Were Einstein and Newton wrong?

Science is supposed to question itself. It's about making a theory, testing it, reworking it, and re-testing it. The cycle repeats over and over again until all the loose ends are tied up. Models are supposed to be improved or replaced until they're perfect. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are warping the evidence to fit their theories. But it's still our best shot at expanding our understanding the universe around us. There are no magic books that will answer all of our questions. If Einstein and Newton were absolutely wrong, we'd have found out by now. More than likely, some of those loose ends just weren't completely tied up so it's time for more reworking and retesting. If their models get replaced with something better, awesome. If their models get patched to reflect the evidence, awesome.

Originally posted by pai mei
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]

At the time Newton wrote the formula, there was no way to test his theory, but now it's rock hard. The problem is that his "universal law of gravitation," is good for the "universe" composed of the solar system -- it wasn't tested beyond.

Beginning 1965, astronomers noticed that the edges of distant galaxies do not rotate the same way as Uranus or Neptune orbit the sun due to its gravitational influence. That was the cradle of the dark matter -- an explanation that assumed that Newton's theory applies anywhere in the universe. The problem is that the kitchen and the bedroom share the same number of walls, but not the "business hours."

The alternative to the dark matter is embarrassingly simple MOND concept, that adjusts Newton's theory to fit different conditions. (MOND stands for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.) Since the modern theoretical science has a bad habit of obscuring simple issues by presenting them wrapped in a rigorous-as-possible package, the conceptual explanation is not easy to find. Here is at least something:

MOND uses simple statistical methods to predict the motion of galaxies. Roughly speaking, the methods used to construct MOND are similar to standard linear regression techniques found in college level statistics book.

MOND is very sparse on theoretical framework, unlike theories such as GR. It's main assertion is that " in the case of intergalactic scale, gravitational force does not vary proportional to the inverse square of the distance (1/r^2), but tend towards the inverse (1/r). " . There is no official reason attached to MOND as to why newtons inverse square law breaks down at this scale.

MOND was created because it became apparent to physicists that existing models were not producing results consistent with observations. i.e. GR and dark matter models.

MOND is by far the best approximation for inter- galactic dynamics.

Many physicists don`t like MOND because it is sparse on theoretical framework, and doesn`t fit in with the rest of physics.
- But I think seeing as though MOND has no theoretics attached to it, the door is wide open for someone to fill out the theoretics to fit in with the rest of physics.

I like MOND because it's the most accurate model. My own speculation as to why newtons law breaks down at largest scales is because the universe is closed with respect to force fields. I've written a bit about this idea in physicsforums, but what with the forum-revision it might not be easy to find.

I think it is only a matter of time before physicists grow to like MOND.

www.physicsforums.com...

MOND is someting similar to "effective theory" meaning such a theory is "freely descriptive" and that puts it aside the current scientific paradigm.


[edit on 5/9/2009 by stander]

Originally posted by stander

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 . . .

Ok - I have developed a theory, and the more exploration I have done the more I find validity.

My theory explains dark matter, dwarf galaxies, and contests both relativity and theory of gravity. It also creates a quantized view of space, unifying quantum mechanics and classical theory (well, the classical theory will be modified and relativity simply dies).

The basis of the theory is simple - vacuum is not empty. It is instead filled with a highly compressed fluid composed of minute particles, that can't be detected because of their size, and the fact that we USE them to measure. My estimate of their size is 1.6^-33cm, basically the smallest measurement size possible. They are formed when a positron and electron 'annihilate' each other. The idea that they annihilate and produce a photon is ridiculous - they form a particle, but its too small to detect.

If all the universe is filled with this stuff - then gravity becomes buoyancy, and inertia becomes drag. Atoms are actually bubbles of nothing - not having a mass in and of themselves - but rather displaying inertia (drag) when accelerating, and gravity (buoyancy) when in area's of density gradation of the fluid.

What we call matter is actually the absence of this primal matter, the electro-magnetic field inside an 'atom' (I use quotes because my atomic model is very different than the standard model). Inside the center of an atom the field becomes so dense that it stops these (polar) particles from entering - creating a space that we can't measure - a singularity. Where the field is thinner they populate it at a lower density - so we can see and measure only the very outside of the atom. Protons and nuetrons don't exist in the way they are currently understood - rather all particles are composed solely of positrons and electrons, which are purely waves. The topography of the waves, their frequency, amplitude and number give birth to different atoms.

The pressure of this fluid pushes us towards the nearest big bubble - the earth below our feet. I believe there is also an electro-magnetic component of gravity - but that is not a large component.

