IFERS - Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

5 posters

Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by PacMan Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:17 pm

The silent war for world-view dominance
The heliocentric model won over the geocentric Ptolemaic and Tychian (of Tycho Brahe) models in no small part because of the work of Tycho Brahe’s masonic disciple Johannes Kepler. By carefully studying the celestial objects (on the firmament) under extended periods, Tycho Brahe had a passion for exact facts and owned data that his young apprentice Kepler wanted to use for his purpose to verify the Copernican heliocentric model. Still, Brahe would not separate himself from it and argued that the data lacked the required parallax of the stars to support the heliocentric model. Then Brahe mysteriously fell very ill and died (likely poisoned), and Kepler used the data to claim verification of the Copernican model and refusal of the Tychian and Ptolemaic models.[ref #1]

By the time Newton came up with the idea of “gravity” as a force, most if not all of the theoretical and doctrinal groundwork was therefore al-ready in place to allow for the authoritative cultural revolution we know as history. The first piece was the already established idea of heliocentricity and the consequence that there had to be something holding the earth in its orbit around the sun, and “A God-given path” or "Earth is stationary" was not a desirable answer. The whole point was to remove God and his creation from the worldview.

If “gravity” was to be proven as a force acting at a distance, the force had to extend beyond the objects themselves. Gauss divergence theorem was revamped to give the foundation needed. Since the force was verifiably not a function of speed dX/dt  (where X is the position vector), it had to be an expression of the second time-derivative, acceleration (denoted “a”), d2X/dt2. And so, Newton's first "law" (F=m*a) was born, and "mass" (or “m”) consequently gained the unit of [F]/[a] = [Newton]*[seconds2/meter]. Clearly showing that the target was to equalize gravity to acceleration. By doing this, Newton and his society effectively established a new paradigm where this “mass” became the proclaimed only source and variable for it (apart from distance). No one has ever really explained exactly what this “mass” is, what in "mass" it is that creates "gravity" and why “mass” and not just any energy gets to have this property of being the source of “gravity". Except to use the circular reasoning of referring to gravity or make Einstein’s claim that it to be inherent energy divided by the speed of light squared or referring to the quantum physics straw-man that it is due to an exchange of “gravitons”.

Let's get going. We start by aquainting ourselves with Gauss Theorem, to understand the basis for the reasonings.

Gauss Theorem
There are a handful of basic mathematical theorems involving integrals often used in physics. By the nature of being attributed to a central source that supposedly issues a field that affects things on a distance, you realize that Newton and his gang used Gauss Theorem as a starting point. Gauss’s theorem is fundamentally a continuity equation. Meaning, it is an expression of the postulate that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. - The first law of thermodynamics.  It is used as a foundation for much of both practical and theoretical physics. It can be stated as follows.

Let (V) be a volume with boundary surface (S) [like a football with a blue rubber skin] and let there be a flow (F) across this surface, i.e., a flow into, out from, or through the volume. Gauss theorem then makes theoretical equality between (one hand) summing-up flows through the surface area (S) and (on the other hand) the sum of flows coming from sources (or disappearing into sinks) inside the many tiny volume-elements (dV) that together make up the entire volume (V). Notice that in the image below, a volume element (dV) is shown as a tiny red cube. Also, notice that the flow (F) need to represent transport of energy in some form.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Pictur10
The total sum of flows through the closed surface (S) is coming from the sources, and/or being swallowed by the sinks, within the volume. - Simple enough thought.

To picture this, imagine enclosing the end of the garden hose in your fist.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  J8qa1710
Then the flow of water out between your fingers (the blue surface) equals the amount of water the hose puts into the fist (the "sources and sinks" inside the volume of your fist). No further water is magically created or taken away inside the fist, so all water from the hose should come out between the fingers. No more and no less. In this case, there is only one source (or a great many small sources together) located in the volume (Your fist) but we could also see it as being many sources placed next to each other inside the fist. - Sounds reasonable.

The strengths of the respective sources/sinks inside the volume are counted by the amount of deflection (or "divergence") they cause on the flow (F) in the point where they are. - Don't worry, this is just a way to express the amount of flow put into the fist. If the divergence of (F) in a volume point (dV) within the volume (the fist) is positive, then there is (assumed to be) a generation of flow (F) there. And if the divergence of (F) in that volume point (dV) is negative, there is assumed to be a sink of flow that is removing flow (how ever the generation or swallowing of flow is happening). To picture this, imagine you are a source/sink, standing in the middle of a flow/stream of water. If you are pouring out water yourself, then the flow will have to expand downstream from you, to make room for the flow you have added. If you are a sink, taking away some water (for instance by drinking from the flow), then the flow will contract behind you to fill the emptiness you created in the flow. This expansion or contraction is divergence of the flow.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Image_12.

