Truely universal time and distance

[pcchen]

Why, it's just the simple truth. Gravity is so far still a mystery.

It's not. Newton's gravity theory is so accurate that we're still using that today for spaceships. And there are no known problems with Einstein's theory for now (the problems with quantum mechanics are theoretical, not experimental). However, although theoretical problems are important (because that's basically how people find out new things), it's hardly a "mystery" because if that's mystery then everything are mystery because you can never know how things actually work (maybe we live in a super computer simulation, who knows?)

 

[_xxx_]

I'm not talking about calculating gravitation (!= gravity) on Earth (which is also not a constant anyway), but the principles and workings behind it. It is a total unknown to science so far.

Feel free to point me to the proof of your claims though, I may have missed some new developments.

The problem with Einsteins theory WAS exactly the gravity. The only thing that wouldn't fit a unified theory, thus he published none such.

 

[pcchen]

I'm not talking about calculating gravitation (!= gravity) on Earth (which is also not a constant anyway), but the principles and workings behind it. It is a total unknown to science so far.

Feel free to point me to the proof of your claims though, I may have missed some new developments.

The problem with Einsteins theory WAS exactly the gravity. The only thing that wouldn't fit a unified theory, thus he published none such.

Why do you need an unified theory for something to work? It's desirable theoretically (because as I said that's how we make new findings), but not practically.
Newton's theory is not just for "gravitation on Earth." It's for everything, it's just not as accurate as Einstein's theory. Spaceships visit Jupiter or farther planets with calculations using Newton's theory. If you think there are some "new developements" the you lag for at least one century.
As for "principles and workings behind it" that's totally unknownable. You can never know how something works "behind it" as I already said that we may actually live inside a simulation.

 

[_xxx_]

Newtons theory in its initial form is pure bullshit and laughable from todays POV. His theory is actually good for exactly nothing if you're looking for correct results (regardless of the fact that Newton was not the one who discovered it but Kepler, though that's too much OT). His theory is nothing but a model which is valid only for a certain place and fully static.

Unified theory as such is not "needed" for anything, but the gravity is the only force (I know I know, but let's just call it a force for the sake of discussion) that doesn't fit anywhere.

"Living inside the simulation" takes us back to the beginning of the discussion - confirming that all our measures are just relative and fitting only our limited world-view, and that only under certain conditions. But that's rather a philosophical question then a scientific one.

When exactly did we have a spaceship visiting Jupiter? Also contrary to what you think, there is pretty much nothing Newton-related in the involved physics there. Read up on the first rocket/satellite launches and old Von Braun texts, you will see that they didn't get very far with Newton and had to find workarounds for many irregularities, among other things the resulting orbit was WAY different (higher) than any prior calculations suggested. Also the first shots at the Moon have all missed by many thousands of miles due to that failure, both russian and american.

 

[pcchen]

Newtons theory in its initial form is pure bullshit and laughable from todays POV. His theory is actually good for exactly nothing if you're looking for correct results (regardless of the fact that Newton was not the one who discovered it but Kepler, though that's too much OT). His theory is nothing but a model which is valid only for a certain place and fully static.

It's not. I already corrected you on this in another thread, so I don't want to repeat that.

 

[_xxx_]

You can repeat is as much as you want, it still won't become any truer because of that. Again, READ the stuff I mentioned and convince yourself first-hand.

Here's a nice summary of the problems:

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/van90/ExplorerSatellites_LudwigOct2004.pdf

Also here: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

Obviously, at some point after that memorable January night, von Braun had carried out the same calculations we just did ... and had come to the same conclusion:

Namely, that-

"Something" was radically wrong with all existing gravitational theories ... used (quite unsuccessfully, it turned out ...) to attempt to predict the orbit of Explorer I.

In other words, Von Braun -- contrary to his public "caviler dismissals" of Explorer I's anomalous behavior (the statements in the Sunday Register ...) -- privately, was clearly ... secretly ... bent on finding "a serious, workable alternative to Newton and Einstein ...!"

As his independently confirmed private correspondence with Burkhard Heim, now unquestionably confirms.

 

[pcchen]

You can repeat is as much as you want, it still won't become any truer because of that. Again, READ the stuff I mentioned and convince yourself first-hand.

That's why I said I don't want to repeat it. I won't waste my time trying to convince you. I'm just trying to provide better information for this thread.

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/van90/ExplorerSatellites_LudwigOct2004.pdf

This has nothing to do with gravity.

Also here: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

And this failed to tell what's the "great secret new" gravity theory. After all, the good old Newton's (and Einstein's) theories are still widely use today.

