Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, it discards junk and reverts to what was already known, experimentally provable, science for millennia prior to newtons popularized blunder.
which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
That’s incorrect, historically. Newton did not invent mass and gravitational attraction because measured weight varied anywhere on earth. This is all retroactively backfilled nonsense/mythology.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons. Fictional gravitation is not one of those, and is not necessary or real.
Effective weight (what we typically measure - weight with the buoyant force included) is what is changing - intrinsic weight remains the same. Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation. It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real measured weight they began as.
The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
Intrinsic weight - no, hardly at all (nuclear processes and atomic/molecular restructuring can, again minisculely, change it slightly). The rate at which things fall changes (this has to do with effective weight) - most significantly - with the media they displace/travel theough, but temperature, charge, and all sorts of other things can effect it too - again - extremely minisculely.
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong
Newton was not practicing science when he introduced the fiction of gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. He was an alchemist and magician, and much more of a scholar and mathematician than he ever was a scientist. The myth that he is some saint of scientism is just idolatry.
but was a heretic in his time.
Did someone say he wasn’t?
Are you saying the “phantom time hypothesis” comes from newton originally? This sounds like spurious revisionism... But i am intruiged.
Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, [...]
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing. You then are compensating for differences in measured weight by introducing another factor, which is the exact same thing that has already been done, hence reinvention.
You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.
Newton did not invent mass [...]
Correct. Mass is one of those old 'Grecian fluids', which were originally thought to be intrinsic and govern their respective interactions. Other examples are 'time', 'inertia', 'phlogiston', 'caloric', etc. The concept of Mass is ancient, and closely models what we observe in the world.
[...] and gravitational attraction
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons.
Just in case you didn't know, buoyancy is one of those. I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable, and is why certain things must be measured in vacuum chambers.
The whole problem with your idea (aside from the bad history, fact that it disagrees with experiment, improperly identifies dependent variables, etc) is that the buoyant force is measurable, and is, in air, a 3rd or 4th order effect. That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity, which, again, is just the phenomenon of measurable weight when next to massive objects, in a vector toward the massive object.
Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation.
This is a good thought, but is quickly lost on the next line. Anything in our understanding of the world, whether equation (quantitative) or descriptive (qualitative) cannot be known to be true. It isn't just the math - math is nothing more than a language that helps describe things in terms of precise quantities. We use natural language for everything else.
That said, though trueness can never be known, wrongness can, and this is why we still use mass - it accurately represents our world to many decimal places. In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another
Descriptions in equations are not real physical things or actions, and are only used as descriptions of observed phenomena. Wait until you get into electrodynamics and have to deal with imaginary exponents when calculating delivered power. Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.
Newton was not practicing science
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians. For all of recorded history, scientists were simply curious individuals, usually wealthy, who experimented in their own free time. In the 1930s, corporations started sponsoring scientists without strings, sometimes called 'free labs'. The last independent lab was run by Bell and closed down in the 1970s, as a fun fact.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
I personally am not one for idols in any field, but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note, from calculus, to contributions to flight, to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing.
Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
We still use archimedes’ principle today!
You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.
The concept of Mass is ancient,
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.
I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity
If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,
Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.
In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.
It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).
Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.
That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.
It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians
That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).
Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.
It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!
but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note,
Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.
from calculus,
Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.
to contributions to flight,
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can. Originally, I was going to point out that buoyancy is measured, and cannot explain the phenomenon, as it originally sounded like you were going to ascribe the mechanism of gravity to buoyancy.
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way [...] there are some conceptual parallels though.
Has what you are describing ever been taught? It's the first I've heard of it, and I studied these disciplines extensively.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either. It is our proposed model for the inner workings of the universe, and can't be known to match or not. Further, it directly relates a quantity of matter to its weight, as that is its definition.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations. There literally is no meaning to what happens in the equations. Since we can only measure weight, mass is derived (but proposed to be what is truly intrinsic), and to as-you-say 'recombine' has no special significance when you solve in the opposite direction.
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times. Just as the ancients proposed there must be some indivisible form of matter (atom), they proposed this matter must have weight, just as the whole does, and that something must be causing the same amounts of different matter to have different weights, which is what we now call mass. I'll look - I think even Aristotle spoke on this not-named concept. Kepler formalized this, and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
and it is stupid now for the same reasons
I suppose this needs proper explanation. Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one. Honestly, I don't even understand what you fault with it, except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
Also a naive view. Clouds are real; how do you define their bounds, given only boundaries are measurable? It's volume can't be measured, and anything derived can also not be measured (density, composition, etc). This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
Another example, the electric force field is real, but measuring it actually posed a huge problem for early scientists (and still does - you can't measure it without affecting it, for one).
[a thing] does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real [...]
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible, and why nobody ever attempts that. All that can be known is falseness, and thus why science progresses by overturning older proposed mechanisms with newer, (ideally) less false ones).
minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction
Further, it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is - attraction between matter that is proportional to mass.
and people, in general, struggle with [...] the difference between useful and correct.
Laymen, sure, but a number of disciplines are explicitly taught the difference. Some examples: physical scientists, lawyers, etc. Remember that 'correctness' can't be known in the physical sciences, so usefulness is all that we have.
