BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:59 PM

Good to see how much you believe, Donuel. At least in this thread you have Pete to provide the succour in that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:28 PM

If you look at that paper, it says that the stability of the Jupiter-outward planets is very well understood - they'll stay put for 100 billion years. It's small rocks like Earth where the calculations get iffy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:10 PM

The way I heard it was that in the early 'wild west days' in the early epoch of the great bombardment the solar system had a giant stuggle between Jupiter and Saturn and they started a voyage closer to the Sun. They sling shot one another inwards for a time and then back out again. It was against the odds like sinking half the balls in a billiards break so there is room for other theories.

The Earth only exists as it does today because of a Mars sized, perhaps Oberon, collision at a very unusual angle to produce our Moon and thus its stability.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:44 PM

After 4 billion years of frantic teenage turning inside out, its good to know the solar system has mellowed out and settled down.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:05 PM

The stability of the solar system seems to have been solved, for the next billion years anyway.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/336/2/483/1158666

I seem to remember Poincaré had a go at the problem analytically and failed. The last few attempts have been by numerical simulation. It looks like the butterfly effect was overrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 01:05 PM

I believe in a combination of combining things as inthe discovery of the next new thing. Many a fixed fundamental has passed the torch to a new idea. A belief may not weigh much but can be enormously powerful. Each belief was born an idea.
I've had a few, probably a few too many {:^?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 12:43 PM

I see the Chaos Theory when combined with the uncertainty principle to be two different things. There is Chaos in principle and a different one in practice. Notions of such nuance are cerebral fun but help connect the macro and quantum in my mind's eye. 'Love is in the details' but if Steve allows for freedom of thinking and expression in language, discovery and growth are more fun than dogma.
When Einstein accepted dogma it turned out it made him make a mistake. Steve be happy that there are some fundamentals for you to believe in. Me? I am a believer in a combining things.

You believe in particle physics, I lean toward field physics.
Together in the Higgs field all particles change - they develop variable mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 12:01 PM

In A minor
A minor and huge correction in the cosmic constant calcuation and later abandonment:
Einstein decided at the out set to measure a static universe and bypass the problems of vortices, expansion and such. At the time, both Einstein and astronomers agreed that the universe was fixed in size and that the overall space between galaxies did not change. When Hubble proved the universe was expanding this revelation persuaded Einstein to abandon the cosmological constant from his field equations as it was no longer necessary.

a twist of fate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 10:47 AM

One of the neater demolitions of crankery is the refutation of a Russian wacko who thinks a whole century in the Dark Ages (600-700, I think) didn't happen. The reason why he's wrong is... astrology. The oldest horoscope surviving is from about 100AD. It shows the planets exactly where conventional astrodynamics puts them. No missing century of celestial motions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 10:19 AM

You would think, wouldn't you, Mr Red, that I hadn't mentioned caveats re wobbles and topography in my post. Clearly, you've been taking lessons from Donuel in fanciful obfuscation (though not in science). Perhaps you could explain why predictions of future eclipses have been so devilishly accurate for many decades, if not longer. Then work back and tell me how "chaos theory" might have confounded calculations of past eclipses. Plenty of very sound science is possible without your "having to have been there." I thought you might have known that, or did Donuel tell you different?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 10:07 AM

Penny S may be thinking of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill: an essay on myth and the frame of time", which (namedrop) was recommended to me by Paul Feyerabend and (brag) I got cheap from the Library of Science Book Club in the mid-70s. It interprets a bunch of ancient myths as coded descriptions of planetary movements, including the precession of the earth's axis. A Neolithic or Bronze Age astronomer couldn't have discovered the Einstein precession of Mercury's orbit, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:09 AM

Mr. Red, I admit I had underestimated your physics acumen.
I'm listening better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:01 AM

Eclipses can be predicted with sharp accuracy

Yea, Yea, providing you have factored-in all relevant variables.

I give you ice, at the poles and in glaciers. Then there is the rebound in the crust ( or lack of it going backwards). It changes the rotation and wobble. And, and, and..........

Chaos rules. Unless you have the factors. And know that wherever you get the calculations from has factored enough of these things. Small differences? Pah, chaos theory laughs in the face of your small differences.

