Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next

[Fawadqasim1]

Newton's theory is not incorrect but incomplete. We still use Newton's laws of motion to solve 99% of the problems. Only a few cases like space travel needs correction for example the GPS signals need correction and both general and special theories of relativity are applied to the signals for calculating the time dilation / contraction and the difference applied to the signals ( I did those calculations in my schools work).

With Einstein's theory, we can cover 99.9 percent of the cases rather 100%... the only missing part is that it may not be able to explain the phenomena happening inside the blackholes which for all practical purposes is not relevant practically since we are no where even close to travelling out of the solar system and the nearest blackhole is many light years away.

Furthermore, now theory is complete. We are searching for a unified theory that explains everything and we simply don't have one yet and we are not sure if we will ever have but the quest continues and we will keep getting closer and closer.

But sir it is highly relevant to the creation of this universe and its destiny.the question whether we are getting closer or farther from reality is another discussion but we are surely devising better and more efficient instruments in form of gadgets and theories. By the way most of the fruitful theories are at least 90 years old e,g general theory of relativity quantom machanics Darwin's theory of evolution etc so

 

[Nein]

The earth is flat and gravity was created by the Chinese to undercut American Manufacturing.

Those shaolin monks are not fooling anybody we all know their evil masonic plot.

 

[PakSword]

Einstine stated (rather copied work from group of scientist) said speed of light is fastest entity and constant never changes to greater then itself

But their are obvious simple flaws

View attachment 571259


same idea but done on item moving speed of light

It's just that if you are travelling at the speed of light, you will see light passing you at 300,000 kms/ s.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

You are right. What I meant was that even such particles, which come into being under very special circumstances and have a very transient existence, are also part of the material world. We don't know, what else in future would come under our observation or measurement, which would then be deemed to be the part of the same world. This of course implies extreme limits of our knowledge, regarding this world.

Sir Just for sake of argument how do you understand terms like material world and reality.

The earth is flat and gravity was created by the Chinese to undercut American Manufacturing.

Those shaolin monks are not fooling anybody we all know their evil masonic plot.

Ha ha ha

 

[SIPRA]

Sir Just for sake of argument how do you understand terms like material world and reality.

These are too abstract issues, to be argued. I don't think, we can ever have access to reality, at least, in this world. We are prisoner of our perception apparatus. That is why that all the philosophers and scientists have failed to arrive at any substantial conclusion.

Material world to me is what is being observed, through perception, directly or indirectly, or has the potential to be observed, may be, in future.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

These are too abstract issues, to be argued. I don't think, we can ever have access to reality, at least, in this world. We are prisoner of our perception apparatus. That is why that all the philosophers and scientists have failed to arrive at any substantial conclusion.

Material world to me is what is being observed, through perception, directly or indirectly, or has the potential to be observed, may be, in future.

why the word astute comes to my mind when i talk to you sir.

 

[SIPRA]

why the word astute comes to my mind when i talk to you sir.

Well. I don't consider myself to be astute.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Well. I don't consider myself to be astute.

But I do

 

[Rusty]

Newton's theory is not incorrect but incomplete. We still use Newton's laws of motion to solve 99% of the problems. Only a few cases like space travel needs correction for example the GPS signals need correction and both general and special theories of relativity are applied to the signals for calculating the time dilation / contraction and the difference applied to the signals ( I did those calculations in my schools work).

With Einstein's theory, we can cover 99.9 percent of the cases rather 100%... the only missing part is that it may not be able to explain the phenomena happening inside the blackholes which for all practical purposes is not relevant practically since we are no where even close to travelling out of the solar system and the nearest blackhole is many light years away.

Furthermore, now theory is complete. We are searching for a unified theory that explains everything and we simply don't have one yet and we are not sure if we will ever have but the quest continues and we will keep getting closer and closer.

100%
I didn't want to go into the weeds but the theories are only as good as our observations.
Newtons did not have the tools like particle colliders and what not so he could only go so far.
Similarly, we don't have the tools to explain if string theory is correct or not.

As technology advances so does our tools and so does our understanding of the universe.
This is not a weakness as some people might want it to be.

Are you a hero or villain.


I think newtonian frame of reference disintegrates at sled of light. Isn't it.. remember reading something like that.
It is indeed a wondrous mystery to unravel.

I am me.
What's your point?

 

[Fawadqasim1]

100%
I didn't want to go into the weeds but the theories are only as good as our observations.
Newtons did not have the tools like particle colliders and what not so he could only go so far.
Similarly, we don't have the tools to explain if string theory is correct or not.

As technology advances so does our tools and so does our understanding of the universe.
This is not a weakness as some people might want it to be.


I am me.
What's your point?

How much observation max planck and Einstein had for their theories was it (observation) any different in quantity or quality than was available to mainstream scientists.

the empirical data followed the theories to test their predictions not the other way round e.g arthur eddington's observation of the eclipse

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Newton's theory is not incorrect but incomplete. We still use Newton's laws of motion to solve 99% of the problems. Only a few cases like space travel needs correction for example the GPS signals need correction and both general and special theories of relativity are applied to the signals for calculating the time dilation / contraction and the difference applied to the signals ( I did those calculations in my schools work).

With Einstein's theory, we can cover 99.9 percent of the cases rather 100%... the only missing part is that it may not be able to explain the phenomena happening inside the blackholes which for all practical purposes is not relevant practically since we are no where even close to travelling out of the solar system and the nearest blackhole is many light years away.

Furthermore, now theory is complete. We are searching for a unified theory that explains everything and we simply don't have one yet and we are not sure if we will ever have but the quest continues and we will keep getting closer and closer.

simply all models have limits and limitations and the situation is unlikely to change

 

[Verve]

Theories and more theories ...

 

[Ich]

Sometimes me think the speed of light only exists in the context of the 4 Dimensions "height, width, depth and time" whereas all things exists in more than 4 dimensions.