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible, since lift can never exceed drag, and lift/drag both have their maxima at 45 degrees angle of incidence. He was technically right, and we still don't know why wings work (produce more lift than drag - overunity, essentially).
In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Has what you are describing ever been taught?
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
All that can be known is falseness
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
so usefulness is all that we have
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!
Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, it discards junk and reverts to what was already known, experimentally provable, science for millennia prior to newtons popularized blunder.
That’s incorrect, historically. Newton did not invent mass and gravitational attraction because measured weight varied anywhere on earth. This is all retroactively backfilled nonsense/mythology.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons. Fictional gravitation is not one of those, and is not necessary or real.
Effective weight (what we typically measure - weight with the buoyant force included) is what is changing - intrinsic weight remains the same. Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation. It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real measured weight they began as.
Intrinsic weight - no, hardly at all (nuclear processes and atomic/molecular restructuring can, again minisculely, change it slightly). The rate at which things fall changes (this has to do with effective weight) - most significantly - with the media they displace/travel theough, but temperature, charge, and all sorts of other things can effect it too - again - extremely minisculely.
Newton was not practicing science when he introduced the fiction of gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. He was an alchemist and magician, and much more of a scholar and mathematician than he ever was a scientist. The myth that he is some saint of scientism is just idolatry.
Did someone say he wasn’t?
Are you saying the “phantom time hypothesis” comes from newton originally? This sounds like spurious revisionism... But i am intruiged.
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing. You then are compensating for differences in measured weight by introducing another factor, which is the exact same thing that has already been done, hence reinvention.
You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.
Correct. Mass is one of those old 'Grecian fluids', which were originally thought to be intrinsic and govern their respective interactions. Other examples are 'time', 'inertia', 'phlogiston', 'caloric', etc. The concept of Mass is ancient, and closely models what we observe in the world.
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Just in case you didn't know, buoyancy is one of those. I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable, and is why certain things must be measured in vacuum chambers.
The whole problem with your idea (aside from the bad history, fact that it disagrees with experiment, improperly identifies dependent variables, etc) is that the buoyant force is measurable, and is, in air, a 3rd or 4th order effect. That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity, which, again, is just the phenomenon of measurable weight when next to massive objects, in a vector toward the massive object.
This is a good thought, but is quickly lost on the next line. Anything in our understanding of the world, whether equation (quantitative) or descriptive (qualitative) cannot be known to be true. It isn't just the math - math is nothing more than a language that helps describe things in terms of precise quantities. We use natural language for everything else.
That said, though trueness can never be known, wrongness can, and this is why we still use mass - it accurately represents our world to many decimal places. In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
Descriptions in equations are not real physical things or actions, and are only used as descriptions of observed phenomena. Wait until you get into electrodynamics and have to deal with imaginary exponents when calculating delivered power. Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians. For all of recorded history, scientists were simply curious individuals, usually wealthy, who experimented in their own free time. In the 1930s, corporations started sponsoring scientists without strings, sometimes called 'free labs'. The last independent lab was run by Bell and closed down in the 1970s, as a fun fact.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
I personally am not one for idols in any field, but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note, from calculus, to contributions to flight, to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
We still use archimedes’ principle today!
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,
Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.
You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.
It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).
That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.
It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!
That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).
Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.
It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.
That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!
Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.
Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
Don’t forget optics!
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can. Originally, I was going to point out that buoyancy is measured, and cannot explain the phenomenon, as it originally sounded like you were going to ascribe the mechanism of gravity to buoyancy.
Has what you are describing ever been taught? It's the first I've heard of it, and I studied these disciplines extensively.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either. It is our proposed model for the inner workings of the universe, and can't be known to match or not. Further, it directly relates a quantity of matter to its weight, as that is its definition.
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations. There literally is no meaning to what happens in the equations. Since we can only measure weight, mass is derived (but proposed to be what is truly intrinsic), and to as-you-say 'recombine' has no special significance when you solve in the opposite direction.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times. Just as the ancients proposed there must be some indivisible form of matter (atom), they proposed this matter must have weight, just as the whole does, and that something must be causing the same amounts of different matter to have different weights, which is what we now call mass. I'll look - I think even Aristotle spoke on this not-named concept. Kepler formalized this, and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
I suppose this needs proper explanation. Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one. Honestly, I don't even understand what you fault with it, except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Also a naive view. Clouds are real; how do you define their bounds, given only boundaries are measurable? It's volume can't be measured, and anything derived can also not be measured (density, composition, etc). This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
Another example, the electric force field is real, but measuring it actually posed a huge problem for early scientists (and still does - you can't measure it without affecting it, for one).
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible, and why nobody ever attempts that. All that can be known is falseness, and thus why science progresses by overturning older proposed mechanisms with newer, (ideally) less false ones).
Further, it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is - attraction between matter that is proportional to mass.
Laymen, sure, but a number of disciplines are explicitly taught the difference. Some examples: physical scientists, lawyers, etc. Remember that 'correctness' can't be known in the physical sciences, so usefulness is all that we have.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible, since lift can never exceed drag, and lift/drag both have their maxima at 45 degrees angle of incidence. He was technically right, and we still don't know why wings work (produce more lift than drag - overunity, essentially).
I stumbled upon it while studying problems with chronology myself. You can find his multiple works on it here - it was his biggest work by word count: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/record/THEM00090
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!