Evidence based science. You had to be there, &/or armed with those factors.

But historical accounts are not without uncertainty.

who mentioned dark matter/energy?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:00 AM

I have seen the validity of an Einstein quote in my grandmother, myself and a few others. "Human consciousness goes against the grain of space time". Without getting into quantum nano tubuels in brain anatomy, he was referring to a perception of effects before the cause. This kind of dialectical thinking was an embarrasment in Einstien's time and is still considered pretty far out now.

The special perception is however slight and does not change the eternal now, like predicting Google will keep employees in isolation and will not return until next July 2021. :^/

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 07:53 AM

A few miles is enough to get it away from Ithaca.
Tee hee 4004.
What about Mercury, though?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 05:41 AM

That sounds like reasonable reflection DMcG. Whether something is a lie is a bit slippery . I think Thomas’ definition is more clear cut , whilst the other , while true , is more difficult to determine . For example , is it deception to push one idea , thought to be fact , while not mentioning all the arguments and data that don’t fit said idea ?. My opinion would be that it is intended to deceive if you know that other data and arguments are a big problem for what you are promoting - but again determining that in others may not be easy !

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:35 AM

Eclipses can be predicted with sharp accuracy, and that applies backwards as well as forwards. There are confounding factors, but they are likely to be tiny. The earth and moon can wobble a bit and neither is a perfect sphere, and we can't know exactly which sides of the two were facing each other at the time of an eclipse. The higher your altitude the longer the eclipse, by a tiny amount (to do with optics, all those ray diagrams you used to draw at school). Topography on the earth and moon can cause tiny diversions from the expected. The most likely bigger error in looking at past eclipses is getting the track wrong by just a few miles. On the whole, you can probably trust the date, time and location given for any past eclipse to a high degree of precision. Can't speak for any before 4004 BC, of course. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:10 AM

Anyway, am I right in thinking that dating events .................. about 3000 years ago using current software is unlikely to be accurate?

Well, I would ask the question how accurate do you want it? First. How accurate is the location you are targeting? Etc. And How many planetoids, comets asteroids does it need to factor in? Jupiter & Saturn must be factors you can't ignore, and the moon is receeding at about 1 cm a year which can't be insignificant. Chaos theory would demand these things not be ignored entirely.

All in all I would say the whole thing should be an humungous formula, and an iterative one at that.

To summarise the answer to the question. "near enough to keep you guessing" - probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 04:04 AM

How accurate is Stonehenge?

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 02:44 AM

This is probably something of a tangent, but related to the wrongness of Newton, and goes back before Galileo - quite a long way before Galileo. Looking at the posts above, I think there are people here who may be able to help with my suspicions about something reported the other year about Homer's Odyssey.
Some people had been investigating an incident near the end of that book which appears to describe an eclipse, and had used planetarium software to find one which had been over Ithaca at approximately the right date. They had backed this up by assuming that the account of Hermes visiting Calypso was of the movement of Mercury in the months preceding Odysseus' return home.
Having used such software, I am aware that they tend to arrive with a warning that the further from the present, the more likely that inaccuracies have crept in. It would only take a small error for totality of an eclipse to completely miss the target area. And as for thinking that Mercury would be where Mercury was three thousand years ago, that seems to ignore the Einsteinian effects of the Sun's gravity.
I tend to the idea that authors stick into their work what works for the plot, without regard for absolute accuracy of astronomical fact (or any other sort of fact), and find the idea that people preserved the information of a particular eclipse for eight or so centuries dubious.
Anyway, am I right in thinking that dating events involving the orbits of the Earth, the Moon and Mercury about 3000 years ago using current software is unlikely to be accurate?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 02:16 AM

I would agree, Jack.

I would say, Pete, that we are getting into very deep waters here, where disentangling what is true, what is a lie and how those interact with what people believe is no simple matter. Even what we mean by 'true' and 'a lie', 'true' and 'false', and whether both of those 'true's are the same thing needs careful thought and precisely chosen language. And I have my sister visiting at the moment, so I haven't time just now. Maybe I can flesh this out a bit this evening.

