[rabinoz]

Certainly the RE think that Newton was and is most qualified to offer an opinion as to the cause of gravity.

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:

[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

I wondered when the "waterfall of text" would start flowing! 

You quote: "As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History", but do you note the date?

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), often referred to as simply the Principia, is a work in three books by Isaac Newton, in Latin, first published 5 July 1687. After annotating and correcting his personal copy of the first edition, Newton also published two further editions, in 1713 and 1726. The Principia states Newton's laws of motion, forming the foundation of classical mechanics, also Newton's law of universal gravitation, and a derivation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion (which Kepler first obtained empirically). The Principia is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science".  From Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Don't you think that, in the intervening years, Newton might have found explanations that fitted the voluminous experimental work done by him and Robert Hooke (who really should get a lot of the credit).
And, no-one doubts that Newton found the cause of gravitation mysterious

Yes, I know that in your infinite wisdom, you have the answer to all this.

I do, however, wonder that if you ideas are so convincing, why you hasn't either TFES or "The Flat Earth Society" taken on your ideas?

If you can't convince them that your "theory of everything" is better than

" Universal Acceleration  ", " Denspressure  " or even " Things have a natural propensity to fall down  "

you haven't a chance with the rest of us!

But, who knows, we don't yet know the underlying cause of gravitation, so something weird might yet turn up, but it's a bit hard to escape the fact that gravitation

behaves as described in "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation", at least to an extremely good approximation in our local environment - ie at least within the solar system.

I know you will never be convinced, but maybe others can be provoked into looking a bit deeper.

[CableDawg]

In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.

It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

You see how that works don't you?  I didn't change what you originally said, which was that a person who fell for anything hook, line and sinker was an unreliable source, period.

Now you are changing tack (common for you when called out) to a source only for debunking something.

[Tom Bishop]

It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

Are Astrologers not reliable sources for the practice and teachings of Astrology?

Are they not the most reliable source to find and present evidence for it, if such evidence can exist?

For example, perhaps only an properly motivated Astrologer would be up on the statistics of the number of murders on full moons, and might argue that is possible for the celestial bodies to affect the human complexion. Maybe such a dedicated Astrologer would have all sorts of stats for us about the sun and the planets and the heavens. I only know about the murders during a full moon association. A knowledged Astrologer would know much more.

The Astrologer is not in the best position to debunk himself, as he is not actively persuing that, but he is in the best position to show himself to be right or the opposition to be wrong.

[andruszkow]

I'd like to see the so-called empirical evidence for UA, Tom.

[CableDawg]

It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

Are Astrologers not reliable sources for the practice and teachings of Astrology?

Are they not the most reliable source to find and present evidence for it, if such evidence can exist?

For example, perhaps only an properly motivated Astrologer would be up on the statistics of the number of murders on full moons, and might argue that is possible for the celestial bodies to affect the human complexion. Maybe such a dedicated Astrologer would have all sorts of stats for us about the sun and the planets and the heavens. I only know about the murders during a full moon association. A knowledged Astrologer would know much more.

The Astrologer is not in the best position to debunk himself, as he is not actively persuing that, but he is in the best position to show himself to be right or the opposition to be wrong.

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

[Tom Bishop]

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.

A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist, as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.

The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.

[Rama Set]

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.

A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist, as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.

The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.

The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously. 

[Tom Bishop]

The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.

Quite incorrect.

If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.

[Rama Set]

The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.

Quite incorrect.

If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.

First off, why are you instantly characterizing A as ignorant and biased?  Second, we are talking about replacing a theory in the same discipline.  Someone from another discipline is not as likely to replace a theory because they would not have the facility with the available evidence.

You really shouldn't talk about this because you often characterize scientists as biased and/or unable to just do the work of science, which is to follow the evidence.  It was Einstein who supplanted Newton, and it was Feynman who replaced Maxwell.  These are scientists who were more than capable of seeing outside the box of what had come before and to find new and novel ways of dealing describing the world.  This blogger you linked to seems highly unlikely to supplant QM because he does not appear to be actually doing science, but instead puts up diagrams and ideas and purports them to be science.

The people actually doing science are the ones likely to do the science that supplants an outdated or outmoded theory.  This should not be a surprise.  Within that, yes, the person who is most creative and least constrained by their bias would likely be the person who would break new ground, but that is not particularly surprising either.

[Tom Bishop]

First off, why are you instantly characterizing A as ignorant and biased?

He is ignorant because his science was replaced with Science B. He is biased because he is a Science A proponent rather than an an unaffiliated third party.

