The Falsification of Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation

The philosophy is simply to apply the Scientific Method to Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation.

Scientific Method

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

(Separately it was shown that large spherically symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.)

This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Newton called induction.

It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687.

(When Newton’s book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him.)

In modern language, the law states the following:

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

The Falsification of Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation

The falsification is well documented.

Though in 1932, Jan Hendrik Oort was the first to report measurements that the stars in the Solar neighborhood moved faster than expected when a mass distribution based upon the visible matter was assumed, this measurement was later determined to be essentially erroneous.

A few years later, Horace Babcock reported in his PhD thesis measurements of the rotation curve for Andromeda which suggested that the mass-to-luminosity ratio increases radially. He, however, attributed it to either absorption of light within the galaxy or modified dynamics in the outer portions of the spiral and not to any form of missing matter.

In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics.

Following this, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin, a young astronomer at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington presented findings based on a new sensitive spectrograph that could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galaxies to a greater degree of accuracy than had ever before been achieved. Together with fellow staff-member Kent Ford, Rubin announced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronomical Society the discovery that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that their mass densities were uniform well beyond the location with most of the stars (the galactic bulge), a result independently found in 1978. Rubin presented her results in an influential paper in 1980. These results suggest that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo. Met with skepticism, Rubin insisted that the observations were correct.

Based on Newtonian mechanics and assuming, as was originally thought, that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge near the center, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, i.e. where the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit.

Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are “flat”, i.e. outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant.

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B).

Sadly, the scientific establishment deviated from the Scientific Method by refusing to accept the [repeated] falsification of a Newton’s [sacrosanct] Law of Universal Gravitation. Instead, the scientific establishment preferred to keep its Newtonian belief system intact by accepting the mathematical invention of Dark Matter.

Dark matter came to the attention of astrophysicists due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and the mass calculated from the “luminous matter” they contain; such as stars, gas and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Returning to the Scientific Method simply requires letting “reality speak for itself”.

The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

The reality of Spiral Galaxies speaks loud and clear.

Image credit: Wikipedia


The phenomenon that is called Gravity simply reflects vortex pressure.

The dynamics of a Forced [Rotational or Rigid-body] Vortex provides the rationale [and mathematics] for the “Inverse Square Law” of gravitation.

Pressure in a vortex
The fluid motion in a vortex creates a dynamic pressure (in addition to any hydrostatic pressure) that is lowest in the core region, closest to the axis, and increases as one moves away from from it, in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. One can say that it is the gradient of this pressure that forces the fluid to curve around the axis.

In a rigid-body vortex flow of a fluid with constant density, the dynamic pressure is proportional to the square of the distance r from the axis. In a constant gravity field, the free surface of the liquid, if present, is a concave paraboloid.

In an irrotational vortex flow with constant fluid density and cylindrical symmetry, the dynamic pressure varies like P∞ − K/r2, where P∞ is the limiting pressure infinitely far from the axis. This formula provides another constraint for the extent of the core, since the pressure cannot be negative. The free surface (if present) dips sharply near the axis line, with depth inversely proportional to r2.

Supporting Observation

The Oort constants are empirically derived parameters that characterize the shearing motion and vorticity of the Milky Way galaxy.

The Oort constants (discovered by Jan Oort) A and B are empirically derived parameters that characterize the local rotational properties of our galaxy, the Milky Way, in the following manner:

where V_0 and R_0 are the rotational velocity and distance to the Galactic center, respectively, measured at the position of the Sun. As derived below, they depend only on the motions and positions of stars in the solar neighborhood.

As of 1997, the most accurate values of these constants are A = 14.82 ± 0.84 km s−1 kpc−1 and B = -12.37 ± 0.64 km s−1 kpc−1.

From the Oort constants, it is possible to determine the orbital properties of the Sun, such as the orbital velocity and period, and infer local properties of the Galactic disk, such as the mass density and how the rotational velocity changes as a function of radius from the Galactic center.
The Oort constants can greatly enlighten one as to how the Galaxy rotates.
As one can see A and B are both functions of the Sun’s orbital velocity as well as the first derivative of the Sun’s velocity.
As a result,
A describes the shearing motion in the disk surrounding the Sun, while
B describes the angular momentum gradient in the solar neighborhood, also referred to as vorticity.

