gravity, tides and newtonian physics

M

merrick

Registered Member
Hi Sciforum,

I am seeking help, as I have only a superficial understanding of physics. I am an IT consultant who is helping a very elderly gentleman who has been typing away on his typewriter his ideas and theories.

I have been asked to make a backup of his document. I have scanned all his paperwork and have been told to make it freely available. He wants it published but is not seeking any return as he feels he will drop off the perch soon.

Because he has been doing this in isolation for years, I suspect there will be some major axiomatic errors. His introduction and major premise is that there is error in some current theories.

I really am not capable of pointing out what flaws (or breakthroughs) he has made.

I would like to include a link here to the first twenty pages and any advice would be most welcome. I can personally respond to comment, but not in a scientific way (sorry). He does not use a computer at all. I will be printing out any information I receive and posting it to him.



Thanks. Mods - I know this is a weird first post, so please advise if I should do something else.

Moderator note: Link added:

http://www.filedropper.com/merricksbooktopage20

(Warning: the file is 7.5 MB)
 
merrick:

I'm an administrator here.

If you send me a personal message with the link, I'll add it to your post.

Welcome to sciforums, BTW.
 
Just taking a look.

On page 2, right at the start, he talks about the differences between tides from the Sun and the Moon. There's a mistake right there.

The differences in solar and lunar tides are not due to the absolute differences in gravitational attraction between Earth and Sun vs. Earth and Moon. They are due to the variations in the attraction across the Earth. Tidal forces go as the inverse cube of the distance between the Earth and the thing causing the tidal influence, and not as the inverse square of the distance. The tidal effects of the Sun are lower than the effects of the Moon on the Earth. This is not a problem for physics.

On page 3, the dimensional analysis argument is incorrect. The author ignores the fact that the gravitational constant G has units.

The arguments on page 8 don't work either.The mistake there is in approximating the acceleration over a series of finite time intervals, rather than looking at the instantaneous acceleration as the differential rate of change of velocity.

On page 9, the plumb-bob argument doesn't work because a measurable deviation of the bob from the vertical would require the stone face to have an absolutely enormous mass.

At this point I haven't gone much further with this. There are some fundamental errors early on, which doesn't bode well for the remainder.
 
Thanks again James,

The variation in attraction due to inverse cube law (to cause tides) is the only thing I could actually discuss with some certainty with the author. I get bamboozled when the discussion turns to formulas and I can't back up the obvious simple physics.

He has high school physics from the 1940's and has been thinking this out alone for decades. I am probably the only person in a long time that talks maths with him. He is nice and humble enough to learn, and would welcome the corrections.

Is there a current printed book that I can recommend him that may cover/explain such material that he writes about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top