Which pure facts?
Also: what is a "pure fact", and how does it differ from an impure one?
My gravity theory
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Which pure facts?
Also: what is a "pure fact", and how does it differ from an impure one?
Untainted by logic, reason, simulation or experimental verification.
You utterly failed to grasp what I said. Did you even read it? It is easy to come up with logically sound concepts which have nothing to do with reality. Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics are both logically sound but they cannot both be physically true.
Part of physics involves stating with postulates about the universe and then deducing via logic, usually in the form of mathematics, what the implications are. For example consider the following two postulates :
1. The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.[1]
2. The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface). That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
This is from here. Through logic and mathematics it is possible to show that these two postulates imply the transformation of physical properties under a change of inertial frame is described by Lorentz transforms. It also implies that $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |\mathbf{p}c|^{2}$$. The derivation of those two results from the two postulates is completely logically sound. So can we therefore conclude relativity is right and we will never hear from your again? Of course not because we haven't satisfies another necessary condition for valid physics, we haven't considered whether our postulates were physically valid.
Here's a simpler example since we all know you don't understand relativity. (1). All men are 10 feet tall. (2). You are a man. Therefore (3). You are 10 feet tall. (3) undeniably follows from (1) and (2), the logic is valid. But why isn't the physical statement right, you aren't 10 feet tall. We forgot to check whether the initial postulates were true. If you feed in a postulate which is not physically valid then the implications will not be either.
Logic, and maths in general, is the study of asserting some axioms, statements taken to be true, and then deducing their logical implications. Mathematics is awash with logically sound structures, deduced correctly from some set of axioms, but not all mathematically sound things are physically valid. Newtonian mechanics is mathematically sound but not physically valid. Special relativity is mathematically sound and you do not believe it to be physically valid. If all you're doing is thinking logic without any connection to the real world then you're not doing physics, you're doing logic (not that I think you know how to do sound rigorous logic). Mathematics is the study of logical structures implied by sets of axioms mathematicians are free to pick as they wish. Physics is the study of asking "Which of all these logically sound structures best matches reality?", it is the mapping between the logically sound but utterly abstract constructs of logic and the physical structures we observe in reality.
So we come back to your claims. If you really did sound logical thinking (which I doubt anyway) then you must have started with some axioms, some basal statements which are not proven but stated as tautologies. All well and good if you're doing maths, you claim to be doing physics. Therefore you can only know (we can never know anything like this for 100% really) if you have experimental data which proves said axioms are physically valid. Since you don't have any experimental data to compare with these axioms you cannot possibly have done this. The only other alternative (and this is why I brought up education) is that you could be sufficiently familiar with mainstream models, who have been tested against experiments and validated, to extract from them various pieces of information about reality. For example, I have never done nor had any access to experiments which measure absorption spectra from chemicals but I can tell you the physical values of the Hydrogen atom's energy spectrum because I can compute it from the mainstream model (the Schrodinger equation), a model which I know others have compared to experiment and found to be valid. This is why I bring up education, not some kind of "I only listen to people with PhD after their name" or "You don't have a doctorate so you cannot possibly be right", but rather I was highlighting how all ways of physically verifying your claims are closed to you.
Given you fail to grasp the requirement in physics for postulates/axioms to have some physical justification/verification, that it isn't just abstract logical constructs detached from experiments and reality, I don't see any reason to think you even did all that 'pure logic based on pure facts' correctly. Logic and rational thought so not seem to be concepts you're familiar with. But you're welcome to prove me wrong. How about you give us the axioms you started all your 'pure logic' from, as well as 'pure facts'. Let's see your train of.... and I hesitate to use this when it is in reference to you,... thought. Like so many physics exams say, show your workings. Or perhaps you could do the trivial little gravitational problem I asked you in my previous post? This thread is about '[your] gravity theory', why don't you use your gravity 'theory' (or rather 'random arm waving supposition devoid of any physical content or any quantitative capabilities', but that's a bit of a mouthful) to solve the problem. Like I said, its really simple and you should have no trouble just rattling off your answer. Or do you not know how to do even rudimentary quantitative modelling? That's another problem, details are important. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury and that the path of light is bent by a gravitational well so they might seem equally viable on a qualitative level but in fact only GR gets the amount of precision and light deflection right.
Without the details you have no firm predictions. Without firm predictions you have no experimental testing. Without experimental testing you have no basis for saying you know.
You didn't ever discuss it, you just ignored any illustration of your hypocrisy, ignored repeated explanations about how you cannot know without some data about the real world, refused to give any justification for your claim you are more competent than people like Newton and ignored when I asked you direct questions. You don't discuss, you just assert, ignore and generally behave in a very dishonest manner.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I have been trying to show you my workings for years now. Nobody wanted to listen and everybody talked crap while they thought they were right, but in the end, they weren't, were they?