Solar System - Rankine Vortex


Geocentric Rankine Vortex - Outer Ring


Click the following link to view all postings related to Gravity:

The philosophical and practical problems associated with Newtonian Gravity are simply stunning:

1) Newtonian Gravity has no mechanism and relies upon a magical action at a distance.

2) Newtonian Gravity somehow travels “instantaneously” throughout the universe.

3) Newtonian Gravity travelling at infinite speed implies the associated mass is a source of infinite energy.

4) Newtonian Gravity produces a force that intelligently adjusts itself so that all objects are uniformly accelerated regardless of their mass.

[See: ]

5) Newtonian Gravity fails to provide a viable explanation for the three-body problem presented by the Sun-Moon-Earth at New Moon.

[See: ]

6) Newtonian Gravity fails to provide a viable explanation for the horseshoe orbit of Asteroid 2010 SO16.

[See: ]

7) Newtonian Gravity is falsified unless 84.5% of the total matter in the universe is composed of a hypothetical form of invisible Fairy Dust called Dark Matter.

[See: ]

For more information see: The Clockwork Universe

Update Two
The “slow rocking back and forth of the Moon” provides clear support for Velikovsky’s statement: “There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites”.

The “slow rocking back and forth” also illustrates “microgravity” where orbiting objects experience “weightlessness” as the motion of their micro-masses are influenced by micro-forces.

Advocates for Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation might enjoy calculating the Gravitation Force exerted by two weightless orbiting objects.


28 Responses to The Falsification of Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation

  1. DirkH says:

    Looking for something that doesn’t exist (Dark Matter) is a great career choice because you never have to find it.

    Black Holes also seem to fall within that job description.

  2. mpc755 says:

    Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.

    There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter.

    Matter moves through and displaces the aehter.

    The Milky Way’s halo is not dark matter traveling along with the matter the Milky Way consists of.

    The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.

    What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

    Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

    The state of displacement of the aether *is* gravity.

  3. Ashley Law says:

    No Dark Matter No Black Holes No Big Bang or any of the current 4 big bangs No comets of dirty Ice and Snow – “Gravity is not enough” Richard Feynman 1983 – Our Sun is not thermo-nuclear powered it is Electric – The Universe is Electric – we are electric !

  4. Colin Wells says:

    Your ideas are very exciting to me….as a layman trying to grasp the concepts it is quite a challenge, but, I will spend all the time necessary to gain insight. Can you please evaluate Coulomb’s law as it relates to gravitational or vortex analysis? Thank you. C. Wells

  5. A. D. HALL says:

    Ashley’s Law: We are electric! I happen to agree. Anthony Peratt’s work shows rotational dynamics of galaxies. As Colin notes below – please evaluate Coulomb’s law.

  6. Bob Enyart says:

    Can I be rude here guys? Nasa says that the big bang theory is confirmed by fulfillment of its three big predictions. So, no big deal that over at Real Science Radio we have an article disputing that. But what is a big deal, is that if you Google: big bang predictions, out of a million pages they think are relevant, Google ranks our article (at as #1. 🙂 And another of our articles ranks around #3 out of millions for Googling: evidence against the big bang. In our articles, we discuss dark matter and the velocity of spirals. 🙂 (Oh, the rude part was plugging our articles on your blog.)

  7. david smith says:

    Brilliant. Fell off chair laughing. How ironic, how true. Wish you well and look out for a book that dispels dark matter, and tells a lot of other things which will be explained and will give answers to questions that not answered by present errm supposed theories.
    Give me an e-mail in about 6 weeks time.

  8. E.Thies says:

    it’s sad that a person with such poor understanding of basic physics is trying to de-bunk physics. First of all, Newton’s law of gravity is considered “classical mechanics”. Modern physics (any physics after 1904ish, think “theory of relativity”) explains much of what is shown as “evidence” that Newtonian gravity doesn’t work. I’ll try a brief, line by-line response to the “Update.

    1) look up the “graviton”. Or field physics, not magic, just fields.

    2) Nope, not true, “gravity” travels at the speed of light, like waves in other fields as well.