We will dive into more details on the contribution from sources and divergence below.

Also, already here from start, note on the blue ball picture above and the zoom-in below, the small surface area element (dS) on the spherical volume above and the normal vector (n) pointing perpendicular out from that surface element. Since the surface volume surface on a ball shifts direction depending where on the surface we look, so does the normal direction of that surface element point straight out in different directions. This is a construction that is used below to summarize the flow crossing the whole surface (S). So, just ponder it of a while to get used to that as well. We will use this construction when counting the flow (F) that is perpendicular to the surface at the surface and thus leaves the volume (V). More on that below.

Gauss theorem then says that
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq110
This may look daunting, but it is quite ordinary once you get the hang of it.

The left-hand side (LHS) of the equality Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1lhs12 really means that we (in each small part of the surface, dS) only count the part of the flow (F) that is pointing straight out of the surface (dashed black arrow), since that is the part of (F) that is aligned with the normal vector (n) at that crossing-point. the (F 'dot' n) literally means "the part of F that is in line with n". And that is the part that we are counting - the part of F that is in line with the normal vector (n) of the surface and that therefore is leaving the volume (V).

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Pictur11

The rest of the LHS expression, Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1lhs11 just mean that we sum up all those small perpendicular flow-contributions from each surface area-elements (dS) into a total cross-surface flow over the whole surface (S). Again, note that since both the flow (F) and the normal vector (n) is essentially different in every crossing-point on the surface, we have to do this evaluation and summation in every point on the surface (S) in order to get that total out-flow. There is no way around that. That is what that double integral sign and the little circle/ellipse over it means.

Note here also that the dashed red arrow, represent the solenoidal part of the flow (F). This part of the flow never leaves the volume or surface but stays rotating around inside the volume. Gauss Theorem does not count this part of the flow since it does not contribute to the total flow out of the volume (V). But if (F) is not perpendicular to the surface (S) at the crossing-point, there will exist such a solenoidal component.

That was the (blue) surface (S). Now let's look at the volume (V) that is depicted as the red inner ball below.
Look to the right-hand side (RHS) of (Eq.1) i.e. Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1rhs10. As mentioned initially, this summarizes in 3 dimensions over the whole volume (V) the contributions of sources of the flow (F) residing within each tiny volume-element (or point) dV. The strength of each tiny source/sink is expressed in terms of the spreading (“divergence”) of the flow (F) that it creates in each point (dV), written as

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1div12. Gauss theorem does not care HOW those theoretical flow sources or sinks  actually produce the flow or takes it away. In the example with the garden hose above, the theorem has no idea of the hose in our enclosed fist. It simply looks at the divergence of the flow (F) in a certain point (dV) of the volume (V) to see if flow is added or removed in that point. And all those miniscule additions or subtractions of flow, are summed up over the entire volume (V).

Physically, the value of Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1div12 is the sum of change of (F) in respective dimensions in that point. The value of Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1div12 is positive if the source is outpouring and the flow (F) exhibits an outward spreading in that point. If value of the divergence is negative, we have a sink in  the point and the flow (F) exhibits a contraction there. In standard orthogonal (x,y,z) coordinates, the "divergence" is formulated as

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Divf10.

Naturally, then, in a volume point (dV) where there are no sources or sinks, these 3 derivatives (flow changes) are zero and the divergence Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1div12=0. There is then no net outpouring or swallowing of flow inside the point and the flow (F) will not be diverging in any way but be parallel throughout there. As one can imagine, there could be a lot of sources and sinks inside a volume, and in fact in this (x, y, z) coordinate system that we use here, there are 3 in each point (one for each spatial dimension). Needless to say, theoretically, the flow picture can locally be very complex and very strong (negatively or positively), while yet the total sum of flow for the whole volume, could even be zero in total.

Our case here is quite simple though. One source enclosed by ball.

Some non-essential sidenotes:

Sidenote 1 : One can view what is happening in/with a volume point (dV) in two ways. We can stand still and look at what is happening in a point as the flow (F) passes through, OR we could imagine that we ride a volume point (dV) as if it was a raft flowing with the flow (F). If we ride that dV-raft, then "divergence" can also be interpreted as the rate of expansion (and/or contraction) of the raft that we would see as it flows along (F). This mind-experiment is just for curious people and these different views of rate of change illustrations are not important for the current reasoning.

Sidenote 2: The source strength at each point in the volume, Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq1div12 is a scalar, and thus it only defines an amount of the flow medium created or added to the reality in that point (or unit volume dV). The outpouring from the source point has no defined direction, and so for most cases, it is presumed that the added or removed flow in a volume point (dV) simply fills or vacates all spatial dimensions equally, i.e., “isotropically” i.e. that dF/dx = dF/dy = dF/dz. Isotropy is usually a good enough approximation to reality.