The 'dark matter' that we can't measure is actually the small gaps that exist between these particles - in fact dark matter is directly related to the local density of this fluid.

In a dwarf galaxy the primal medium is of lower density - its spread out. This means that the matter molecules appear to be closer together when observed - the objects observed shrink. This explains why they are not as subject to dark matter - simply because gravity is related to the relative local density of the fluid - so they are under a lower gravity than we feel here.

If we are bubbles - then we move through the vacuum as a bubble. While the atoms of our body may collide with the fluid, creating drag - however when a body is only immersed in the fluid - then it moves like a bubble moves through a fluid, with a lower pressure region at the front, and a high pressure at the back - this causes a body in motion to remain in motion. It moves forward on a pressure wave.

I have some experimental work to complete that should prove up the basis of this theory, probably post when I do some experimental work, simple stuff actually.

This theory also effects electro-magnetic understanding also - because magnetic fields are simply an alignment of these polar particles. There are a lot of consequences that I am looking into - and there are better qualified people than myself who I have discovered working on similar theories.

I believe that this stuff was known around 80 yrs ago - discovered by Tesla - but it was covered up because it allows for faster than light travel, and possibly free energy sources.

Thought I should post a link as well - www.orgonelab.org...

This is regarding ether - the fluid I am describing is likely to be bound up with the earth and suns magnetic fields, presenting very slow drift rates.

Also - I just had a bit of a read on the above MOND theory - which fits perfectly well with a buoyancy model and differing densities of the fluid. Newtonian gravitation relies on a fixed density - but I believe observations indicate the fluid and therefore gravity is not constant.

Theres a lot that drew me to this theory - one of the crucial points was the Werner Van Braun velocity error when launching the first satellites. THese rockets had a large spinning section on the front for stability during the solid rocket fuel ignition. IF a body is rotating at high speed, then the fluid should be flung out centrifugally - this creates a lower density of fluid - with a large thrust behind it, this low pressure zone would act in much the same way as a scram jet, or even an aircraft wing is a good analogy - creating lift. I believe it was this that caused Werner's rockets to go too high.

Obviously I could write all day - but thats enough for a basic idea

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by beancloud
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...

Had a look at this - aligns with my own thinking - nice video. Certainly has some useful things in there for me.

Well - wow, I haven't finished this yet - but he is just talking about atoms being 'mini black holes' in other words singularities. I arrived at this independently - I'm stunned to hear someone else saying it.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by stander

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 . . .

Want to say that was my immediate response to this.

Just spotted this thread and hope to see it keep going.

Have noted a new phenomenon peripheral to all this. Breakthrough radical rethinks of the mind, the universe, reality, are a new form of sensationalism.

A NATIONAL INQUIRER level of headline grabbing has come to science.

So like the new groundbreaking discoveries in medicine, free energy, archeology, etc - which seem to happen every other day but never pan out, on has to be cautious now with second looks at physics and mathematics.

How well is String Theory holding up these days, while on the subject?


Mike

I would like to point out that Albert Einstein did make this possible...



So obviously he knew something...

reply to post by platosallegory


this lends much more credence, as usual; to the Electric Model (EM)
www.thunderbolts.info...



Indeed, no need to invent theories to explain other theories like dark matter and black holes.

Brilliant

Good posts,

I am reading the God Theory by Bernard Haisch and he makes some good points. In the Bible, when God says Let there Be Light. This light is different light then the light that comes from the Sun according to a Jewish Commentary on Genesis.

This is a Vacuum energy vs Energy that comes from matter which I call secondary energy. So the equations should look like this:

M=E(V) where V = Vacuum energy

Then you would get:

E2=M

The first one means matter is derived from Vacuum energy and the second one means matter produces a secondary or degraded energy.

This would mean that Vacuum energy is more efficient.

This would mean the universe is not based in materialism but Vacuum energy. This sea of energy produces matter which in turn gives of a secondary and less efficient energy.

Keppe Motors has built a motor using this energy.

www.keppemotor.com...

We know it exists through experiments of the Cassimir Effect.

I think this could also be the reason behind a paradigm shift. Places like Russia nad China are not great when it comes to human rights but the scientist there are open to new ideas.

In China they talk about Chi energy and in Russia there looking at light emitted from your body to discover diseases.

Western science and Medicine will just scoff at these things. I think this is one of the reasons Western Civilization is on a downward spiral. In order for us to advance to a type 1 civilization the world has to be dominated by an Eastern View of science and Medicine and not the Western materialistic view that's so rigid.

I was also reading in Germany they have used the Cassimir Effect in a classical way.

physicsworld.com...

Western Science is truly stuck in the dark ages of materialism.