    3) see #2

    4) Um, nothing mystical about it. Check out newtons second law. F=ma. It’s a proportionality,

    5) I’m not sure what you think is disagreeable. Newton’s theories may have been juvenile, as it pertains to astronomy, but his law of gravity does not disagree with the information provided in the noted article. The moon DOES orbit the sun, as does the earth. Since they have a similar orbital distance, they have a similar orbital speed (in agreement with Keppler and Newton), and due to their proximity, are also able to orbit each other… Not sure the disconnect.

    6) True? But many orbits, such as mercury’s orbit, aren’t explained with classical mechanics, they require relativity to be explained. Look at the measurements taken in the early 1900’s to disprove Einstein, which ended up supporting his ideas. Since then, physicists have acknowledge that Newtonian Mechanics is limited to non-relativistic situations. So…

    7) Not Fairy Dust, you sardonic fool. Dark matter, simply mater which isn’t hot enough to emit measurable EM radiation. Also, relativity… Also, stars aren’t fixed in the arms of a galaxy. Galaxy arms are more like a pressure wave moving through a cloud of stars, so not governed by newton’s ideas about point particles… So… not applicable. Even if Dark Mater is dubious, this argument has nothing to do with Newton.

  9. Steven Douglas says:

    I think that “mantle plumes” fall into the same category of “invoke something deep, dark, exotic, spooky, and unfalsifiable”.

  10. Henry C. says:

    the solution to the missing mass problem has been discovered but shall be unveiled shortly.

  11. Yehiel Gotkis says:

    I am glad I found this paper, which cleared my mind. Please look through this my notes and if possible comment on it

    Black holes to pull-in the spacetime – Is it possible? Well, it looks like it is…

    Liquid vortex (LV) sheds light on the black holes (BHs) essentials.

    Gravity-driven liquid vortex – a generic analog of a cosmic black hole. Here is a few exciting things we can learn from it? Part 4 – Summarizing the most important points.