Sidenote 3: A teaser for thought is that the source of (F) is (must be) generating spatial derivatives of (F). Consequently, if (F) is an acceleration-"field" (which is the case claimed in Newton's "law") having the applied unit m/s2, then the source of that "field" will have to be generating "substance" of unit 1/s2 in relevant points of the volume in consideration i.e., be proportional to frequency squared.

So, that was some basics. Continuing to the object of study.

The creation of Newtons "law" of gravity
Newton’s second “law” of “gravity” was clearly a premeditated theoretical construction from a number of presumptions. It starts with simply cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1). The whole Divergence-side of Gauss Theorem, just GONE and the LHS was matched with a whole new RHS (Eq.2) which was formulated as an expression proportional to the “mass” (M).
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq210

On the LHS the basic idea of flow (F) became the supposed new "gravity field" (g). On the RHS, the proportionality constant in front of (M) was defined as -4*Pi*(G). Gone was the original Gauss RHS integral (summation) of sources over the volume (V). The unit of measure (UoM) of the “gravitational constant,” (G), then consequently became set to [meters / (Kilograms * seconds2) ], because it cannot have any other UoM. The reason is that the proposed "gravity" (g) is a position/distance-dependent acceleration with UoM in (meters/second2) and the unit of "mass" (M) was proposed ot have an UoM in kilograms, and with Pi being dimensionless (no particular UoM), then the unit of the constant (G) follows from how it is related to these other variables in the formula that Newton proposed.

By applying then this proposal to a spherical volume (a ball), Newton presumed that the “gravitational field” (g) would be spherically symmetric. This is an assumption that Gauss theorem do not make.
In (Eq. 1), the flow (F) can have any shape that is continuous and smooth (natural).

Newtons then used his own “shell theorem” to show that a spherically symmetric body affects external objects as though all of the “mass” of the sphere was concentrated in a point at its center. This is why the RHS of (Eq.2) expresses proportionality to the total "mass" (M) as being in a point. The shell theorem also states that the sum of all “gravitational” forces experienced from a material sphere by an external body would in total be acting in a straight line between the central point of the sphere and the “center of mass” of the outer body.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Pictur12

With these presumptions, Newtons stated that “the gravity field” could be theoretically simplified and written as the multiplication of a scalar field g(r) with (er) being the radial base vector of length one pointing in the direction of the external body, so (er) is a normal vector of the surface (S):
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq310

A scalar field like g(r) assigns a value to every point in the realm of (x,y,z) coordinates and the value is the same for the same distance (r) from the center regardless of where you are placed around it. This value is a scalar (alike Temperature), in itself, it has no direction. So this expression says that each point in the realm is assigned an amount of acceleration in m/s^2. And this acceleration (scalar field) is multiplied by the radial vector from the small "mass" (m) to the big "mass" (M), resulting in that we still end up with an acceleration in the direction toward (M). Under these conditions, (Eq.2) becomes
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq3n210

This idea is based on the assumption of spherical symmetry of the “mass” (M). The "gravity field" scalar value g(r), will be the same (constant) anywhere on the surface of any sphere of radius (r) from the center, including the larger sphere (dashed line above) that is intersecting the external body. So, g(r) and can therefore be moved outside of the integral.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq3gou10

And the remaining LHS integral summarizes to the area of the surface of the sphere of radius r:
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq3os10

Here we see why Newton added that strange 4*Pi factor to the RHS in (Eq.2). It was NOT to have that baked into the “gravitational constant” (G). Instead, that 4*Pi cancels out, and we are left with the expression for the strength of the “gravitational field” at distance r from “mass” (M):
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq410

Accordingly, the sought-for vector "field" variant of “gravity” from (M) then, according to (Eq.3) will be
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Gvect10

And since then two point “masses” (M) and (m) will be affecting each other, the total attractive force F between them becomes - not to confuse the force F with the flow (F) in Gauss Theorem.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq510

(Eq.5) is called “Newtons Law,” but again, it is NOT a law but a completely made-up mathematical construction and for this reason, it is NOT a legitimate theory.

Critique of the creation of Newtons (second) "law"
As we have already seen, Newton's "laws" build on a number of presumptions and at least two errors. I will simply outline them here in no particular order.

1. Frankenstein mathematics is not science
Taking the Gauss theorem (Eq.1), chopping it in half, and creating a new equation from its LHS, is not scientific.