AN, The story goes:
I was born a mechanic. When I was old enough to walk I was taking apart everything I could get my hands on. Motors were like some magical awesome thing that had POWER!!!!! Of course, I didn't know what power was at that age, but I certainly knew it was spinning. Well, that turned into an obsession (probably because I have a one track mind, OCD kinda.) I obsess over trying to figure out how stuff works. I spent 20 years in the Army as a Motor Sergeant. I went through much mechanical training. I was an instructor for 3 years teaching theory and principles to wheel and track vehicle, and power generation mechanics.
On a car site we got into a big debate over torque and HP. I had weird thoughts compared to everyone else because the way I understood torque was completely different from them. But no matter how they tried to defeat me, and no matter their education level I could always come up with real world examples of how torque works my way, thus HP works my way. There was one guy on the site that was a really sharp mathematician. I debated him for over two years on torque and HP. In the end I gave him the example I gave you, and he basically forfeited. His views of the world were not compatible with that example which proved me right. I know how a dyno works and I know what torque and HP are.
So I decided that I was gonna get to the bottom of why that mathematician that quoted Newton every other word would try to say that I am wrong when I knew I wasn't. I started going to physics sites and talking about physics. One thing led to another and we got talking about light.
I started with the only assumption that the definition of a meter was the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. By definition I am correct. I built from the ground up. I built an indestructible foundation for which to base my method on. When you are backed by a definition, and you stick to that definition, then the logic comes into play. If you start with a light sphere there is no choice but to be correct, because by definition you are correct.
Last edited:
Hope I'm not intruding here.
I, for one, have examined your "workings" from the moment you arrived on this site. I have gone through them in detail, explaining the basis of your own theory to you, as well as where and why it fails.
As for "crap", the person who seems to use that term the most is you, in regard to something you don't know the first thing about, despite having two years here worth of opportunity to think about it and talk to some experts.
How you can conclude that "in the end" you were right and we were all wrong is a mystery. ALL of the experimental data is on our side. And what have you got? Nothing. You've got a model universe that somebody else came up with 400 years ago and which was definitively shown 100 years ago to be wrong. Everything since then has merely reinforced how wrong your theory is.
So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are competent in some aspects of mechanical and electrical devices. That is not at all the same as being competent in the physics behind the workings of those devices. In contrast, if I take myself as an example, I know in detail the physics behind how an electric motor works. I have even built several from scratch using magnets, wires and batteries. But you wouldn't come to me if you were Toyota looking for an efficient motor design for your next model Prius.
Torque and power are taught to first-year university undergraduates in physics and engineering. I have no idea what your torque is, but if it doesn't conform to the standard definition of torque then either it is a useful concept that other people call something else, or it is a useless concept that you dreamt up which has no application in the real world.
You borrowed your definition from the Systeme Internationale system of unit definitions that were invented by real scientists. In fact, the speed of light only has that value because that value is used to define what a metre is. And yes, by definition (not yours) you are right. Note that there's no physics in that definition yet.
Why have you consistently ignored my explanations of your "light sphere"? I've even mathematically compared your wrong theory to the correct one, in order to show you explicitly how and where they differ. And the only response I've had from you on that is "Not interested. Can't understand the maths. I'm not participating. I'm slinking back to my fantasy world."
I, for one, have examined your "workings" from the moment you arrived on this site. I have gone through them in detail, explaining the basis of your own theory to you, as well as where and why it fails.
As for "crap", the person who seems to use that term the most is you, in regard to something you don't know the first thing about, despite having two years here worth of opportunity to think about it and talk to some experts.
How you can conclude that "in the end" you were right and we were all wrong is a mystery. ALL of the experimental data is on our side. And what have you got? Nothing. You've got a model universe that somebody else came up with 400 years ago and which was definitively shown 100 years ago to be wrong. Everything since then has merely reinforced how wrong your theory is.
So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are competent in some aspects of mechanical and electrical devices. That is not at all the same as being competent in the physics behind the workings of those devices. In contrast, if I take myself as an example, I know in detail the physics behind how an electric motor works. I have even built several from scratch using magnets, wires and batteries. But you wouldn't come to me if you were Toyota looking for an efficient motor design for your next model Prius.
Torque and power are taught to first-year university undergraduates in physics and engineering. I have no idea what your torque is, but if it doesn't conform to the standard definition of torque then either it is a useful concept that other people call something else, or it is a useless concept that you dreamt up which has no application in the real world.