    Vortices could be found everywhere around us. Assuming different kinds of vortices possess common generics, we can get an insight in understanding the hardly observable ones, for instance BHs, by observing the easily observable ones, like LVs. Exploring LVs, also allows to run the observations with reasonable resources, in reasonable time, under variety of conditions and to observe the developments beneath the funnel bottom, which, in reference to the BHs, can be considered as an analog of the BH bottom.
    The LV I’ve observed was arranged to confine its developments in the thin surface layer thus making it to act as a two-dimensional one. The collection of LV videos could be accessed at YouTube under my name Yehiel Gotkis ( Please slow down the video rate as much as you can to see more details.
    Analysis of the observations leads to a shocking grasp questioning even the widely-adopted views on dark matter and dark energy.
    Observations, analysis, interpretations and conclusions.
    · The LV was emitting double-spiral waves known to carry momentum and associated kinetic energy transferable to other objects. The double spiral generation was induced by the spinning bottom asymmetry shaped as a distorted digit 8. The fact that generation of propagating away waves was caused by the spinning vortex asymmetry, in reference to the BH case, means that spinning BHs, being of even slightly asymmetric geometry, should generate/re-emit a part of the acquired mass/energy, as gravitational waves, back into the space. Which, in cosmic timescale, should make a significant amount of it, meaning that the Universe should be filled with energetic gravitational ripples. As the ocean surface ripples.
    · Also, the spinning double spiral wave profile, while swelling from the LV center, should oscillate, and it indeed does, which at some observation angles looks like wobbling (check, for example, “Liquid vortex upper double spiral wave generation” video \, providing a simple suggestion on interpretation of the Quasi Periodic Oscillation (QPO) phenomenon.
    · The LV observed was naturally pulling-in the water and whatsoever floating over it. In relation to the BHs, the upper water surface could be thought to be associated with the spacetime and the floating stuff – with the regular matter. So, for the spacetime/matter duo, as for the water/floating stuff,
    The spacetime and the matter are inherently engaged with each other.
    This engagement could be guessed of causing effects analogous to hydrodynamic drag and friction – gravitational drag and friction in BH case. Within the frame of this rationale (abbreviated as BHSSR, Black Hole Sucking Spacetime Rationale),
    The BHs are to be thought of pulling-in not only the matter but also the spacetime, whirling around the BH as liquid whirls around the LV.
    Intriguingly, the BHSSR allows to interpret the galaxy rotation curves anomaly and the Universe accelerated expansion with no necessity of introducing the two famous but still challenging to prove hypotheses:
    Existence of the dark matter
    As per the BHSSR, the pulled-in by the BH whirling spacetime, as a spinning elastic thin film, can modify the radial and angular distributions of the shear stress and the actual force defining the (regular) mass rotational velocity. Which will depend on the spacetime media “fluidity” in the same way as it depends on the water fluidity for the LV. Obviously, the spacetime “deformation” depending on the BH activity, may extend far beyond the disc of the observable regular mass and appear as an external halo influencing the galactic dynamics.
    Existence of the dark energy
    As per the BHSSR, at the galactic periphery, where the pulling-in force is diminished, the keeping on centrifugal force, induced by the spinning spacetime, accelerates the stars away from the galaxy center.
    · Another important LV occurrence is associated with the development of a galaxy-like spiral shape when a handful of shredded dry leaves was spread over the vortex area (video at
    The deep significance of this development stirred my mind and I would like to share it here:
    The floating leaves were arranging in a galaxy-like shape – what could drive the disarranged flock of intellectless dry leaves to organize themselves in a spiral shape? With the knowledge acquired about the LV, the answer is clear to me now…
    It is the water whirling around the LV, managing the floating stuff to form the spiral shape – it would not have formed spiraling if not governed by the whirling waters. This important deduction leads to an unambiguous conclusion: if in a system A made of non-continuous media a spiral structure is revealed, it must be postulated that there is an adjoined system B made of continuous media or containing a continuous media component (continuous media is essential for developing a vortex and an associated whirling activity). With relation to the galaxies, the only component to be considered as being continuous is the spacetime, which, being actuated by the BH vortex to whirlingly spin around and pulled into the BH, acts as the adjoined system B. So,
    The BH vortex actuates the spacetime to whirlingly spin around and flow into it, and the whirling spacetime, in its turn, directs the galactic regular matter to arrange itself in a spiral shape
    This concept provides explanations for numerous cosmic phenomena.
    And at the end I would like once again to emphasize on the spacetime/matter relations:
    The matter and the spacetime are adhered to each other as an inseparably engaged duo: where the spacetime there the matter. And vice versa.
    If for LV and BH vortices a number of conceptual features were found consistent it would be odd not to consider these vortices to be correlated, in general,
    This is it. Thank you for your attention

  12. Pingback: Black holes to pull-in the spacetime. Is it possible? Well, it looks like it indeed is so… – Site Title

  13. emescohenry says:

    The newtonian law of gravity is actualy a special case of a general law of gravity. His law applies only to certain elementary particles of nature.The general law itself has unveiled so many mysteries about nature and at the same time explains that gravity in essence is a MONSTER

  14. mike0v says:

    Surprisingly, one of the best resources for elucidating how the universe really works is the book “Etidorpha” by John Uri Lloyd. In the book, the true nature of gravity is explained, several misconceptions of modern science are shown through simple experiments, the topography of the inner Earth is described and time is revealed in its proper state: it’s permanent and quiescent. Matter and force fly, time rests.

  15. Lucas Sherrer says:

    Hey man, It is not gravity driving the systems in a spiral galaxy, it is electricity. The galaxies are mostly plasma and electricity rules plasma. Birkelend currents explain most of what is seen and is no mystery. They explain everything from galactic rotation speeds, formations of stars, what are Quasars, the weather on planets, comets and asteroids and thousands of other phenomena which gravity models are just unable to predict. Remember, most of these formulas were hashed out when electricity was still a novel property.
    Even the Sun is electric. Many of the electric principles can be proved in laboratory experiments and not computer models. Nor does it need to rely on Dark Matter/Energy “hocus pocus”. Anyone who says it is there but does not interact is brain dead and wrapped up a mathematical idea which bears little resemblance to the real universe. Why do they get so many things wrong which they euphemistically call “surprise/surprising? From comets(which are not water ice balls to Jupiter’s internal heat. etc.,etc. The use of electricity to describe what is happening leaves one not very surprised.
    One day relativity will be scrapped and we will e allowed to truly investigate the universe.One will see that mass can change and red shift is not always accurate.
    Read up on both of these men: Hans Albers who won the Nobel prize in physics and Kristian Birkeland who studied the auroras and the role of electricity.

