Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> kirjoitti viestiss=E4
news:1123253411.090245.46050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
A reward awaits!
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that
invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely
or a
major part of it. For
example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an
experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If
you
doubt this,
let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I publish
four
magazines,
and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me
to
break my
promise.
The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Good luck!
Henry Haapalainen
One of the many achievments of Newton was the explanation of free fall
and planetary orbits by a single law, known as the LUG, Law of
Universal Gravitation.
Whilst your hypothesis may or may not explain free fall, it does not
explain planetary orbits. As a matter of fact, since the planets move
around the sun in elliptic orbits that are not co-planar, space would
have to "fall" in many directions, selectively, in order to keep these
orbits in place. If space were to "fall" in all directions as you
postulate, then the only solution to the equations of motion is the
singularity collission course of the planets with the sun.
Not like that at all. Falling down or rotating around the sun are same ki=
nd
of free fall, and the theory explains it perfectly. So didn't read your t=
ext
further.
Henry Haapalainen
My explanation was perfectrly clear. Since you are the one proposing a
new hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you as it was in the case of
Newton, when Hook disputed that his LUG had indeed as solution the
orbits of the planets, and Newton went ahead and prooved that by
inventing the calculus of variations.
Your failure to present detailed proof here as to why your hypothesis
leads to the INVERSE PROBLEM, that is besides FREE FALL, it also
explains the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun as well as
the perihelion advance of Mercury, within 5 (five) days from this reply
of mine will be taken to constitute failure from your part to rebutt my
objections, which entitles me to the prize you have announced.
I will wait for your proof, posted as a reply to this thread. It must
be a mathematical proof showing in detail as to why "falling space"
(gee) leads to elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. I
explained to you why it does not, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to show
that it does, since it is your theory, not mine.=20
Mike
.