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq110
Cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1) and replacing it with -4*Pi*G
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq210

This kind of action reeks with intent to create a specific result. It could be easily argued that the LHS of Gauss theorem was saved as basis for Newton’s proposition because it provides an opportunity extend the "skin" or "surface" part of the original equation to transform the field (F) to an effect on a distance (discussed later below). The RHS was replaced because the volume effect is what they wanted to misrepresent as the fabricated "Mass" (M) as the source of the field/flow (F) here replaced by the supposed "gravity" field, (g). But the original balance, limit of validity, and physical meaning of the Gauss theorem is entirely gone after Newton’s butchering of it.

This also breaks the fundamental premise of Gauss Theorem being a continuity equation. The 'flow' of energy that it is suppose to count, is gone and replaced by an unknown 'field' that is non-material in its nature i.e. that in/of itself transports no energy.

With this kind of Frankenstein operation, you can force the mathematics into producing any outcome you like. But it is not science or physically valid.

2. Presumptive logic is not science
Straight-up presuming an sci-fi concept called “mass” (alone) is the only driver of an entirely new kind of “field” separate from electromagnetics and buoyancy and straight up, assuming a linear relationship as postulated in (Eq.2) and also in Newtons 1st "law" (F = M * a), is at best narrow-minded and certainly not scientific.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Eq210

In a situation like this, real scientists consider “antecedents” (variables suspected to be driving or shaping the effect) to be brought into the situation and candidate function, not so in this case. The fact that this was NOT done at all, is a dead giveaway of the intent for this work. The desired outcome was already clear to them when they got to work. And it would be less of a problem had the theory not had such immense consequences and not the scientific community been so quick and decisive in accepting and proclaiming the idea as a “law,” a title given only to natural effects that have been long-time verified and are really not disputed at all. This is certainly not the case for “gravity.” But this did not stop this piece of math from becoming the “law” and motivation for the entire world becoming indoctrinated with an in-finite punctured vacuum “universe” and earth evolution into a spinning ball whizzing around the sun.

And to now, as the hoax is exposed, claim "it is just a theory" is to double-down on the deception, insinuating that this fabrication even was a legitimate theory in the first place. But this is not just a failure of a theory but a complete breakdown the entire setup and idea of this field and all associated concepts; including "mass" and force in "Newtons".

3. Breaking the boundaries of validity, physics and logic
An inverse square “law” cannot be presumed to exist or be valid outside of the volume (and the surface of it) in which the sources of the flows are. – There is a reason why in the Gauss theorem, the closed surface (S) is completely surrounding the volume (V), and no part of the volume is sticking out or is detached in any way away from the limiting surface.

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Tt10

If you introduce a gap between the volume (Red) and the surface (Blue), the physics of that new intermediate region is simply undefined. Same if the volume is sticking out of the surface. - The validity of Gauss Theorem is limited to the volume and the tightly fit blue skin of it. In any other combination or regions, the math does not exist. The physical validity of the theorem breaks down and becomes a fairy-tale.

Also, the inverse square law is predicated on the "field" or "flow" (F or g) being uniformly spreading. This, in turn, means that the "field"/"flow" sources must be uniformly distributed throughout the volume (V), or it would not be spreading in such a uniform way that the inverse square property would be fulfilled. This destroys all ideas of imploding all sources (the volume) to a central point.

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Xxx10

Yet this is what Newton and his gang suggested. That the volume (V) was possible to implode while the sources of the proposed "gravity" still magically remains uniformly distributed in the region previously held by the volume - which becomes such an undefined region magically created between the volume (V) and the surface (S), detaching them completely. They even stretched out the surface (S) to the distance of the second satellite "mass" (m) and essentially contracted the volume to a single central point.

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Pictur12  

- Needless to say, the physicality of this scenario becomes science fiction, if it ever was anything else.

Anyone can verify this critique by cross-referencing with different sources explaining Gauss' theorem. To confirm that the introduction of an undefined intermediary region into the theorem breaks the physicality of the theorem as applied to create the concept of gravity. Some sources that support this conclusion, include  [2], [3] and [4].

Again:
Fact 1: The permissible realm of Gauss theorem (and likewise integral theorems, including Newtons idea) includes ONLY the surface and the enclosed volume - not anywhere outside of it.

Fact 2: An “implosion” can only be allowed is to change both volume and surface together, never either one alone. And not even as a "philosophical" action. - It breaks the math.

Fact 3: The theoretical implosion is in itself not physically possible, not even in a “black hole” (presuming the very “gravity” theory that is questioned). Black holes are, consequently, as much constructed science-fiction as Newton's second "law". And so, consequently, are the ideas of "space", expanding "universe" etc.

