It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were Einstein and Newton wrong?

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
This is a new article that might change things.


Some basic principles of physics and astronomy have been cast into doubt by new research involving scientists in Australia and Europe.

The researchers, including Dr Helmut Jerjen of the Australian National University, studied dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.

They found the galaxies were not uniformly spread around, as predicted by the so-called dark matter theory.

"They are forming some sort of disc in the sky," Dr Jerjen said.

au.news.yahoo.com...

I think this points to a Holographic universe and Mind is all that exists.

The article goes on to say:

Dr Jerjen told AAP his observations, taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and interpreted in cooperation with astrophysicists at the universities of Bonn and Vienna, did not necessarily mean the theory should be abandoned.

"I wouldn't like to say the dark matter doesn't exist," he said.

But the alternative is even more radical - abandoning Newton's theory of gravitation.

"A possible solution to this contradiction would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation," Dr Jerjen said.

"If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics and for cosmological theories."

One possible consequence of modifying gravitation theory could be that black holes do not exist.

Black holes are predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, which already explains some astronomical observations not predicted by classical Newtonian theory.

But Dr Jerjen said modifications of Newton's theory, which is still commonly used by astronomers, would also imply changes to Einstein's theory.

The changes could mean that space-time around super-massive astronomical objects does not have the "singularity" which prevents light escaping from them.

So they may not be as black as they have been painted.


End

The thing is I think that 3-Dimensional reality is an illusion. There is no out there. The laws of physics are written on a 2-Dimensional surface area and a 3-D reality is projected.

The laws of physics would be like the program and we would be like the results of the program. Maybe we live in a simulated reality that was produced by an advanced civilization or we are part of an advanced civilization that entered their collective consciouness into a quantum computer that creates these realities. Seth Lloyd from M.I.T. thinks the universe is a quantum computer.

We also have preliminary findings from Craig Hogan at Fermi Lab that might verify the holographic principle.

I also said if we live in a holographic universe then the universe would be flat. There's nothing curving space-time and our classical laws of physics is just part of the program. It's like if you designed a game or a simulation with a set of laws then the beings within the game or simulation would think these laws have an objective existence.

This is from NASA:


Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


If this is the case, then it will be like pulling teeth to get people to let go of an objective 3-D reality.

I think we just need to ask more questions. Do we live in a holographic universe and what does that mean? Are we in a simulation? Is the universe a quantum computer? Were Einstein and Newton wrong on some of these points?

I think we are to early in our evolution as a species to speak in absolute terms. This is has to be the way it is or that is impossible.

I watched the new Star Trek today and Spock said something interesting. He said,"Sometimes the improbable choice is the logical one."

Maybe the Vulcan is right
.

 


Added 'ex' tags for external material.

Please read Posting work written by others

[edit on 8/5/09 by masqua]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
yes they were most certainly wrong on almost every level

so are we today as so called "modern" humans

however the reality of the matter is, that we are a extremely primitive and backwards race of hardly better than cavemen.

This perspective is necessary to realize that there are technological advancements millions of years ahead of us right now, that will defy all known "laws of physics" this is because our physics book is nothing better than an abacus when trying to calculate imaginary numbers (i)


there is one certainty in science, that we will progress and grow

we will find out that our older conceptions were inaccurate or unweildly, and we will devise new simpler ways of looking at the world around us

we will realize deeper fundamental forces of the universe that we have no clue that exist today

this is a certainty, because science always finds out that it was wrong yesterday, and that is the established pattern we have been witnessing through history



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
interesting, although the article is way to short. I like the holographic theory alot better than the electric universe theory that I thought that aritcle would try and throw out.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
This is a link to an alternate theory. It adds to Newton and Einstien. He Claims they left vital parts of the equation out. Its a long watch but well worth it.

www.kokomotion.com...



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Time and space are functions of torque. In the case of our Universe… Torque off of two directions (creating + flow/ - flow). That makes particles nothing more than compressed energy. Here is the theory in its complete form:





Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth



blog.myspace.com...





Here’s my main profile: www.myspace.com...



Research Dale Pond - Keely and SVP
Marko Rodin - Coil and Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



This all fits for good reason... Everything is wave function until electrical arching takes place.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

A possible solution to this contradiction would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation," Dr Jerjen said.



The researchers, including Dr Helmut Jerjen of the Australian National University, studied dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.