But to summarise in a sentence or two: What people are told about Galileo and the Church is factually accurate. The 'Thomas Aquinas' definition of a lie was that it was a false statement and told with the intention to deceive. I disagree; as far as I am concerned the key characteristic of a lie is that it told with the intention to deceive: whether it is true or false is secondary to that intention, in my view. But in this case what is told is both factually correct and it is not told (by most people) with the intention to deceive, so neither I nor Aquinas would consider it a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 08:24 PM

17th century mathematico-religious politics is rather brilliantly described in Amir Aczel's "Infinitesimal". Galileo's case was a skirmish in a much larger war.

I'm ignoring the idiotic bulk pastes from Wikipedia. Moronic.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Jul 20 - 03:55 PM

Interesting discussion , Sandman and DMcG . I’ve also heard that prior to the Simplicico affair , Galileo was not persecuted for his science views , and even accorded a measure of legitimacy . .?         Is this an an example of what almost everyone thinks they know , but are wrong about !?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 04:44 AM

Here is a description of how "time changes with speed" affects physics. You can see this with a home-made spectroscope.

Spin orbit coupling

I did understand how that special relativity effect worked once (at least the Larmor precession bit). I have sat through lectures on the general relativity effect that causes the precession of the orbit of Mercury and didn't get it. It's a much more subtle effect. Thinking of it as time slowing down in the Sun's gravity well might be relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 03:55 AM

I think that first sentence which includes the phrase "which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point" is important and gives a much better setting to the account than is often given, so thank you for that, Sandman.

Now Ptolemy is much misunderstood as well, in my opinion. It is often said that he had an earth-centric model, which is true, but that does not mean he thought the earth was at the centre of the Universe. His writing suggests he understood that movements were relative, and that mathematically speaking whether the Earth or the Sun is taken as the centre has no effect of the 'answers', but it does have a big effect on how hard getting to those answers might be.   But he was not really interested in the question of where the planets were in any absolute sense, because he did understood relative movement. The question he wanted to answer was where the planets were when seen from Earth, because that is where we see them from.   It was really useful to those studying the skies to have information about where the planets would 'appear in the sky' and so forth. It is the usefulness of the model that drove it, much more than a search for whether the Sun moved round the Earth or vice versa.

It is worth reminding ourselves that our language is earth centric, not heliocentric. We talk of sunrise, sunset, the sun being high in the sky, high noon, and many many others: all earth centric.   Describing 'sunrise' with a heliocentric language is clumsy at best and would hardly make good literature. (Saying 'dawn' is really just a synonym for sunrise, so that is not what I mean be describing it in a sun-centred way.)

Even scientifically, I would hazard a guess that when planning a network of GPS or communication satellites the designers use an earth-centric frame of reference, not a sun centred one. "Fitness for the purpose" should be what leads you to selecting a particular model, not a belief that a particular one is 'right.'

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 03:23 AM

Like other iterations of the Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of committing offenses relating to heresy, including Protestantism, sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well as for censorship of printed literature. After 1567, with the execution of Pietro Carnesecchi, an allegedly leading heretic, the Holy Office moved to broaden concerns beyond that of theological matters, such as love magic, witchcraft, superstitions, and cultural morality. However, the treatment was more disciplinary than punitive.[1] The tribunals of the Roman Inquisition covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon, a papal enclave within the territory of France. The Roman Inquisition, though, was considerably more bureaucratic and focused on pre-emptive control in addition to the reactive judicial prosecution experienced under other iterations.[2]
Function

Typically, the pope appointed one cardinal to preside over meetings of the Congregation. Though often referred to in historical literature as Grand Inquisitors, the role was substantially different from the formally appointed Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. There were usually ten other cardinals who were members of the Congregation, as well as a prelate and two assistants all chosen from the Dominican Order. The Holy Office also had an international group of consultants; experienced scholars of theology and canon law who advised on specific questions. The congregation, in turn, presided over the activity of local tribunals.
History

The Roman Inquisition began in 1542 as part of the Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism, but it represented a less harsh affair than the previously established Spanish Inquisition.[3] In 1588,[4] Pope Sixtus V established 15 congregations of the Roman Curia of which the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition was one. In 1908, the congregation was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and in 1965 it was renamed again and is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

While the Roman Inquisition was originally designed to combat the spread of Protestantism in Italy, the institution outlived that original purpose and the system of tribunals lasted until the mid 18th century, when pre-unification Italian states began to suppress the local inquisitions, effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes.
Copernicus
Main article: Nicolaus Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus published a formulated model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), in 1543. The book was dedicated to Pope Paul III, who was known for his interests in astronomy.