4. The deceptive shell theorem switch
As mentioned earlier, Newton’s shell theorem, which motivates the idea of imploding the “mass” to a central point, is built upon the predicate of “gravity” being ruled by the very same inverse square “law” that Newton’s “law” then results in. (presumptive or circular reasoning!). The theorem is twofold in its statement:
A. “A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.” - This statement claims action on a distance without intermediate transfer, which violated the physical reality of the volume as the source and extent of “gravity.”
B. “If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.” - This is the same violation as in (a.), even as it occurs inside a shell and relies on that “gravity” has vectorial superposition.

Newton also adds that “inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force within the object varies linearly with distance from the center, becoming zero by symmetry at the center of mass.” And thereby verifying that implosion to a point is congruent with requiring a homogeneous density in the now larger volume. In its construction, the shell theorem is a preparation for the “action on a distance” that Newton abhorred but which the masonic society pushed to acceptance.

The only reason an inverse square relationship is obtained by Newton is that it numerically matches between the imploded LHS flow with the RHS (summation of sources/sinks) of a volume (V) holding uniformly distributed tiny sources/sinks. But by replacing the RHS with a “mass” (M) and a constant (-4*Pi*G), the range of validity of the original theorem to the volume (V) is removed from the reasoning, leaving it fully open to then expand the flow-from an imploded point to infinity by division by r2 (Eq.4). This may look mathematically correct but is neither scientific nor physically accurate.

Also, with uniformly distributed isotropic "flow" sources, it is impossible for a point source to be an exact substitute for the distributed source. In other words, (accepting the hoax for a second) an imagined imploded sum of all sources into a central source, clearly create a 'field' that is different than the one from the distributed sources. At best the total amount of force on another "mass" on  a distance may be the same, but the verifiable reality of the scenario is gone.

Ultimately in the end, the shell theorem builds on the same idea as the main theory relies on. Indicating that this is one very intelligent piece of deception. Impressive to be able to compartmentalize such a deception. It seems to have taken Newton and his buddies quite some time. This shell theorem moves the critical "magic" away from the scenery of the main theorem. It becomes just a footnote, albeit a very crucial one that supposedly motivate the insertion of black magic into the math, adding an entirely new region between the volume (the source point in the middle) and the now theoretical "skin" stretched out to the distance of the object that is supposedly affected. A true mark of masonic "handywork".

Other researchers have also noted the peculiarities for the shell theorem, including references [5], [6] and [7].

5. Half of the purported physics is not accounted for
Gauss theorem does not include any solenoidal part of the “field” (F) i.e. flow or "field" that does not flow through the surface (S) but stays rotating inside the volume (V). Repeating the picture, the solenoidal part is the dashed red line component of (F) :
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Pictur11
The theorem only counts the dashed black arrow component of (F) that flow straight out of the surface at that point.

NOTE: There is no solenoidal flow outside of the volume (V) and attached surface (S), because (again) it is outside of the validity of the fundamental theorem. JUst like the perpendicular flow, the solenoidal component is ONLY defined (exists ONLY) in the region where there are sources/sinks exist i.e. within the volume (V) and ON the surface (S). Any flow arrows sticking out of the volume/surface ONLY show what is the situation on apoint ON that surface.
Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Rr10

Now, seeing that Newton clearly claimed that the "flow" out of the “mass” was the very “gravity” he was theorizing, it is very odd that he and his gang made no effort in understanding the relation between this inner rotating part of the "flow" "field" and his supposed “gravity”. Especially also since the solenoidal part is adding up in the same manner as the part of the flow that leaves the volume. If the flow, is in any way materialistic or carries energy, there will be consequences for it rotating (movement causing effects) and increasing, building up or (by some mechanism) dissipating within a confined volume. None of this is accounted for in this fake science.

For this reason also, this theory is as incomplete as it is invalid i.e. it is no way near being a scientific theory.

6. Incomplete mathematical archetype
Going back to the note about antecedents, it is interesting that Newton also assumed (predetermined) that his "gravity" would be a force i.e. a vector and not a scalar, complex number, quaternion or tensor.
From this also, it is obvious to anyone who has done any theoretical science or statistics, that he was not trying to discover something that he did not know the nature of (thus needing to postulate more than vectors), but that the effort had a predetermined goal for which the math was sewn together from the necessary arbitrary pieces.

Einstein later bringing in tensors, was also just what was necessary to prove the predetermined idea of "gravity" instead being due to a stress in (a "bending" of) the fabric of "space" and time. To make a math that would retain the Newtonian hoax while removing the Ether and saving the failed Michaelson-Morely experimental results showing a stationary Earth, by introducing contractions to the spatial dimensions and time. Again designing the math necessary to fool the world. Just as much a hoax, trying to "prove" the same fantasy. - Tensors were not brought in by to explore the true nature of the phenomenon. If they had, they would have discovered that this fake "gravity" traces back to the inner material stress-tensor (inner pressure i.e. reluctance to split) of the materials, i.e bouyancy, NOT to something acting on a distance.

