• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The G-Ant ambush: How much merit does this have?

Niobe

Sons of Dis
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
289
A couple of days ago I noticed a weird advert in a newspaper promoting the following website:
http://www.g-ant-ambush.com/

It gave me serious woo vibes (since the solution wasn't posted at the time) but they have some info up there now. Then today I read a background piece, with the people behind it claiming they are selling this idea in a book and not publishing it peer reviewed, because the scientific community will ridicule you if you try to falsify Newtonic rules (while putting their full names in the article).

Anyway, they claim that astronomers have ignored glaring flaws in the mathematics of planetary orbits and tied together 2 halves of an ellipse to make "it" work. Obviously, these people do have the answer.

Can anybody shed some light on whether they have some actual substance to their claims (I'm not a mathematician nor an astronomer) or if these are the ramblings of mad men.
146244693b8dd218af.png
 
Well, this part gives it away for me: "One of the most intriguing questions for Astronomy is: Why do planets stay in their dynamic equilibrium around the Sun for billions of years?" Not being an astronomer mysef, i would guess that astronomy isnt all that intrigued by the planetary orbits and the physics behind it.

It all sounds like they want to say: It cant work naturally, therefor somebody must be in controll. In other words ID. Am i on the right track?
 
Um.

Hmmm.

Yeah.

Well, first off, we've already falsified Newtonian rules: we have special and general relativity that are more correct (although Newtonian rules are still a good enough approximation for most things).

And, to my knowledge, general relativity as applied to orbital mechanics correctly demonstrates the resulting orbit. There's nothing in the orbital mechanics that indicates any sort of problem. Orbits are ellipses, singular. I don't see where they get the "two halves" bit from (and I don't think I'd want to, as I have a feeling showing me where the idea came from would involve one or more of these "researchers" removing their trousers).

Frankly, it starts as woo, adds more woo, and then throws some woo on top, with woo garnish and a bit of woo on the side, served with a light white woo in a stemmed glass.

On a closer look, I'm positive it's woo. Frankly, planetary orbits do decay, and we can measure this. The rate of decay, which is in accordance with known physical law, is so low, however, that for stable orbits the rate of decay is longer than the lifetime of the star. Long before the orbit decays to an appreciable degree, the star will go red giant or nova and destroy the planets (or blow them out of orbit).

The "questions" these people come up with are, quit simply, their own questions, not any questions reflected in the astronomical community. In reference to my signature, they've taken chalk and drawn a hole on the wall, and pieces on the floor, and then claim current theory is wrong and they can explain the "pieces".
 
Last edited:
Anyway, they claim that astronomers have ignored glaring flaws in the mathematics of planetary orbits and tied together 2 halves of an ellipse to make "it" work.
Hmmm, if those flaws are significant, then it seems to me the unmanned probes such as Pioneer and Voyager sent to the outer solar system shouldn't have been anywhere near as successful as they were in rendezvousing with those planets.
 
Not a mathematician but ...

with the people behind it claiming they are selling this idea in a book and not publishing it peer reviewed,

50 points on the crackpot index

because the scientific community will ridicule you

40 more points on the crackpot index

if you try to falsify Newtonic rules

20 more points on the crackpot index.

That's 110 right there, in one sentence.
 
Um.I don't see where they get the "two halves" bit from (and I don't think I'd want to, as I have a feeling showing me where the idea came from would involve one or more of these "researchers" removing their trousers).
I don't know either but I feel violated just looking at it
146244693cd6960cc5.png

146244693cd699c9b5.png

110 on the crackpot index
Oh I'm afraid I don't store enough liquor to play this drinking game.
 
I saw that derivation, but I don't really see how it helps their case.

First, they introduce the second solution when they square both sides; it isn't present in the original. This is a known problem with the polynomial equation used (the -b+/- thing), and why your teachers always tell you to check your answers and see if they work in the original equation. There is no indication of "two halves of ellipses stuck together" except in the errors introduced in their equations.