By the way, USSR's first moon project (Luna 1) failed because a malfunction on a ground based control system, not the computation of its trajectory. Their second mission hit the target, without the need of a "secret new" gravity theory.

You have to understand that Newton's gravity theory is indeed not accurate. It has a problem (probably the only known problem before 20th century) about Mercury's orbit (which, by the way, is a very small effect, only deviate from Newton's theory by -3.54 arcsec per century, about 0.06%). This problem was found in 1859 by a French named Urbain Le Verrier. He proposed that that there may be another planet behind to sun which caused this discrepancy. After all, some guys already found a new planet (Neptune) by this way. He even gave a name to this new planet, called "Vulcan." (I'm not making this up) Of course, no one found any sign of this new planet.

Of course, then Einstein solved this problem by general relativity. The first order approximation of general relativity is Newton's gravity theory. The second order approximation leads to the correct prediction of Mercury's orbit. This convinced Einstein that his theory is correct (or at least, more correct than Newton's).

 

[_xxx_]

This has nothing to do with gravity.

LOL? They describe it right there that all the calculations turned out being useless and our theories about gravity are simply wrong. Proven through REAL experiment, see all those failed/miscalculated launches.

And this failed to tell what's the "great secret new" gravity theory.

There is none, thus they had to use workarounds deduced through trial and error.

Back to beginning - the science still has no idea how gravity works or what it is. That's a simple fact.

You have to understand that Newton's gravity theory is indeed not accurate.

Oh really? I've been saying that all along, nice that you're slowly starting to get it (though still in a wrong way).

But let's just cut this, this pissing match is useless. Let's say that you are right - how would that help the actual topic question here? We still have no "sure" reference.

 

[pcchen]

Oh really? I've been saying that all along, nice that you're slowly starting to get it (though still in a wrong way).

But let's just cut this, this pissing match is useless. Let's say that you are right - how would that help the actual topic question here? We still have no "sure" reference.

Do you even read my post? I said it's not accurate but the difference is extremely small (0.06% per century), which are corrected by Einstein's general relativity. Normal spaceship trajectory computations do not need to care about this difference. Or did you suggest that we need to use Einstein's theory for normal spaceships? No, you did not. You suggested that we need "strange" corrections which are "beyond Newton and Einstein."

My point in this thread is just in my first post: physics laws is about experiments, real world, practical uses. A theory (every theory, not just gravity) is only as good as how close it is to experiment results. There is nothing to do with its inner working, which is impossible to know.

 

[_xxx_]

I did read your post and it's still wrong. Just by going from equator towards the poles on our Earth you'll see different gravity values, let alone elsewhere in space.

I did not "suggest" anything. That we need workarounds to make it work is a simple _fact_. That a high speed rotation has some mysterious influence on gravity is also a _fact_ that you can prove yourself anytime, too.

There is NO scientific explanation for that yet. Nada, zero, zilch, null.

Now once more, did you even bother reading the topic question? How does this OT stuff contribute to the discussion? Remember, we're looking for a "sure" reference here.

 

[entity279]

That a high speed rotation has some mysterious influence on gravity is also a _fact_ that you can prove yourself anytime, too.

There is NO scientific explanation for that yet. Nada, zero, zilch, null.

I highly doubt that. Links? For both paragraphs please.

Now once more, did you even bother reading the topic question? How does this OT stuff contribute to the discussion? Remember, we're looking for a "sure" reference here.

I believe it's your posts that divert the topic in the OP to a much greater extent .

 

[hoho]

I highly doubt that. Links? For both paragraphs please.

How is it possible to prove non-existence of anything?

 

[_xxx_]

entity, links are a few posts higher, with that info you can find most of the official statements and articles online. The experiment you can do on your own is also described there. But don't ask me to google for you, we had lots of that spanking in the last few weeks in RPSC.

And thanks for that "OT" remark in that totally OT post of yours, what a contribution to the topic!
BTW it surely wasn't me who pulled the discussion away from the initial question, if you read a bit more carefully. It's just the usual suspects who automatically react to my username with some sort of compulsive denial regardless of the content/topic. If I write "the grass is green", you'll have these guys spending hours searching for the grass of alternative colour solely in order to prove me wrong, if that doesn't work, they'll just revert to the usual name calling and "conspiracy nut" remarks.

Maybe I should stick to the good old "don't cast ye your pearls before swine", it's useless anyway.

 

[Davros]

That a high speed rotation has some mysterious influence on gravity is also a _fact_ that you can prove yourself anytime, too.

