS are turned off. The location data then becomes very inaccurate, off by kilometers.

ruveyn



StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

03 Jun 2010, 1:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The best practical demonstration of the inadequacy of Newton's law of gravitation occurs when the relativistic corrects of the GPS are turned off. The location data then becomes very inaccurate, off by kilometers.


Do you have a reference for the "kilometers" error?! If the effect was that large, then the apple would have missed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jun 2010, 2:27 pm

StuartN wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The best practical demonstration of the inadequacy of Newton's law of gravitation occurs when the relativistic corrects of the GPS are turned off. The location data then becomes very inaccurate, off by kilometers.


Do you have a reference for the "kilometers" error?! If the effect was that large, then the apple would have missed.


The apple hit the ground, just like it was supposed to.

the daily relativistic `correction of the GPS is 38 microseconds per day. 38 millionth of 186,000 mi (speed of light) is a bit over seven miles which will be the error at the end of the day (GPS clocks are reset once a day).

ruveyn



StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

04 Jun 2010, 2:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
the daily relativistic `correction of the GPS is 38 microseconds per day. 38 millionth of 186,000 mi (speed of light) is a bit over seven miles which will be the error at the end of the day (GPS clocks are reset once a day).


GPS clocks run at 1 part in 10 billion slower than Earth clocks to account for relativistic effects. The compound error between 3 or more satellites would amount to a positional error of just under 1 cm if uncorrected.

And of course it is the application of Newtonian dynamics that puts (and keeps) the satellites in orbit. For a discredited theory, it really serves very well.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jun 2010, 2:58 am

StuartN wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
the daily relativistic `correction of the GPS is 38 microseconds per day. 38 millionth of 186,000 mi (speed of light) is a bit over seven miles which will be the error at the end of the day (GPS clocks are reset once a day).


GPS clocks run at 1 part in 10 billion slower than Earth clocks to account for relativistic effects. The compound error between 3 or more satellites would amount to a positional error of just under 1 cm if uncorrected.

And of course it is the application of Newtonian dynamics that puts (and keeps) the satellites in orbit. For a discredited theory, it really serves very well.


Classical mechanics does fine for low energy regimes and systems where velocities are a small fraction of the speed of light. Classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics does not account for atomic processes or even the stability of atoms. For that, one needs quantum physics. However, classical physics is now a first class heuristic. It is no long a fundamental theory of the physical world. It is a first class rule of thumb.

ruveyn