Second, we are talking about replacing a theory in the same discipline. Someone from another discipline is not as likely to replace a theory because they would not have the facility with the available evidence.

Earth Science covers all aspects of the planet from the deep inner core to the outer layers of the atmosphere. But Geology and Meteorology are called different sciences, as are sub fields within them. A science is merely a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

You really shouldn't talk about this because you often characterize scientists as biased and/or unable to just do the work of science, which is to follow the evidence.  It was Einstein who supplanted Newton, and it was Feynman who replaced Maxwell. These are scientists who were more than capable of seeing outside the box of what had come before and to find new and novel ways of dealing describing the world.

That's right. It was Einstein who debunked Newton, not Newton who debunked Newton.

It took a different scientist, who promoted a fundamentally different approach to the science, for science to change.

This blogger you linked to seems highly unlikely to supplant QM because he does not appear to be actually doing science, but instead puts up diagrams and ideas and purports them to be science.

His website is quite extensive and the theory is flushed out beyond the front page, do pay attention to things when you look at them.

The people actually doing science are the ones likely to do the science that supplants an outdated or outmoded theory.  This should not be a surprise.

The author claims to have discovered the protron and neutron wave structure in 2004. How is he not claiming to have performed science?

[Rama Set]

He is ignorant because his science was replaced with Science B. He is biased because he is a Science A proponent rather than an an unaffiliated third party.

It appears you don't know what ignorant or biased mean.

Earth Science covers all aspects of the planet from the deep inner core to the outer layers of the atmosphere. But Geology and Meteorology are called different sciences, as are sub fields within them. A science is merely a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

Fascinating. So what?

That's right. It was Einstein who debunked Newton, not Newton who debunked Newton.

But you said a practitioner of a certain discipline is not qualified to innovate that discipline. You are obviously incorrect.

It took a different scientist, who promoted a fundamentally different approach to the science, for science to change.[/quote]

They approached science similarly. From observation, evidence and inference.

His website is quite extensive and the theory is flushed out beyond the front page, do pay attention to things when you look at them.

I did. Can you show me a link to any experiments he has done? Papers he has published?  There don't seem to be any.

The author claims to have discovered the protron and neutron wave structure in 2004. How is he not claiming to have performed science?

Because he has not provided any evidence. If it were as simple as you are saying, anyone making a claim is doing science. But that's not how science works. You should spend more time reading papers presenting actual evidence than doing your best to find every crackpot who think they have found the "secret".

[garygreen]

tl;dr: no one in science is ever going to take your criticism of science seriously if you cannot accurately describe their evidence and arguments.  that's not just true of science.  it applies to every field of study.

i disagree that the personal beliefs of an author has any bearing on the soundness or validity of her deductive reasoning.  the evidence and reasoning can speak for themselves.

two staples of any comparative analysis are 1) the ability to demonstrate a mastery of the subject material being compared or critically analyzed, and 2) a fully charitable and accurate representation of the viewpoint you seek to describe/compare/criticize.  this is true for any field of study, from physics to astrology to philosophy to whatever else.  i would argue that it's an essential component to mitigating or eliminating bias; the author makes it her task to understand the opposing viewpoint as thoroughly as possible and presents the strongest and most compelling version of the opposing viewpoint before detailing her own criticism.  i can't speak to science writing, but this is ubiquitous in the humanities, and for very good reason: it produces the highest-quality work possible.

but gary, surely you're not saying that i need to become an expert in astrology to be skeptical of astrology.  that's asinine.

is it?  for sure, i agree that skepticism is always well-warranted by default, and i'm not saying that you should personally believe in every positive claim made in a field in which you aren't expert; but, i actually do think that if you want to criticize the field properly/formally/persuasively/whateverly, then that requires a robust understanding of the field and the arguments its adherents make.  i mean, if you're not even aware of the best evidence that astrologers claim to have to support their views, then how can your analysis be complete?

[rabinoz]

tl;dr: no one in science is ever going to take your criticism of science seriously if you cannot accurately describe their evidence and arguments.  that's not just true of science.  it applies to every field of study.

My tl;dr's beat your tl;dr anyday! 

Yes, i agree. So many criticisms or both sides sides come from a poor understanding of the "model" being attacked.

i disagree that the personal beliefs of an author has any bearing on the soundness or validity of her deductive reasoning.  the evidence and reasoning can speak for themselves.

Again, I largely agree, but sometimes the clear bias of the investigator comes through. I could point to some current findings as to the detriments effects of sugar ~ fats and a paper by Miles Mathis where he attacks the Gravitation Constant measurements (I'll get attacked for saying that, but I believe I can justify it).

