King's College Halifax

Пікірлер

@rustyshimstock8653 8 ай бұрын

The talk seems to be for a very small potential audience of phd level historians of science who ha e a deep understanding of Newton's works. Every time the speaker gets to something interesting, she says "I won't bother to explain, you all know what I mean."

@michaelgonzalez9058 Жыл бұрын

U see god once will explain

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome Жыл бұрын

Newton didn't quite understand the projectile physics he claimed to use as basis for his orbital idea. And many of us appear to fail to notice the fundamental problems with Newtonian orbits. In other words, we collectively still do not understand motion. Most of us think physics capable of fantastic and impossible feats of the imagination. Pages 512 and 513 from Newton's mathematical Principia contain an illustration of Earth that fails to show scale. When we use the math we use to model demonstrable projectile motion, we can easily see that Newton's imagined cannonball can do nothing but fall. The cannonball cannot fall around Earth's curvature. You have to make believe an object can fall from a height it never reached over and over again, on an endless magical loop, to buy into Newton's cannonball-thought-experiment explanation for orbits. Some textbooks explain Newton's orbits by claiming that a motorcycle jumping over a ravine is the same thing. But this explanation neglects to mention the need for an angled ramp that allows the motorcycle to gain altitude (what goes up comes down again) during the jump, preventing a fall. Other textbooks show the straight-line path light would take, the gravity-free path, and erroneously claim the cannonball is falling from this higher altitude, an obvious mistake. Demonstrable projectile physics logically explains that falling, an accelerated phenomenon does not have an impact on any relative horizontal velocity. The perpendicular motions are independent of each other. Falling is always toward Earth's center. Earth is shaped like a globe. Altitude is measured in terms of rings that expand out from Earth's center, not up and down based on the printed page or an illogically-premised flat-Earth model. Newton's Principia is Mathematical, not Mechanical. This is part of the problem. And this issue evolves into a quantum problem. Mathematics replaces logical and demonstrable physical explanations. This is why modern cosmology is a mess. Newton wasn't a scientist. The term was coined after Newton died. Newton spend the rest of his life working for the Royal Mint. He was more interested in money and alchemical and superstitious ideas like Solomon's Temple, than he was with demonstrable physics. By the way, there is no experiment (with or without magnets) that can demonstrate Newtonian orbits. Newton's orbital work is not an example of a logical application of the scientific method.

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome Жыл бұрын

Newton's work deserved criticism. Newton's work is far from perfect. It contains errors and logical fallacies. For example, pages 512 and 513 from Newton's Principia contradict and ignore the projectile physics Newton claims to embrace. Objects cannot fall around Earth's curvature. Demonstrable projectile physics explains why. Look it up if you do not believe me. You have to make believe an object can fall from a height it never reached over and over again, on an endless magical loop, to buy into Newton's cannonball-thought-experiment explanation for orbits. Some textbooks explain Newton's orbits by claiming that a motorcycle jumping over a ravine is the same thing. But this explanation neglects to mention the need for an angled ramp that allows the motorcycle to gain altitude (what goes up comes down again) during the jump, preventing a fall. Other textbooks show the straight-line path light would take, the gravity-free path, and erroneously claim the cannonball is falling from this higher altitude, an obvious mistake. Demonstrable projectile physics logically explains that falling, an accelerated phenomenon does not have an impact on any relative horizontal velocity. The perpendicular motions are independent of each other. Falling is always toward Earth's center. Earth is shaped like a globe. Altitude is measured in terms of rings that expand out from Earth's center, not up and down based on the printed page or an illogically-premised flat-Earth model.

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome Жыл бұрын

Newton's Principia is Mathematical, not Mechanical. This is part of the problem. And this issue evolves into a quantum problem. Mathematics replaces logical and demonstrable physical explanations. This is why modern cosmology is a mess. Newton wasn't a scientist. The term was coined after Newton died. Newton spent the rest of his life working for the Royal Mint. He was more interested in money and alchemical and superstitious ideas like Solomon's Temple, than he was with demonstrable physics. By the way, there is no experiment (with or without magnets) that can demonstrate Newtonian orbits. Newton's orbital work is not an example of a logical application of the scientific method.