I'm not really in a mood to dig deeper into their equations and derivations, they may well have some source material incorrect. I might look into it later, but I have a feeling there are those with more experience in this matter that could do so far more efficiently than I, and they should be along at any time :)

Just an example, take the following equation set:
X=4+Y
Y=2
Then, we multiply both sides by X to get:
X2=4X+4Y
Then, we subtract 4X and 4Y from both sides to get:
X2-4X-4Y=0
Now, we substitute for Y:
X2-4X-8=0
Then, we can use the same equation:
X=(4+/- SQRT(16-4(1*8)))/2*1
X=(4+/- SQRT(16-32)/2)
X=4+/-SQRT(-8)
X=4+/-2iSQRT(2)
Adn we introduce imaginary numbers here. But there are two soultions. However, we know that X equals 6. By the manipulations done, we've introduced two answers, and they are not correct.
 
Last edited:
Nope, I don't have time to write all the math out. I think I'm incorrect above, though. But it does seem they're adding in a negative solution even after they've excluded it in their formulas. And their final formula does not seem to square correctly with the results of the equations anyway.
 
Last edited:
I've found the actual article and will post the Dutch version and translate it for further critique (my apologies for errors or crooked translations):
Oude vrinden adverteren tegen de wet van Newton

Vandaag staat voor de tweede keer op rij een advertentie in deze krant die voor de modale krantenlezer volstrekte abracadabra zal zijn.
Vorige week zaterdag vulde een cirkeldiagram liefst drie kolommen krantenpapier, met daarbij de wiskundige formules die een ellips beschrijven. Vandaag zijn (kennis, pagina 7) het alleen nog formules, met een verwijzing naar een website. Mogelijk herkent de lezer de ellipsformule van vorige week nog. Maar verder?
Het is een wat onconventionele aanpak, erkennen de Hilversumse oud-ondernemer en diens zoon, die met een grotere groep anonymi achter de advertenties zitten. Die blijken samen de opmaat naar een boek dat eind deze maand verschijnt bij een kleine uitgever in Epe. Een boek dat de fysische wereld, in elk geval volgens de auteurs, moet schokken.
De cryptische advertenties zijn dus ook vooral bedoeld voor fysici, leggen de heren uit in de koele werkkamer van een bevriende Gestalt-therapeut.
Ook aanwezig is de bevriende Edese accountant die de groep dezer dagen publicitair begeleidt. Voor de zekerheid heeft die een contract opgesteld, waarin tot aan een tweede advertentie geheimhouding wordt bedongen.
De groep, vertelt senior als de formaliteiten zijn afgehandeld, bestaat goeddeels uit oude Delftse garde, de universiteit waar hij zelf ooit studeerde en zijn zoon nu ook weer. Oude vrienden, mannen uit de praktijk, maar met interesse in de fundamenten. Wie ze zijn, moet in het midden blijven, dat is de afspraak.
Waar het om draait, zegt senior met een dikke viltstift docerend voor een blackboard, zijn planetenbanen. De natuurkunde heeft daar nog nooit echt goed naar gekeken, zegt hij.
Uitgaande van de zwaartekrachtswet van Newton en het behoud van energie is af te leiden dat planeten in ellipsen rond de zon moeten bewegen. De situatie is dan in evenwicht, de planeten blijven in principe eeuwig bewegen. Een kosmisch perpetuum mobile, dus.
Maar wie nauwkeurig rekent, wijst senior in een ringband vol wiskundige afleidingen van hemzelf en anderen, ziet dat uit Newton niet één ellips komt. De sommen leiden naar twee halve ellipsen. Die worden in de praktijk al eeuwenlang ad hoc aan elkaar geplakt zonder er verder een woord aan vuil te maken.
Maar zo gekunsteld kan de natuur niet in elkaar zitten, vinden die ingenieurs na jaren proberen en praten. En ze hebben, denken ze, de fout ook ontdekt. In het boek rekenen ze voor dat planten alleen echt stabiele ellipsen beschrijven als de aantrekkingskracht tussen de zon en de planeet niet helemaal de wet van Newton volgt. De zwaartekrachtsconstante, denken ze om precies te zijn, varieert een heel klein beetje.
Als het waar is, is dat verbluffend nieuws, voor fysici én leken. Maar waarom publiceren ze zo'n revolutionair inzicht niet in Science[/] of Nature or minimaal een vakblad als Physical Review Letters? Simpel. Dat kan niet anoniem. Wie Newton te lijf gaat, geldt al snel als een beetje mallotig, zegt senior. En daar passen hij en zijn Delftse vrinden dan toch ook weer voor.
Old friends advert against the law of Newton