If someone suggests to reject Newton's theory of universal gravitation, then the person is more than obliged to hint the reason why the dwarf galaxies orbit the Milky Way the same way planets orbit the sun. I can't see any link between the non-uniform distribution of the dwarf galaxies and Newton's theory, but Jerjen apparently does without mentioning it at all. Instead he wastes no time to suggest changing things around in a radical way to make the Scientific Hall of Fame.

Just another crappy presentation . . .



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


It's possible, perhaps even likely that Einstein and Edison was wrong. They were human after all, albeit intelligent humans. Good luck telling those that deify them that though.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


And! It looks like the Big Bang Myth just took another hit as well.
I wonder how they will adapt it now.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


How they will adapt You ask ? Thats easy , they will do what they always do , sit back and ignore the unwanted info , untill they find a way to mix it with their own conclusions
Pure and simple



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


That goes against their modus operandi with this one. Remember the things such as the uniform microwave temprature that should have been just one of the things that disproved their origin myth? They invented inflation and kept the myth.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Don't worry guys. The old mechanical view of the universe will work SOMEDAY. Just stop asking questions and let science pretend it's NOT a dog chasing its own tail.

The simple solution is "out there" DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY exist. But somehow science is hellbent on making the objective universe a fact, even if it means making up the most insane illogical assumptions.




[edit on 9-5-2009 by tobiascore]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I always believe that one should question the assumptions.

"The researchers, including Dr Helmut Jerjen of the Australian National University, studied dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way."

How do the authors know that the dwarf galaxies are orbiting the Milky Way?

Measurements of motion at that distance are not possible in such a short time as a human lifetime, and even if they were, it would be impossible to say conclusively that they were orbiting the galaxy, and not just moving past, since measurement of a change in direction at that distance is most certainly impossible.

The only reason they can possibly assume that the galaxies are orbiting the Milky Way is because they know 'it must be so because of gravity'.

If gravity were wrong, then so is their assumption that the dwarf galaxies are in orbit.

They have used a logical fallacy, where a true conclusion implies an incorrect premise. Therefore, logically, the researchers must be wrong.

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Saurus]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tobiascore
Don't worry guys. The old mechanical view of the universe will work SOMEDAY. Just stop asking questions and let science pretend it's NOT a dog chasing its own tail.

The simple solution is "out there" DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY exist. But somehow science is hellbent on making the objective universe a fact, even if it means making up the most insane illogical assumptions.




[edit on 9-5-2009 by tobiascore]


Good points.

I think there could be many more discveries if they didn't start with the priori that the universe starts and ends with materialism. I think that's a silly assumption to make when there's so many unknown variables when it comes to the universe and the nature of reality.

I think the Holographic Principle is on the right track. I don't think objective reality exists as we perceive it. The world that we experience is a construct of the mind and without the mind there is no reality.

Science wants an objective material reality and they will twist logic to get one.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Well, Newton was certainly wrong in many respects. However, Einstein has been deemed as being correct more often than not.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

If you click on the link above you'll see some standard laws that every Engineer and Physicist knows about.

Although this only pertains to "Planetary Motion" it can also be used for other heavenly bodies. Kepler didn't know about "dark matter", but he did make observations about how planets orbit around a center of gravity.

How could these people know if these dwarf galaxies are truly orbiting around the Milky Way galaxy? Well, one has to remember that Mathematical Physics lacks all the rigor of Mathematics. And by simply observing one of the dwarf galaxies for a short amount of time one can very easily produce a projected path that the dwarf galaxy will follow. It's simple Conics.

Now are these guys right for saying "Maybe we should throw out Newton"? Umm, no. Before any of that happens there would have to be a SERIOUS revolution in the science field and I doubt that any CREDIBLE scientist is going to say that Newton was wrong just yet. For anything to change the evidence has to be so overwhelming that it crushes the evidence that came before it.

C'mon guys, this isn't going to change anything. Some n00b scientist just making some remark about something crazy/

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Shamrock87]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Of course they could be wrong. They could actually be right and wrong at the same time.

They could be right about the laws of physics as we perceive them but these laws could apply to a 3-dimensional reality that doesn't have any objective existence.

We know these laws break down at Planck's constant and then quantum mechanics takes over.

I think Einstein and Newton would be the first to say that you shouldn't treat the things that they said like it's a Papal Bull.

I think we have to go beyond Einstein and Newton and I think they would agree. Einstein said Imagination was more important than knowledge. He said this because people will read a book or a theory and stop thinking. They will treat these things like Scripture.