You borrowed your definition from the Systeme Internationale system of unit definitions that were invented by real scientists. In fact, the speed of light only has that value because that value is used to define what a metre is. And yes, by definition (not yours) you are right. Note that there's no physics in that definition yet.
Why have you consistently ignored my explanations of your "light sphere"? I've even mathematically compared your wrong theory to the correct one, in order to show you explicitly how and where they differ. And the only response I've had from you on that is "Not interested. Can't understand the maths. I'm not participating. I'm slinking back to my fantasy world."
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Call it a fantasy world all you like. I have laid the seed for my theory. People have read these threads. People understand my idea. People are progressing my thoughts. Your days are numbered. I may not be alive to see it, but my theory will prevail. I have understanding, do you?
With nothing to show so far for your two+ years here, these are just empty words. And you know it.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
That is not empty words.
I understand gravity, do you? Do you really believe that massive objects "magically" attract one another? If you beleive that objects magically attract one another, do you have any rational explanation for that attraction?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So please give a direct answer to my question in the example I posted many times online here. Which car gets to 67 MPH the soonest, James?
Here, I'll refresh your memory. In your next reply, please give me your answer to which car gets to 67 MPH the soonest, A or B? Just a simple A or B will do for an answer. No need to beat around the bush.
Engine A in second gear (1.98:1) with a 3.23:1 rear gear and 26.5" tire.
2000 464 lb-ft 176 hp 24 mph 2967 RWTQ
2500 482 lb-ft 229 hp 30 mph 3082 RWTQ
3000 496 lb-ft 283 hp 37 mph 3172 RWTQ
3500 511 lb-ft 340 hp 43 mph 3268 RWTQ
4000 506 lb-ft 385 hp 49 mph 3236 RWTQ
4500 481 lb-ft 412 hp 55 mph 3076 RWTQ
5000 427 lb-ft 406 hp 61 mph 2730 RWTQ
5500 363 lb-ft 380 hp 67 mph 2321 RWTQ
Engine B in second gear (1.98:1) with a 3.73:1 rear gear and 26.5" tire.
2309 410 lb-ft 180 hp 24 mph 3028 RWTQ
2887 430 lb-ft 236 hp 30 mph 3175 RWTQ
3464 460 lb-ft 303 hp 37 mph 3397 RWTQ
4041 465 lb-ft 357 hp 43 mph 3434 RWTQ
4619 465 lb-ft 408 hp 49 mph 3434 RWTQ
5196 445 lb-ft 440 hp 55 mph 3286 RWTQ
5773 390 lb-ft 428 hp 61 mph 2880 RWTQ
6351 330 lb-ft 399 hp 67 mph 2437 RWTQ
Two identical cars (except for engine and gears, same weight) are moving along at a steady 24 mph in second gear side by side. They both punch it at the same exact time. Which one will pull ahead immediately, and get to 67 mph the soonest, and cover the greatest distance in the same time period? The one with the greatest engine TORQUE, or the one with the greatest engine HP??
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I'd say a physicist like yourself should be able to give me an answer off the top of your head. Piece of cake!!
Motor Daddy:
Sure they are. They aren't backed up by anything.
No, Motor Daddy. You're the only one in the whole wide world with a perfect theory of everything. :facepalm:
Of course I understand gravity. I've studied physics. Have you? On the other hand, I'm not claiming I have a perfect understanding of gravity. Nobody who has studied physics ever would.
No, I don't believe they magically attract one another. That 400-year-old idea went out the window when Einstein invented General Relativity, which is our current best theory of gravity.
This is a topic for a different thread.
I'm not sure what your notation means, so I have a few questions before I can answer.
1. When you say Engine A has a gear ratio of 1.98:1, with a rear gear ratio of 3.23:1, are you saying that the overall ratio is 1.98 times 3.23 to 1?
Regarding this:
3. Is the 2000 464 all one number, or does the 2000 indicate something different from the 464?
4. What is a a lb-ft? Is that a unit of torque?
5. Is hp horsepower?
6. Is mph miles per hour?
7. What does RWTQ mean?
Once you have clarified these points, I can have a go at answering. But this is off-topic for this thread. I think you should start a new thread on it. Make sure you answer my questions, though.
Sure they are. They aren't backed up by anything.
No, Motor Daddy. You're the only one in the whole wide world with a perfect theory of everything. :facepalm:
Of course I understand gravity. I've studied physics. Have you? On the other hand, I'm not claiming I have a perfect understanding of gravity. Nobody who has studied physics ever would.
