Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

@neologist,

Quote:

Newton's assumptions work for most applications.
I'm right, ain't I?

That doesn't mean the theory is right.
In th early days, 'phlogiston' worked also, but it was wrong anyway.

Furthermore there is a huge difference between technology and physics.
They are NOT the same!

'modern science' sells us a lot of propaganda to show that it is responsiblle for technology. It is not!

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

I learnt something new recently fron "Stephen Hawkings Universe' TV show, namely that massive objects slow down time!
For example we were shown a couple of people standing near the Great Pyramid and told that for them, time is running slower because of the zillion-ton pyramid behind them.
That means that if we were to draw a map of the earth showing areas where time is running slower, it'd be covered in thousands of "slow spots" where there are mountains, rock densities, large buildings etc

offcoures time doesnn't run slower.
clocks may, but not time itself, it is ridiculous.
Furthermore Hawkins is a dishonest man!

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

The floor does zero work holding you up. It is a force, but not a force acting over a distance.

this calculation is offcourse very wrong!
Offcourse it does work!

This only proves people don't think, and use math in a very dumb way.

figures.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

In th early days, 'phlogiston' worked also, but it was wrong anyway.

Phlogiston theory has been replaced with something that works better. With what will you replace Newtonian physics?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Phlogiston theory has been replaced with something that works better. With what will you replace Newtonian physics?

I was illustrating something, I really think there is much better physics than Newtonian , but that waswn't my point here.

Not having something better, doesn't make a theory true offcourse!
I hear it all the time with the evolutionhoax. People asking if I have better theories. But they don't understand they are defending a religion.

So I stick with the arguments.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

I was illustrating something, I really think there is much better physics than Newtonian , but that waswn't my point here. . .

But that was my point. And you should address it if you wish to keep my interest.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

But that was my point. And you should address it if you wish to keep my interest.

wishing to keep your interest???? I really don't care at all about that,

byut it seems you don't get what I am saying.

That's okay too.

1 Reply

Quote:

Romeo said: I learnt something new recently fron "Stephen Hawkings Universe' TV show, namely that massive objects slow down time!
Qehon replied: offcoures time doesnn't run slower.
clocks may, but not time itself, it is ridiculous.
Furthermore Hawkins is a dishonest man!

But if clocks are running slower, what's causing it?
And remember our body aging process runs slower too, not just clocks.
As for Hawking, he once said in one of his books that whenever he was wrong in the past he simply admitted it and changed his point of view rather than try to bluff it out, so that makes him pretty honest in my book.. Smile

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body

Is this really true? Is there good proof, or is it all just nonsense?

Why don't you find out? Go measure!

Quehoniaomath wrote:

people really think a floor is pushing back????

Yes.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

I have to laugh

So?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

But if clocks are running slower, what's causing it?
And remember our body aging process runs slower too, not just clocks.

Maybe a lot of things offcourse, but not time itself.
There is no real proof that it does, including the atomic clock experiments on
planes. I wrote about that before. But that was at the Einstein debunked thread.
I wrote earlier that it is veryy funy seeing scientist use something they don't know anything about, that is 'time'.

Quote:

As for Hawking, he once said in one of his books that whenever he was wrong in the past he simply admitted it and changed his point of view rather than try to bluff it out, so that makes him pretty honest in my book.

Yes, I understand, but here he sounds more like a politician!
Anyway, he lies about paranormal stuff.
provable.
so he is dishonest in my book.
he is just here to sell us the mainstream worldview that's all.
He is not very smart, at least he doesn;t show it at all!

Liek Dawkins, Hawkins lies as well! They have to, they are really salesman!

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

. . . byut it seems you don't get what I am saying. . .

Perhaps you are not saying anything

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

However, wiht regards of the force from the floor (F), why doesn't it diminish and where is it's powersource?????????

Because the floor isn't doing any work, and consequently isn't expending energy that requires a source. Power is defined as work per unit of time, and work is defined as energy times distance. If the distance is zero, work and hence power become zero, too. And that's why the floor doesn't need a power source to exert force on the walker's feet.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Physics doens't even see what's wrong with the 'theory' of why a light bulb works!

Why don't you read a physics book, then solve some problems involving the concepts of work, energy, and Newton's equations, and then come back to us? It's okay to criticize Newton and classical mechanics, but one first needs to understand what one is criticizing. You obviously don't.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Because the floor isn't doing any work, and consequently isn't expending energy that requires a source.

You are making a mistake here.
You see you use the 'work equation' (W=F x d) not to calculate but to see if any work is done at all.

Now, that isn't where it is for! You are using it wrongly.
you are using the 'work force' beyond its original intent!
It is NOT a generic work 'detector' that tells us
whether any energy was expended by an arbitrary event!!
It is an engineering tool! that's all.

Let's see,

A big man has eaten a lot of food and is very strong.
He is in front of a huge rock.
Now he is going to try to move the rock, but he can't.
The rock is too heavy.
He tries for hours and hours, but alas,
The stone hasn't moved a bit!
But the man is exhausted! But according to the work equation he hasn't done any work at all, because d=0 so W=0.
Don't you see how stupid it is?
You really can't use it this way.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

One thing we know doesn't do any work is your brain.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

One thing we know doesn't do any work is your brain.

you silly sod, why to insult again instead of discussing the arguments?
Tell me please, has the man worked or not, that's the question!

Something is really bothering you and I think I know what it is. Wink

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Your brain doesn't do any work because you think using a logical fallacy is a valid argument.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Tell me please, has the man worked or not, that's the question!

Of course he hasn't worked, not at all. To an outside observer, this is obvious. Before he started, there is a man and a rock. When he is done, there is a man and a rock in the same position. Nothing has changed. Why do you think he did any work? If you were paying him to move rocks, would you think he'd put in a full day of work because he worked up a sweat not moving rocks?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Your brain doesn't do any work because you think using a logical fallacy is a valid argument.

Well, wouldn't it be better and more logical and intelligent and wiser on your part to tell the world where it is! Instead of trying in a very stupid way to insult me.

I can't remember having insulting you, did I?

So, instead of insulting, give some good counter arguments.

So far, you haven't given any and wasted your time trying to insult me.
But you see, I don't care about insult.
People try to keep me inline like a sort of taught-police. But most are unaware they are policing, including you.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Of course he hasn't worked, not at all. To an outside observer, this is obvious. Before he started, there is a man and a rock. When he is done, there is a man and a rock in the same position. Nothing has changed. Why do you think he did any work? If you were paying him to move rocks, would you think he'd put in a full day of work because he worked up a sweat not moving rocks?

You'r serious now????????????????????????????

Hasn't worked???????????????????????????

Please tell me why is exhausted then?? Because he hasn't worked?????????????

Your telling jokes now, right???? ( I am afraid not)

Put some common sense in to yourself please!

And stop hiding behind some mathematical formulas without thinking yourself!

Get me out of here, Dorothy! I am feeling like Alice in Wonderland now!

unbelievable!!!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

If you were paying him to move rocks, would you pay him? Has he "worked" for you? I'm asking you a common sense question; no formulas here. If you see two men with two rocks, you leave and come back and both men and both rocks are still sitting there but one man looks sweaty while the other is not. Are you going to pay the sweaty guy? What if the other guy says he "worked" really hard too? Do you pay for results or good intentions?

1 Reply

Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know