In other words, creating this false physics using Quarternions (or even more advanced mathematical number constructs) or trying to tie it to some new "Quantum String super Turbo" concept, will NOT make it any more true.

Conclusions

Newton’s “law” is indeed a very intelligently crafted black magic "physics" made by butchering of Gauss integral theorem under clear presumptions and goals, and consequently, the theory violates both logic and the fundamental domain of validity.
Major consequences follows from the exposure of this hoax:
A. There is no such thing as a 'mass'.
B. There is no such thing as a 'mass' attracting (directly or indirectly) another 'mass'.
C. No ball earth and no vast empty 'space' around one.
D. No 'Solar system' and no galaxies.

What is most concerning is that most modern physics is firmly based on this inverse square idea and likewise prearranged equations. Electrostatics i.e Columb’s “law” being the prominent example, and thereby also electrodynamics and (so-called ) quantum mechanics/dynamics/physics. All of those should be equally revisited. We need a theory that stays within the realm of validity and reality.

The fact that Newton and his buddies deliberately designed a hoax that so clearly tries to tie a supposed physical effect to a quantum (a single source variable and particle) and it so clearly being concocted, strongly indicate that also all other physics theories that rest on a similar presumptions or paradigm, (like coloumbs "law"), are similarly hoaxes. Speculations as to why they would attribute a distributed forces to a point/particle, incluse controlling the narrative by having created something for which they can then later change the "science" with new "discoveries" as they please. But also to cover up the reality of the abundance of the energy and its usability for transport, health etc.  

References
[1] “The Principle,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHnwl22hxiE

[2] "Electromagnetism: A Modern Approach" by Joseph V. Caswell: This textbook discusses Gauss' theorem and highlights the importance of the intermediate region in the theorem. The author explains that the introduction of an undefined intermediate region breaks the physicality of the theorem, making it inconsistent with our understanding of the physical world.

[3] "Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity" by Samuel L. Libby: In this textbook, the author explains Gauss' theorem and its applications in the context of gravity. The author discusses the need for a consistent intermediate region in the theorem and highlights the inconsistency introduced by an undefined intermediate region.

[4] "Principles of Physics" by Walter Lewin and Warren Goldstein: This textbook covers Gauss' theorem and its applications in the context of gravity. The authors explain the importance of a consistent intermediate region in the theorem and emphasize the inconsistencies introduced by an undefined intermediate region.

[5] Discrete Gravitational N-Body Simulations: The Numerical Simulation of Stellar Systems" by Sverre J. Aarseth: In this book, the author discusses the limitations of the shell theorem and its implications on the accuracy of gravitational simulations. The author highlights the need for more advanced models to accurately capture the complexities of gravitational systems. This directly aligns with the critique brought by the article, which argues that the shell theorem is limited and inaccurate.

[6] "Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity" by Samuel L. Libby: In this textbook, the author discusses the limitations of the shell theorem and its implications on our understanding of gravity. The author emphasizes the need for more advanced models to accurately capture the complexities of gravitational systems. This directly aligns with the critique brought by the article, which argues that the shell theorem is limited and inaccurate.

[7] "Physical Review D" by Robert M. Wald and Arthur F. Siegel: In this scientific paper, the authors critique the shell theorem and discuss its limitations in accurately modeling gravitational systems. The authors highlight the need for more advanced models to accurately capture the complexities of gravitational systems. This directly aligns with the critique brought by the article, which argues that the shell theorem is limited and inaccurate.


Last edited by PacMan on Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:14 am; edited 173 times in total

PacMan

Posts : 18
Points : 1097
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2021-07-20

Bro, Tree, Xander and bdrasmussen like this post

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by tycho_brahe Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:47 am

“Newton's first "law" (F=m*a) was born, and "mass" (or “m”) consequently gained the unit of [F]/[a] = [Newton]*[seconds2/meter].”

Just to clarify Newton’s First Law of Motion is Inertia and his Second Law of Motion is the F = m*a and the unit of force 1 N = 1 kg ⋅ m/s2

As far as my research has taken me his Law’s of Motion do not conflict with the Geocentric model. No issues.

However his Universal Law of Gravitation is a problem. It’s one big assumption. If anything it corrupts his laws of motion.