There is NO scientific explanation for that yet. Nada, zero, zilch, null.

Oh, your not seriously suggesting there is no scientific explanation for how gyroscopes work ?

 

[rpg.314]

I did read your post and it's still wrong. Just by going from equator towards the poles on our Earth you'll see different gravity values, let alone elsewhere in space.

And are you suggesting that we do not know or understand it's cause yet?

 

[Davros]

ps XXX did you know the pdf in your first link doesnt even contain the word gravity

and your second link ends with

Part III of "Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret" ... Coming Soon

isnt 50 years long enough to wait. i bet it will still say that in 10 years time
or
Part IV of "Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret" ... Coming Soon

That a high speed rotation has some mysterious influence on gravity is also a _fact_ that you can prove yourself anytime, too.

Actually, if you measure the weight of a gyro with a spring balance you discover that the spin makes no difference to weight loss

pps: your second link to enterprisemission.com, some b3d readers may be wondering what exactly is enterprisemission
perhaps the first sentence from their mission statement will provide a clue?

As we predicted many years ago, the closer our Enterprise investigation has come to figuring out the truth regarding the science and politics of "extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system," the more rabid and relentless has become the "opposition."

A bit more about the attacks

Therefore, to combat the increasingly insidious nature
of recent attacks, which have threatened the rights and privacy of
every <i>Enterprise</i> member, we have decided the time has come
to try something new... to introduce a brand new kind of Internet
forum to protect our Enterprise members' most fundamental freedoms.

What is this new kind of protection.What advanced technology have such great intellects invented well you'll love this I dont know about alternative gravity but this is a quantum leap in scientific endevour

For only $3.95 per month,

See Absolute Genius...........

After all they need that protection because

However, as the evidence has grown stronger -- with each new NASA
mission, and successful political actions (led by <i>Enterprise</i>)
that has forced the release of a veritable flood of startling new
evidence of extensive ET ruins

You all remember the startling evidence of extensive ET ruins dont you
perhaps XXX will refresh your memory...

 

[entity279]

Thanks Davros, I estimated/hoped the links xxx provided were of those sort, but didn't have time to read them through.

On the other hand, I am sure you have had quite a laugh

 

[Gubbi]

Thanks Davros, I estimated/hoped the links xxx provided were of those sort, but didn't have time to read them through.

The first one is actually a quite good read (thanks XXX!!). It is a personal account by George Ludwig who worked as an intern under Van Allan and describes the frantic race to get Explorer I launched after Sputnik orbited the earth.

There isn't a single line about weird science in it though. It says Explorer I got a higher orbit than planned because the rocket that put it there provided more thrust than expected.

The second link latches onto the higher orbit and claims it is higher because of some sort of gravity anomaly. The entire site is 100% pure crackpottery.

Cheers

 

[_xxx_]

The quality of the site is questionable (it's "alien conspiracy kooks" after all and selling books too), but that should only show the fact that there indeed were/are unexplained anomalies and give you a few links for further reading, nothing more. The most interesting part would actually be the discussion between Von Braun and Burkhard Heim.

It was not more thrust than predicted though, the thrust is easily calculated and a well-known parameter. It was the wrong altitude that defied the calculated values. Also the non-rotating rockets do not show such an anomaly.

And are you suggesting that we do not know or understand it's cause yet?

I am simply stating that fact, that's no "suggestion". We do not understand its cause, which I said like three times already in this thread.



LOL @ Davros for doing EXACTLY what I described just a couple of posts above his Can't get more stupid than that, really

A little hint for the kids: it's never about the messenger. Only superficial zealots with a severely limited world view value information based on that.




Back to topic:

For the people who are eventually still interested in the actual topic instead of childish pissing matches, read the work of Jean-Paul Mbelek and Marc Lachieze-Ray. They discovered some interesting new correlations between the Earth's magnetic field and the gravity. Here's a little glimpse to get you going: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2814-earths-magnetic-field-boosts-gravity.html




P.S.: @pcchen from that article:

Newton's constant, which describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other, is the most poorly determined of the constants of nature. The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount. So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.

But other researchers are not convinced. Clifford Will, a gravity theorist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, believes improvements in terrestrial experiments will eventually do away with the need for explanations that rely on such exotic physics.

"In many ways it's a scandal that we don't have an agreed value for G, but if you look at the experiments, the values have been converging," he says. "In five years or so, we'll have an agreed value."

But Mbelek does not think so. Although the precision of individual measurements is improving, he says, the values are not converging.

 

[Davros]

did you pay your $3.95 XXX