But, the main thing is certainly "the soundness or validity of her deductive reasoning" and whether or not the findings are validated by further independent worl.

two staples of any comparative analysis are 1) the ability to demonstrate a mastery of the subject material being compared or critically analyzed, and 2) a fully charitable and accurate representation of the viewpoint you seek to describe/compare/criticize.  this is true for any field of study, from physics to astrology to philosophy to whatever else.  i would argue that it's an essential component to mitigating or eliminating bias; the author makes it her task to understand the opposing viewpoint as thoroughly as possible and presents the strongest and most compelling version of the opposing viewpoint before detailing her own criticism.  i can't speak to science writing, but this is ubiquitous in the humanities, and for very good reason: it produces the highest-quality work possible.

but gary, surely you're not saying that i need to become an expert in astrology to be skeptical of astrology.  that's asinine.

is it?  for sure, i agree that skepticism is always well-warranted by default, and i'm not saying that you should personally believe in every positive claim made in a field in which you aren't expert; but, i actually do think that if you want to criticize the field properly/formally/persuasively/whateverly, then that requires a robust understanding of the field and the arguments its adherents make.  i mean, if you're not even aware of the best evidence that astrologers claim to have to support their views, then how can your analysis be complete?

I have to agree again, with both the skepticism being necessary and the need for understanding.

One has to understand the topic to criticise it, and many opponents of FE theory and opponents of the Globe simply don't understand what they are attacking.

I guess that Tom is correct is saying that, for example, an astrologer may be poor choice to argue against astrology, but a sound understanding of astrology is certainly necessary.

I am a Globe supporter, so of course that affects my arguments, but
          I have seen videos attacking the Globe saying that the water will run off, when they are told that gravity holds it on, they come back with
         "Oh no, gravity doesn't exist!" - in this case you can't have one without the other.
And, I don't doubt that there are many similar examples on the Flat Earth side.
          For example, I have seen silly arguments against UA, by someone who simply does not understand UA..

Time to climb down off the soap-box.

[CableDawg]

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.

A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist, as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.

The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.

What makes you a reliable source or resource?

[CableDawg]

The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.

Quite incorrect.

If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.

Let's go to Mr. Rogers Neighborhood and pretend for a little bit.

To be fair to your implication we'll assign actual Science to "Science A" and even though it's not, really, science we'll assign FET to "Science B".

That you are knowledgeable in Science B contributes nothing to your reliability as a source or resource in replacing Science A with Science B for at least two reasons. 

1.  Your "science" isn't even a valid replacement for Science A.
2.  You've proved that you have little to no knowledge of Science A which, as much as you'd like to deny it, is a requirement for you to replace Science A with Science B.  Without actual knowledge of Science A you've got no foundation on which to base the statement "Science B is better or more valid".

[Southernhemispere]

The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

But they do state that gravitation is not gravity.  ??

[juner]

The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

But they do state that gravitation is not gravity.  ??

Gravity and gravitation are different.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

But they do state that gravitation is not gravity.  ??

Gravity and gravitation are different.

Ugh, here we go again... etymologically, both words have the same origin. Generally, most people use them to refer to the same thing. They are slightly different grammatically and there are some nuances to their usage in non-technical contexts, but I don't see how that helps us.

If you want to use them to refer to different things, that's fine. However, you should probably be very explicit about what each one means, because the vast majority of people assume they have the same meaning.

TL;DR: Stop being vague.

[rabinoz]

The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

But they do state that gravitation is not gravity.  ??

Gravity and gravitation are different.

Really? Maybe in your vocabulary!

Main Difference – Gravity vs. Gravitation
The terms gravity and gravitation both describe the phenomenon which causes masses to attract each other. Both terms are widely used interchangeably, and it is more or less permissible to do so. However, in some fields of study, the difference between gravity and gravitation is more prominent. In these situations, the main difference between gravity and gravitation is that gravitation describes the attractive force between any two masses while gravity specifically describes the resultant force with which an object is attracted towards the Earth.
From: Difference Between Gravity and Gravitation

What is gravity ?what is difference between gravity and gravitation?
Best Answer:  The terms gravity and gravitation are often used to explain the same thing, but there is a definite difference between the two.

Gravitation is the attractive force existing between any two objects that have mass. The force of gravitation pulls objects together.

Gravity is the gravitational force that occurs between the earth and other bodies. Gravity is the force acting to pull objects toward the earth.
From: What is gravity ?what is difference between gravity and gravitation?

And if "The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull" as in "the Wiki",

why do we not see significant time variation in the gravity ~ altitude relationship as the sun and moon pass over?