Newtonian Reality Check

Sir Isaac Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation [first published in 1687] has become deeply embedded within mainstream science and is currently accepted as an unquestionable article of scientific faith.

Newton's law of universal gravitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

The unquestioning belief in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is perhaps one of the strangest mysteries in modern mainstream science because:

a) The “law” was originally grandly claimed to be “universal” based upon extremely limited observational data from one celestial body [the Earth].

b) The “law” is a magical force at a distance [for which Newton feigned no hypotheses] which “acts” upon celestial bodies without any underlying mechanical explanation.

c) The “law” is based upon the immeasurable “mass” of large celestial objects and is [therefore] a totally unscientific “law” because it cannot be falsified [by real observational measurement of “mass” for celestial objects].

The unquestioning faith in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation by the mainstream scientific establishment is presented as established “facts” to the consumers of mainstream science.

Planetary Data Table

However, upon closer examination it is evident that mainstream planetary “facts” are actually underpinned by very limited “precise observational data” which is hidden in a “fog” of “fuzzy observational data” [where the observers don’t know precisely “what” they are measuring – like the “radius” of the gas giants] and Newtonian calculations that are based upon an inexplicable [unscientific and magical] “force at a distance”.

Planetary Data Classification

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream Newtonian calculation of the immeasurable “planetary mass” correlate very precisely with the observational gravity data thus far collected from the surface of rocky planets.

Rocky Planets - Gravity vs Mass

However, the mainstream Newtonian calculations based upon “fuzzy observational data” reflect the fuzziness of the data.

Gas Giants - Gravity vs Mass

Unfortunately, these calculated “planetary mass” values are accepted unquestionably by the mainstream [instead of being rejected as unscientifically derived values].

However, consumers of mainstream science can perform a “reality check” [of the Newtonian theory] based upon the “precise observational data” published by the mainstream scientific establishment for the rocky planets [Venus, Earth and Mars].

Rocky Planets - Gravity vs Radius

Interestingly, a “reality check” based only upon “precise observational data” indicates that “equatorial surface gravity” is very strongly correlated with the “equatorial surface radius” for the rocky planets.

The correlation between “equatorial surface gravity” and “equatorial surface radius” does not rely upon any magical forces at a distance or any theoretical calculations based upon self-fulfilling [circular] logic.

The “reality check” correlation is based solely upon “precise observational data” and can be used to predict an “equatorial surface gravity” of 2.24 m/sec2 for Mercury [instead of the Newtonian calculation of 3.70 m/sec2].

A similar “reality check” for the gas giants [based upon the mainstream “fuzzy observational data”] provides a surprisingly good correlation [R2 = 0.9491] between “gravity versus radius” when compared to the mainstream “gravity versus mass” calculation [R2 = 0.9743].

Gas Giants - Gravity vs Radius

The correlation between “equatorial surface gravity” and “equatorial surface radius” [based upon limited “precise observational data”] provides an excellent correlation [R2 = 0.9996] for the rocky planets.

Overall, this “real world” observed relationship provides a verifiable [and predictive] formula that underlines the fact that Newtonian heuristics [based upon the calculation an immeasurable mass] are neither meaningful nor scientific.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Earth, Gravity, Moon, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Newtonian Reality Check

  1. adolfogiurfa says:

    Wavelength…diameter

  2. Pingback: Science Fraud & Fantasy (part 6) – Kensho Homestead

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s