For instance, Einstein thought space should be curved but we know it's flat. Maybe it's flat because curvature of space is a physical law written on a 2-D surface area and it doesn't have a 3-D objective existence.

This could mean reality may be holographic, a simulation or a quantum computer like Seth Lloyd from M.I.T. thinks it is. My point is we can't continue to twist things if they don't agree with Einstein or Newton. These men were still looking for new theories.

I actually think this means that quantum effects are just hidden on a claasical level but still present. So there must be a quantum field or some kind of field where these quantum effects exist. So in this field classical objects can behave in a quantum mechanical way.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
At some point, theories are supposed to be improved upon (thus discarding the original theory). If such a theory is at the basis of a scientific discipline, then the process of redefining everything is called 'a paradigm shift'.

In other words, if there would never be a point at which we'd state Einstein and Newton to be (at least partially) wrong, our scientific progress would be non-existent.

Back to the topic
didn't we know about the disc-shaped form of the universe for decades? Has been common knowledge to me for as long as I know.. Those discs aren't aligned parallel, instead they can be oriented in different positions. So we still have a 3d universe, but every 'galactic entity' resembles a disc seen from 'the outside'.
I guess I don't understand the implications of the 'new findings'.. hell.. I don't even know what 'new' findings are presented here!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
This is a new article that might change things.


Some basic principles of physics and astronomy have been cast into doubt by new research involving scientists in Australia and Europe.

The researchers, including Dr Helmut Jerjen of the Australian National University, studied dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.

They found the galaxies were not uniformly spread around, as predicted by the so-called dark matter theory.

"They are forming some sort of disc in the sky," Dr Jerjen said.

au.news.yahoo.com...

I think this points to a Holographic universe and Mind is all that exists.

The article goes on to say:

Dr Jerjen told AAP his observations, taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and interpreted in cooperation with astrophysicists at the universities of Bonn and Vienna, did not necessarily mean the theory should be abandoned.

"I wouldn't like to say the dark matter doesn't exist," he said.

But the alternative is even more radical - abandoning Newton's theory of gravitation.

"A possible solution to this contradiction would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation," Dr Jerjen said.

"If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics and for cosmological theories."

One possible consequence of modifying gravitation theory could be that black holes do not exist.

Black holes are predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, which already explains some astronomical observations not predicted by classical Newtonian theory.

But Dr Jerjen said modifications of Newton's theory, which is still commonly used by astronomers, would also imply changes to Einstein's theory.



All I can say is that there is a lot of subjectivity in the OP's post. I don't see where you get the "evidence" that we are part of a matrix. The universe is SOOOOOOOO HUGE I don't think you understand. These are 3 -5 dwarf galaxies around us and millions on millions of galaxies around us.

Look at a picture of the Hubble Deep Field or the new one that came out.. don't remember what its called. And realize that all those lights are galaxies, the picture frame is the size of a dime held of to the night sky.

-Rhombus24



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saurus
Measurements of motion at that distance are not possible in such a short time as a human lifetime, and even if they were, it would be impossible to say conclusively that they were orbiting the galaxy, and not just moving past, since measurement of a change in direction at that distance is most certainly impossible.

The only reason they can possibly assume that the galaxies are orbiting the Milky Way is because they know 'it must be so because of gravity'.

If gravity were wrong, then so is their assumption that the dwarf galaxies are in orbit.

They have used a logical fallacy, where a true conclusion implies an incorrect premise. Therefore, logically, the researchers must be wrong.

Your conclusion is based on the premise that the dwarf galaxies are in relation to the Milky Way, but that's not the case. They do not display expected gravity-related characteristic (uniformity) in respect to the hypothetical dark matter, the existence of which heavily depends on Newton's law of universal gravitation that establishes the magnitude of the gravitational force between two point masses.

I see the weak point in relying on the property of the dark matter that dictates how other mass is distributed. I would rather start thinking of discarding those distribution formulas first before going further in more radical direction. That's the problem with Jerjen -- he somewhat believes that the those formulas that describe the distribution of dwarf galaxies are infallible.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The moment they invented "Dark Matter" to support the gravitation theory, they in fact disproved the gravitation theory.
Nobody found any proof of this invention and nobody will. It;s something else that's keeping the Universe together, gravity is not enough but that does not mean dark matter must exist. There must be something else.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by pai mei]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join