Today for the second time in a row and advert was placed in this newspaper that will appear complete abracadabra to common readers.
Last Saturday a circle diagram filled 3 columns of paper, with mathematic formulas describing an ellipse. Today there are only formulas with a reference to a website.
Possibly the reader will recognize the formula from last week. But other than that?
It's somewhat of an unconventional approach, acknowledge the Hilversumse retired entrepreneur and his son, who are behind the ad with a large group of anonymous people.
They appear to make the (?) to a book that will be published at a small publisher in Epe. A book that the physicist world, at least according to the authors, should shock.
The cryptic ads are meant for physicists mostly, explain the gentlemen in a cold workroom of a befriended Gestalt-therapist.
Also present is the befriended Edese accountant that guides the groups publicity nowadays. For certainty, he has put together a contract in which secrecy is demanded until the second ad.
The group, tells senior after the formalities, exists mostly of the old Delft garde, the university he once studied at and his son currently. Old friends, men from the field, but with interest in the fundamentals. Who they are remains unknown, that's the agreement.
What it concerns, senior explains wielding a marker in front of a blackboard, are planetary orbits. Physics have never really looked at them well, he claims.
Working from the law of gravity by Newton and conservation of energy it is deduced that planets should move around the sun in an elliptical orbit. The situation is in balance, the planets move for eternity in principle. A cosmic perpetuum mobile, then.
But who calculates thoroughly, senior point out to a binder filled with mathematic deductions of him and others, sees that Newton doesn't generate 1 ellipse. The math leads to two half ellipses. Those are taped together in practice for centuries without a word of comment.
Nature can't be put together this artificially, think the engineers that have been trying and talking for years. And they have, they think, discovered the mistake. In the book they calculate that the planets only have true stable ellipses when the gravitational force between the sun and the planet don't follow the law of Newton completely. The gravitational constant, they think to be precise, varies a tiny amount.
If that's true, it's astonishing news, for physics and laymen. But why not publish this revolutionary insight in Science or Nature or minimally a trade magazine like Physical review letters? Simple. It can't be done anonymously. Who attacks Newton, is classified as nutty, senior claims. And that's what he and his Delft friends want to pass up on.​
 
But why not publish this revolutionary insight in Science or Nature or minimally a trade magazine like Physical review letters? Simple. It can't be done anonymously. Who attacks Newton, is classified as nutty, senior claims. And that's what he and his Delft friends want to pass up on.

People who talk to voices in their head are also classified as "nutty".

There is a reason for this.

Of course, relativity theory and Einstein pretty much put the lie to their claim that "he who attack Newton is classified as nutty". His theory wasn't liked, but it was accepted once the evidence was provided. Not to mention quantum mechanics (which, within it's realm, not only attacks Newton, but hog-ties him, gives him a wedgie, and hangs him up on the flagpole).
 
Last edited:
Not a mathematician but ...



50 points on the crackpot index



40 more points on the crackpot index



20 more points on the crackpot index.

That's 110 right there, in one sentence.

Wouldn't he be eligible for extra bonus points for using "Newtonic" rather than "Newtonian"?
 
First of all, anyone who knows anything about math knows that a circle is a special case of an ellipse. Second, ephemerides are published using Einstein's equations, and they are extremely accurate- to the hundredth of a second or better, over a year. I can attest to this, having used them to find asteroids transiting in front of a star. This is unadulterated woo- negative information, that which after you "learn" it you know less than you did when you started.
 
Technically, orbits are made up of two half-ellipses stuck together. We call the result an ellipse. Amazingly, this magic 1/2+1/2 = 1 equation works for many other things. Do you think one of us should tell them?
 
Yes, but they'd point out that this magic "1/2 + 1/2 = 1" equation you speak of means:

(multiplication of the "magic equation" ) 1 + 1 = 2
(transposition of the "magic equation" ) 2 = 1 + 1 =
(substitution for the magic equation) 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2

and then wonder where the two extra ellipses came from and how come not even Newton or Einstein noticed this strange result before??? :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Oh for Pete's sake.

Just Google for "Kepler's laws of planetary motion". Developed ~1605. These have worked almost 100% accurately for more tha 300 years. The slight differences led Einstein to develop Relativity. :boggled:
 

Back
Top Bottom