  16. cadxx says:

    For some reason, when I see or hear the word SPACETIME I experience something akin to sucking a lemon. A kind of mild pain in my jaw and something in my mind that says “don’t ever do that again”.
    The word space conjures-up thoughts of vast empty nothingness.
    Time has never been proven to exist.
    Time is a moving angle that measures the rotation of the Earth with reference to the stars planets and the Moon. Atomic clocks are calibrated to run on a second that only existed in 1900 There is no universal tick-tock.
    And so we have two meaningless words cobbled together to form the basis of modern physics. There is a fogical lallacy here somewhere.

  17. Pingback: The Scientific Religion of Newton | Louis Hissink's Crazy World

  18. JB says:

    Yes, it is the nasty habit of self-asserted scientists to reify that which has no physical form.

    Jan Oort had a dilemma. Like the author pointed out, rather than go back and re-think his assumptions, he proceeded to invent explanations that cannot and remain impossible to verify.

  19. cadxx says:

    Reblogged at for my collection on Newton.

  20. Gravity is universal pressure, from Aether. “Particles” that come into existence in a vacuum!!!

    The apparent attraction is simply because the area of a body prevents the pressure reacing another body, so they move towards each other. No attraction, just lack of repulsion.

    This has BIG implications for gravity on other bodies: there is an upper limit! No crushing graviatation on the surface of the gas giants. Yes, they have a surface.

    We know area is important as the strength of the loss of repulsion varies according to the square of the distance. If weight or mass were the determinant, then the cube of the distance would figure.

    Has anyone calculated the “gravity” of any of the asteroids/comets we land on?

    For that matter, has anyone verified if any of the Mars transmissions have actually come from Mars?
    Russia/USSR has never successfully landed there……

  21. Pingback: Fiery Trigons: Kepler’s Genius | MalagaBay

  22. Hari Nair says:

    your final comments on “advocates for Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation might enjoy calculating the Gravitation Force exerted by two weightless orbiting objects.” :
    Weight is defined as mass x gravity. Those objects may be ‘weightless’ because they are not subject to force of gravity of any large mass such as a planet, however, they do NOT lose mass. Their mass does not turn to zero.
    Those objects will attract each other – due to the force of gravity (although very weak for low masses).
    I have been reading some of your other blogs – some of which are brilliantly analysed and thought-provoking. However, substituting weight instead of mass in that equation to prove a point is rather disappointing!

  23. malagabay says:

    substituting weight instead of mass in that equation to prove a point is rather disappointing!

    It’s said “mass” is a “measure” of “resistance to acceleration”.

    Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

    The “mass” of a “weightless” body that’s in stable orbit is zero because it’s initial “resistance to acceleration” is zero.

    Therefore, in this orbiting context “weightless” equals “massless” equals zero.

    Furthermore, an object’s “resistance to acceleration” is not a constant.

    An object’s “resistance to acceleration” is different on the Earth and on the Moon.

    An object’s “resistance to acceleration” can even be directionally different.

    For example:

    I can push my car horizontally but I can’t lift my car vertically.

    Ultimately, an object’s “weight” and “mass” are determined by the forces acting upon it.

    Ultimately, the concepts of “weight” and “mass” represent a distinction without a difference.


    Ultimately, Newtonian “gravity” is unscientific claptrap.

  24. Hari Nair says:

    I agree that definition of Mass is circular in the Newtonian framework and the SI unit, it essentially defines mass as a comparison to another sample piece (of a kilogram) using the ‘weighing scale’ principle – subjecting both to the same acceleration (not sure whether SI have revised the definition in 2019, as scheduled). And thereby lies the problem! Also I agree that Newtonian laws are rather ‘creaky’.
    A ‘weightless body in space does NOT have zero resistance to acceleration as you stated. Spacecraft need rocket engines to give the initial acceleration or to change velocity. Yes, coasting at a speed in space does not theoretically need any fuel burn -for obvious (different) reasons.
    Also consider this:
    When its time to slow down the spacecraft for say, a docking manoeuvre with the space station retro-thrusters are required to fire up and slow down the vehicle. That is an undeniable fact and we know it. If say, we assume the space craft had zero mass because it is weightless, its momentum (mass x velocity) would then have been zero, which is not the case. If allowed to impact the space station at speed, the damage it would then cause will be proportional to its momentum.
    Let’s extend this analogy further :
    Had the impacting object been say, a small hand tool drifting slowly and hitting the space station there would have been minimal or no damage. However, the space craft hitting the space station at the same low velocity of the drifting spanner will cause damage – the difference is the far higher momentum of the space craft in comparison to the spanner (both at the same velocity) and that’s attributable to its larger mass.
    Docking in space is a very high-precision activity for that very reason.