Awesome find. Thank you!
tycho_brahe
tycho_brahe

Posts : 63
Points : 1142
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2021-06-21

https://ifers.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by PacMan Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:44 pm

Yes.
They stole the divergence of the material stress tensor, Div(T) to be this "gravity".
Proof the Earth is not globe is also found in other factors than this non-existent pulling "gravity", such as the existence of Polonium Halo's in rocks, lack of curvature, inconsistent topography in the southern hemisphere and other proofs.

However, the 1st "law" (F=ma) is also also just a construct, just as the 2nd "law" and in fact is the constituting equation that also makes it abundantly clear why Einstein later were able to equate "gravity" with acceleration. - It is no coincidence that the unit of Force (F) contain the unit of "Mass" (m) - with all the consequences to all other related physical units. Same also with inertia, as based on "density" i.e. "Mass" per unit volume. It is as they defined it. But it is completely fabricated.  Newton's 1st "law" is simply their base equation that define/relate these two made-up units of "Mass" (m) and "Force in Newtons" (F) around acceleration (a) which is the one unit that is natural and real.

We need to get away from this Newtonian paradigm entirely. Even using density, means that we stay in the paradigm we need to leave.
Density does not exist anymore than "Mass" (m) does.  We should only talk of relative inner pressure of "materials".
In the steady state, a material with higher inner pressure naturally has atoms that are closer per volume or larger inter-atomic forces. But it is not the closeness of the atoms (density) that dictates the inner pressure, but rather the inter-atomic forces. The unwillingness of the material to separate.

Simply put, the reason we see the effects the effect we do, is because tighter knit (inert) material (with higher internal pressure) will not allow itself to be split by a less tightly knit (inert) material, so the first material instead clumps up and effectively pushes any looser knit material out of itself. Same with the room or Ether as with any material. Consequently, the same can be reasoned similarly as happening between a material and the room/ether (in lack of better wording). I.e. this pushing that we detect as "gravity" between two materials is really Buoyancy.


Last edited by PacMan on Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:09 pm; edited 20 times in total

PacMan

Posts : 18
Points : 1097
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2021-07-20

Bro likes this post

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by travma Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:52 am

Terms like mass, point, volume, field, weight isn't well defined in consistent manner.
Look at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5kqQKUWqsNum3WtLhHN5yw
Brian Greene doesn't know what space is tuOhm18T3CA etc.
Correct Prism Model - Johann Goethe xJ8BJVkEsSI
Secrets of Magnetism & the Magneto-Dielectric foundation of the Cosmos
lncd-K4MqB0
First Time Ever Seen - Secret of Light - 140 Year old mystery solved! Crookes Radiometer CCrnDGOl2xA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTICjwUhSys

Crystals (1958) kw84ZH_kXr8 and Water Crystals In Motion - Messages From Water - Dr Masaru Emoto and the different attitude the static compared with running electricity has, as well the double slit experiment.
All these indicates that such paper laws does not explain the mechanism in which nature work, but only describe the situation we observe, many times with contradicting explanations. If solid crystals can grow and analog liquid devices predict weather why we had to assume that only we had life and wisdom? Maybe life isn't only attributed to carbon compounds.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero" or rather we are joking because we are not able to understand or comprehend infinite wisdom and so we keep invent words and assign to them arbitrary theorems.

travma

Posts : 5
Points : 3056
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2016-01-16

Bro likes this post

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by kirastar Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:45 am

Any chance someone could explain this in like 2-3 short sentences for the elementary reader? I consider myself pretty bright but this is way over my head. I am an FEer / and I don't believe in Gravity// thanks!

kirastar

Posts : 3
Points : 1338
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2020-09-26

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by Tree Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:06 pm

Wow great study! I will come back and read this more in depth later (although I’m not great at math I can usually see the points made). Nicely layed out and written.
Tree
Tree

Posts : 91
Points : 1348
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2021-01-03

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty A step towards a better formulation of "gravity" - The math of soap-bubbles and balloons

Post by PacMan Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:16 pm

Wrongfully added the next posting as a reply here.
Moved it to the parent forum listing instead.
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t367-toward-a-better-theory-of-gravity-bubbles


Last edited by PacMan on Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:37 pm; edited 3 times in total

PacMan

Posts : 18
Points : 1097
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2021-07-20

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by Tree Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:49 pm

Well, I tried but I don’t think I can understand this math. Not saying it’s wrong or right it’s just not something I can evaluate. What exactly does Gauss mean by ‘flow’?

Glad you could make sense of the math though and find some counter arguments to the mainstream dogma.
Tree
Tree

Posts : 91
Points : 1348
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2021-01-03

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty In short

Post by PacMan Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:54 pm

kirastar wrote: Any chance someone could explain this in like 2-3 short sentences for the elementary reader? I consider myself pretty bright but this is way over my head. I am an FEer / and I don't believe in Gravity// thanks!