In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants judged the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The original assessment document from the Inquisition was made widely available in 2014.)[5]

This assessment led to Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres being placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books).
Galileo
Main article: Galileo Galilei

Galileo Galilei revised the Copernican theories and was admonished for his views on heliocentrism in 1615. The Roman Inquisition concluded that his theory could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[6] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[6]

He was tried by the Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was also placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). He spent the rest of his life under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri near Florence.[7]
Others

Among the subjects of this Inquisition were Franciscus Patricius, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Gerolamo Cardano, and Cesare Cremonini. Of these, only Bruno was executed, the last by the Roman Inquisition. Campanella was later implicated in a conspiracy to drive the Spanish from Naples and Sicily and was imprisoned for twenty-seven years in various Neapolitan fortresses.[8] He was finally released from the Castel Nuovo in 1626, through Pope Urban VIII, who personally interceded on his behalf with Philip IV of Spain. The miller Domenico Scandella was also burned at the stake on the orders of Pope Clement VIII in 1599 for his belief that God was created from chaos.[9]

The Inquisition also concerned itself with the Benandanti in the Friuli region, but considered them a lesser danger than the Protestant Reformation and only handed out light sentences.

17th century traveler and author, John Bargrave, gave an account of his interactions with the Roman Inquisition.[2] Arriving in the city of Reggio (having travelled from Modena), Bargrave was stopped by the city guard who inspected his books on suspicion some may have been on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Bargrave was brought before the city's chief inquisitor who suggested they converse in Latin rather than Italian so that the guards might be prevented from understanding them. The inquisitor told him that the inquisition were not accustomed to stopping visitors or travellers unless someone had suggested they do so (Bargrave suspected that Jesuits in Rome had made accusations against him). Nonetheless, Bargrave was told he was required to hold a license from the inquisition. Even with a license, Bargrave was prohibited from carrying any books "printed at any heretical city, as Geneva, Amsterdam, Leyden, London, or the like".[2] Bargrave provided a catalogue of his books to the inquisition and was provided with a license to carry them for the rest of his journey.

The Inquisition in Malta (1561 to 1798) is generally considered to have been gentler.[10]

Italian historian Andrea Del Col estimates that out of 51,000–75,000 cases judged by Inquisition in Italy after 1542, around 1,250 resulted in a death sentence.
   Newton was lucky, unfortunately bigotry and bigoted ignoramuses were around in 1950s and are still with us in 2020, there is a very good book called the American Inquisition about McCARTHY AND NIXON
   McCarthy identified himself as Catholic, and although the great majority of Catholics were Democrats, as his fame as a leading anti-Communist grew, he became popular in Catholic communities across the country, with strong support from many leading Catholics, diocesan newspapers, and Catholic journals.
What stuck with McCarthy, however, was his church’s opposition to Communism and its Index of Forbidden Texts. Books were banned if they contained material deemed to be heretical, salacious or just not edifying for Catholics to read, and a list of Marquette students who did read them for a class was forwarded to the archbishop every semester.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 03:14 AM

You've opened a Pandora's box, Redman!

And I wasn't even trying. Or standing on the shoulders of giants!

And as for GPS, I remember when HP (when they were THE place to buy any tech equipment from) sent one of their rubidium clock into space to test the old Eisteinian contraction. I presume that was to test for GPS viability.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 09:07 PM

Slightly is a big factor when it comes to GPS. Einstienian correction is required for GPS to work. If we went with Newtonian calculation alone GPS would never be close.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 09:05 PM

Are you thinking of the precession of the orbit of Mercury? That's a general relativity effect.

The effect of speed is a special relativity issue, most clearly seen on the microscale with spin-orbit coupling in quantum mechanics.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 06:16 PM

I know the Galileo account is well loved, but even Ptolomy said his model was a mere mathematical model and there was no way of determining whether the sun or the Earth was at the centre. Copernicus formulated and published his heliocentric model before Galllileo and had no trouble with the Church.