    Regarding pushing the car horizontally vs lifting it vertically – for lifting, one needs to apply more force to overcome the acceleration due to ‘g’ (@ 9.81 m/s2) the car is subject to vertically, whereas for pushing it on a perfectly flat surface, one needs lesser force -since its only the frictional force and inertia that needs to be overcome. I am sure you will agree that these fundamentals have been adequately figured out at the working level (if not the conceptual) – our global industries of manufacturing and transportation systems deal with these issues during their operations every single day.

    Yes, Newton’s laws visibly fall short on so many counts on the cosmic level. There is even a problem with the value of the constant G. Is it an inviolate constant, is it changing with time, in regions of higher gravity, seasonally, periodically, in other regions of space – these questions are open and have not been answered completely till date. However, within the context of our solar system, as on date I will dare to opine that in the absence of anything better, the Newtonian framework is a working model for low velocities and accelerations, albeit its need to be tweaked with appropriate correction factors!

  25. malagabay says:

    Good luck with your heuristic approximations.

    However, I would advise extreme caution if your “correction factors” rely upon something that “has not yet been observed” or “some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered”.

    Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density.

    Because dark matter has not yet been observed directly, if it exists, it must barely interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation, except through gravity. The primary candidate for dark matter is some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered, in particular, weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs).

    Kind Regards

  26. cadxx says:

    A subject such as gravity that has been rammed down our throats since childhood is very difficult to discuss with an open and critical mind. I would imagine even worse for those who have a scientific education. There is always the temptation to return to the original to fill the gaps.

    A mass in orbit is weightless and as everything in the universe is in orbit everything must be weightless.
    The orbit is the normal state of a matter.
    A falling object is a failed attempt at achieving orbit (Newton’s cannon balls).
    A collision of two masses has nothing to do with gravity or mass it’s inertia (motion).

    Wiki: “Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object’s speed, or direction of motion. An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces act upon them.”

    The problem here is obviously the straight line? A collision with a spacecraft in orbit?

  27. johnm33 says:

    Keeping it simple, it looks like the arms are ejected from either end of the ovoid. Which looks to be rotating on two axis, one around the apparent galactic axis, in the galactic plane, the second around it’s own length so orthogonal to the galactic plane. Thus oppositely charged stars emerge from either end of the ovoid and continue on their path away from the centre rather like particles in the heliospheric current sheet, and those ejected from the orthogonal spin of the ovoid form the bulge. The extra speed apparent in the inner/newer stars is an artifact of their youth. Should any star wander into the ‘wrong’ arm it will slow and begin to reverse it’s motion and thus actually enter into a reverse orbit.
    No black hole, no dark matter.

  28. katesisco says:

    Interesting reading, way beyond me general public. Notes from my reading:

    From Extreme Cosmos by Bryan Gaensler, PhD.
    GRO J 0422+32 is the lightest (stellar) black hole at about 4x mass of Sol with 3x being the proposed limit which scientists theorize have the strongest gravity accruing to lowest mass/smallest size. Page 182-185. Magnetism also increases upon shrinking. Now this concept lies in the idea that the holes continually eat, or merge. If this foundational concept is found to be awry, then current theory has no legs to stand on. I refer you to page 126; “And yet, we consistently find that supermassive black holes all these billions of years ago (back to 10% of the galaxies current age) HAVE VERY SIMILAR MASSES TO THE BLACK HOLES WE SEE TODAY.”

    Also P Marmet and missing hydrogen

    Miles Mathis says PHOTONS not electrons.

Comments are closed.