No, I don't believe they magically attract one another. That 400-year-old idea went out the window when Einstein invented General Relativity, which is our current best theory of gravity.
This is a topic for a different thread.
I'm not sure what your notation means, so I have a few questions before I can answer.
1. When you say Engine A has a gear ratio of 1.98:1, with a rear gear ratio of 3.23:1, are you saying that the overall ratio is 1.98 times 3.23 to 1?
Regarding this:
3. Is the 2000 464 all one number, or does the 2000 indicate something different from the 464?
4. What is a a lb-ft? Is that a unit of torque?
5. Is hp horsepower?
6. Is mph miles per hour?
7. What does RWTQ mean?
Once you have clarified these points, I can have a go at answering. But this is off-topic for this thread. I think you should start a new thread on it. Make sure you answer my questions, though.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The 1.98:1 is the second gear ratio of the transmission. So the input shaft of the transmission has to spin 1.98 times per every revolution of the output shaft of the transmission. The rear gear ratio is a separate ratio. The rear end input has to spin those ratios for every one revolution of the axle.
The numbers are in order RPM, Engine torque as measured on a dyno, HP at that RPM, MPH is speed traveling down the road, RWTQ is the calculated torque at the rear axle. The calculations are based on those engine dyno results.
The numbers are in order RPM, Engine torque as measured on a dyno, HP at that RPM, MPH is speed traveling down the road, RWTQ is the calculated torque at the rear axle. The calculations are based on those engine dyno results.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
They do. Do you know what dyno torque and HP curves are?
Last edited:
One of my roommates is a dynamite mechanic, likes to specialize in vintage mustangs and muscle cars. He'd have a great time talking to MD.
He's also one of the dumbest human beings I've encountered. Outside the realm of auto mechanics, he's not even in the running.
So MD, twenty years in the motor pool has taught you how to be a good mechanic. Stick with cars, stay away from physics.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
He probably thinks the same of you. Couldn't fix a sandwich if you had to.
Not really. But I'm sure I'd learn quicker than 2 years if I was introduced to the topic.
How did I do on the car A vs car B thing, by the way - given that I don't know all that dyno torque stuff and all?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
How do you come to that conclusion, as this has been a problem since the beginning of physics. Torque is timeless, you have to go to the next dimension.
James, It's not really about which car wins, although I will say you are on my side, but do you know why?
Aha. This is what you were saying Newton didn't understand. No doubt, since your concept of an engine came nearly 300 years later.
Engine torque and torque in general are different. If you say torque in a science setting, it will be understood that you mean the first moment of a force. Engine torque is a system parameter, something more involved than this. You will be (and have been) misunderstood when you leave out the word "engine".
I now assume you meant to say that Newton did not understand engine torque. My guess is that he probably did, since he was adept at taking things apart in his mind and accounting for the mechanical actions and reactions in machines. Obviously he had no concept of a straight 6 or a V8.
I understand you have no idea what first moment of a force means, but you need only realize that you have to clarify here that you mean internal combustion engine torque or you will be misunderstood.
Newton would say: do you know how a dyno works? This was beyond him at the time, since electromagnetics had not yet been discovered. If you want to get you feet wet in physics, you ought to try to learn how a rotating electric or magnetic field can cause a meter to move in proportion to the torque in an engine. Second, you should try to learn how the system parameter for engine torque can be derived by modeling the engine components, and by applying Newton's laws to each system element in order to arrive at the calculated value for net system torque. Exercises like that will be better for you to start with rather than trying to grapple with some of the more complicated topics in physics you keep pontificating about, which you can't possibly understand. This is why you rarely understand the answers science-educated people are giving you. Before you can walk you have to learn to crawl.
Experience working with engines is a great way to break into physics, because you bring an innate sense of force and momentum and the physical properties of materials. That's all a great advantage, but you have buckle down and hit the books if you ever expect to learn. The rest of physics, the part beyond pure observation, is not always intuitive. You are obviously choking on the counter intuitive parts, but that's just because you haven't cut your eye teeth yet. Unless you dump your naive cynicism, you'll never learn. You're just erecting a wall between yourself and the rest of the world.
Most of all, you're just foundering at the brink of physics. Come on in kid, it ain't that deep over here in the shallows of mechanics. Start with linear algebra, and I guarantee you won't get any water up your nose.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Aqueous, You have no idea what you are talking about. This conversation will go nowhere by you typing paragraphs at a time. Torque and HP are VERY complex subjects, and the conversation must be slow and accurate, not paragraphs at a time. Do you want to debate torque with me? And please, in your next reply, since you obviously have superior knowledge about torque, tell me what your answer to the example is, so I know your world view.