On the other hand Galllelio cast his account as a discussion between two people, one of whom was, I think, called Simplico and was taken to be a representation of the Pope.

Calling powerful people simpletons is always a risky move, was especially so in those days, and probably played no little part in the drama that followed.


So yes, the account above is accurate as far as it goes, but may well leave out some significant interpersonal matters. Itt is unlikely it was all about science.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 05:42 PM

You've opened a Pandora's box, Redman! This could be an amazing thread, depending on how soon Joe Offer spots it... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 05:28 PM

Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World
By Nicholas P. Leveillee
2011, Vol. 3 No. 05 | pg. 2/2 | «
Cite References Pri

The Inquisition gave him a short amount of time to come to Rome or he would be jailed and brought when his health was better.22.) The entire trial lasted eight months, after which Galileo was sentenced by seven of the ten Inquisitors. The other three refused to sign for unknown reasons. His sentence was that Dialogues would be placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, Galileo could be arrested if the Inquisition decided so, he would have to publicly admit that he was wrong, and he would also have to perform religious penance for an extended amount of time. He was also placed under house arrest at the Embassy. He was allowed leniency because he admitted he violated the injunction but did not do so intentionally. Galileo was eventually allowed to return to his farm house to live out the remainder of his life. His book remained on the Index of Prohibited Books for many years after his death.23.)

The committee that Pope Urban VIII organized had told the Pope that Dialogues could be corrected and then allowed to be published if any useful knowledge could be gained from it. However, the Pope did not allow this, possibly due to his irritation over Simplicio.24.) The Pope did not even allow Galileo a proper burial in a church; Galileo was buried in an unmarked grave in the Santa Croce Church in Florence.

In 1734, ninety-two years after his death, a request was approved to give Galileo a better burial place, a mausoleum in the church he was originally buried in.25.) Dialogues remained on the Index for 111 years before a censored version was released, in 1744. The censored version was heavily edited, some sections were completely removed. It was finally removed from the Index 202 years later, in 1835.26.) For many years, the Catholic Church continued to deny that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

It was only in 1820 that the Church allowed another astronomer, Joseph Settle, to declare the motion of the Earth, as proposed by Copernicus over 200 years ago, as fact. Three hundred and fifty years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II said in 1992 “that Galileo suffered unjustly at the hands of the Church and praised Galileo's religiousness and his views and behaviors regarding the relationship between science and religion.”27.)

Copernicus received fairly positive recognition not long after his death. With the exception of his book being placed on the Index, there was little else that affected how people saw him. For some time after his death, he continued to receive praise for his other mathematical works.28.) In other countries, his heliocentric hypothesis was taught in some universities, arguments for and against being taught.29.)

However, some were still critical of him. Tolsani wrote that Copernicus took the easy way by delaying publishing his book until he was on his deathbed, effectively escaping from the possible repercussions of the Church.30.) Perhaps Copernicus was right in delaying publication of Revolutions, for he feared the wrath of the Church. Scientists could not be sure that they were safe from criticism and religious persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 05:11 PM

And then there are those that believe Prince Philip is god, and look what the Church tried to do to Galileo
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 04:55 PM

Newton was a magnificent scientist. Like all magnificent scientists he could get things appallingly wrong, and cling to his beloved baby... he believed in alchemy fer chrissake, and Einstein got himself into a right pickle with his cosmological constant... even Lamarck was a lovely feller...

But at least all these chaps were doing science. Their peccadillos were as nothing when set alongside the dickheads who try to insert God into science...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 01:04 PM

Ever hear that a miss is as good as a mile?

Or to quote Wyatt Earp: "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final."

Subject: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 12:03 PM

It has long been said, but not until now have I heard why Newton got it wrong, but only slightly.

Basically Gravity acts with an inverse law. Simple enough, but the planets beg to differ.

However Einstein's Relativity states the time changes with speed. And Gravity comes out of the Space-Time thingy.

Planets (etc) are traveling at a speed. Low enough for most purposes but enough to need an added term to Newton's Law of Gravity. Small but cumulative when predicting the position of planets.

So There you have it, if I am right. Newton was wrong - slightly.