Here is an effort:
Essentially, this study kills the whole Newtonian paradigm and with it all ideas of "gravity" as a pulling force on a distance.
It shows that both "gravity", "Mass" and force in "Newtons" were intentionally created deceptions.
The whole idea was to high-jack inter-atomic forces within and between materials (and between the Ether and matter), making them seem like a pulling force transmitted over distances.

It's like claiming the force in your muscles could extend beyond your body and to an object on a distance - without you touching it.
- Try it. Focus on something on a distance and make a hard fist in front of yourself, and see if the forces within your hand will make that thing come flying to you.
Your stressed hand-muscles are exactly mimicking the stress between the atoms of a material and likewise should be causing a pull. - Good luck.

It is clear from the math that deception was the intention from start. And that fact that the claimed force is so small that can only be detected outside of the human realm ('space') and in the quantum wizard labs, means that it is not scientific at all. Newtons 'Laws' are complete fraudulent concoctions (math sorcery). It is clear from how they were crafted, that they and the "gravity" they claim to prove, are intentional deceptions and not even close to being legitimate scientific theories. This means that all other 'theories' of "gravity" are equally hoaxes, trying to perpetuate the same basic lie by attributing it to some other construction instead (gravitons or bending of 'time-space').

Regarding the "flow"
Gauss theorem (GT) is very generic basic physical theorem that essentially say "what flows in/out (of the volume V), must also flow in/out (of the closed wrapping surface S)".

In the case of "gravity", we now KNOW that there simply is no "flow" since the very idea of that pulling force from a "Mass" on a distance, was clearly a complete fabrication. Since the fundamental idea and all the new components of it is a hoax, you can insert any imagination for that "flow" here if you like, "curvature of spacetime", "gravitons" or just plain old "unicorns" - it does not matter. It's mote.

What we have is a local material stress (force) equilibrium in. & between materials (including that of the Ether) and a divergence of those forces, means that there is a net force acting on that material.
Sure, we all know there is a force at play on physical matter, but it is clear that it is NOT a pulling force due to a "Mass"-driven "field" magically extending beyond the surface of the "Mass" and inducing force on another "Mass" on a distance. And if it is not a pulling force, then it must be a pushing force i.e. a pressure-force from what clearly must be the Room/Ether.

What we experience as "gravity" is clearly traced back to being a local pressure force from contact between atoms of different materials. The Room/Ether is a MUCH more tightly knit (however invisible) "material" than any physical material, including the Earth and our bodies. This means that the Ether tries to push all physical matter out of itself. (which of course will not happen since the Ether permeated the whole creation. But it tries.) And so people and apples are so pushed toward the Earth (and the Earth toward us) because the Earth is also less tightly knit than the Room/Ether. The driving mechanism is therefore the minimization of free energy and ultimately, the minimization of the area/energy between the combined Earth/person and the Ether. I.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics cause these forces.

The implications of this result are VAST.
The whole satanic/Babylonian Hollywood/NASA vacuum sci-fi "universe" goes belly-up!

  • Globe Earth is a hoax. - No attraction on an distance - No hot-molten ball from pulled-in matter and likewise no "Solar system".
  • Alien "Anti-gravity" (UFO) is a hoax. There is no such pulling force to counteract! "UFO's" are just man-made black-budget vehicles propelled electromagnetically in at least 3 different, fully explainable ways.
  • General Relativity (Einstein), Quantum Gravity, and "Grand Unifying Theory" etc. are equally mathematical hoaxes (however dazzling) trying to motivate the same fundamental lie. But a lie promoting a non-existent force, does not become truth just because you change the language used when telling the lie.
  • Evolution is also a hoax because it (among other uses) builds on this "gravity" to motivate the (by “Dark Matter”) decelerated expansion of the "Universe" as a vast emptiness - outside of an non-existent billons of years old ball Earth.
  • NASA/Hollywood Green-screen TV- & CGI rocket launches into "Space", are hoaxes, promoting this lie as truth, that at best are fake photo-ops in "zero-G" planes, green-screen "Space" station interiors and hardware scraping and crashing into pieces against the firmament.
  • "Big Bang" is a hoax, since there consequently is no expanding "universe" that can have that BANG beginning.
  • CERN, LHC etc. $ trillion operations are at best to a significant part, ignorant fools and masonic operations, aiming to perpetuate the same lie as a front for even worse things. Trying to open "portals".

The whole house of cards of $trillion hoaxes, falls with this here firmly debunked distance-pulling "gravity".

PacMan

Posts : 18
Points : 1097
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2021-07-20

kirastar likes this post

Back to top Go down

Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”  Empty Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity" - A critique of Newton’s “laws”

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum