What’s Newton’s Law ?? BallTARDS will invariably say/post:
Fg = “G” m1M2/r^2
That’s NOT Newton’s Equation, THIS IS: Fg ∝ m1M2/d^2
This Fg = “G” m1M2/r^2 is C.V. Boys ‘little’ addition, which was…
*207 FRIGGIN YEARS AFTER the Principia was Published and 167 Years AFTER Newton’s Death !!!*
BIG “G”:
1. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation was Published in the Principia July 5, *1687* . This was the Equation:
Fg ∝ m1M2/d^2
Ya see Big “G” in ^^^^^^^^^ Pretender Clowns ??
2. Cavendish didn’t conduct his alleged ‘Non-Experiment’, which should be known as the “Reverend John Michell – Cavendish” experiment 
, until *1798* ; that’s 111 years after the publication of Newton’s Principia and 71 years after Newton’s death.
3. Cavendish DIDN’T CALCULATE a numerical value for “G” or “M”.
4. The modern notation involving the constant “G” wasn’t introduced until *1894* by C.V. Boys.
So the Bastardization of Newton’s Law (“G”) didn’t make it’s appearance until *207 FRIGGIN YEARS (!!!!) AFTER* the Principia was Published.
So, wait for it, it’s … * NOT NEWTON’S LAW, FFS !!!!* 
MOREOVER, the BallTARDS *ASCRIBE* ‘gravity’ to Newton !! Well, Errr …
In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb 25th,1692; Isaac Newton says:
“Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you
* WOULD NOT ASCRIBE INNATE GRAVITY TO ME *. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me *SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY* that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.”
Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton’s Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52
(Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/ )
Turn out the Lights Ya Mindless ‘wiki’ PARROTING Pretender CLOWNS,
You’re TOAST !!!! 
You have ABSOLUTELY NO FRIGGIN CLUE as to what you’re Talking ABOUT. 
That’s what you get for Mindlessly PARROTING ‘wiki’ and/or Priests from your BallTARD Spinning Space Monkey Congregation. 
“The evidence is clear that Michell and Cavendish both deserve credit for the “Cavendish experiment,” which should probably be referred to as the “ MICHELL-CAVENDISH Experiment .“ It was Michell who thought the experiment up, including inventing the torsion balance that is at the heart of the experiment. It was Michell who built the original apparatus for the experiment, an apparatus clearly capable of producing the results desired. The fact that the purpose of the experiment was to determine the specific gravity (density) of the earth suggests that geology rather than theoretical physics was the motivation.”
So it should be known as the “Reverend John Michell-Cavendish“ NON –experiment.
Gravity Hypothesis:
Newton Principia… “I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and
I DO NOT FEIGN HYPOTHESES . For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.” Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman’s 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages. He makes No Hypothesis, because... HE CAN’T , it’s NONSENSICAL; IT’S NOT “SCIENCE“!!
“California Institute of Technology physicist Sean Carroll arguing in the Edge “*HYPOTHESES* aren’t simply useful tools in some potentially outmoded vision of SCIENCE;
they are *THE WHOLE POINT* “.
So Sean, Newton said he has NO HYPOTHESES for ‘Gravity’, SOOOOOOOO …
How can it be “FRIGGIN SCIENTIFIC” THEN !!! 
Moreover, the Ballers “Scientific Community” (aka: Pseudo-Scientific Non-Community) *DOESN’T FOLLOW* Newtonian (CAVENDISH) gravity…
“…Einstein created his *GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY* —which provides *OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity* —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics.
‘gravity’ IS NOT A FORCE :
“Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation,
Georgy F##### Musser (2019):
*”Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE.”*
“Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity NOT AS A FORCE …”
“In general relativity, gravity IS NOT A FORCE between masses”.
The Physics Hypertextbook.
https://physics.info/general-relativity/
“So, to summarize, general relativity says that matter bends spacetime, and the effect of that bending of spacetime is to create a generalized kind of force that acts on objects.
*HOWEVER, IT ISN’T A FORCE* as such that acts on the object, but rather just the object following its geodesic path through spacetime.”
“The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four KNOWN FUNDAMENTAL FORCES (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, and *NOT INCLUDING THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE* ) in the universe, as well as classifying all known elementary particles.”
Then We Have LOL…
“gravity: an INVISIBLE FORCE that pulls objects toward each other. …Anything that has MASS also has gravity. Objects with More Mass have More Gravity. … Earth’s gravity comes from ALL ITS MASS.“
“Gravity is the mysterious force that makes everything fall down towards the Earth.”
Physics for Kids
Only in Shangri La can we base Reality on Paradoxical Contradictions.
‘Rev Michell-Cavendish-CV Boys‘ and Weird Al’s ‘gravity’ are NOT THE SAME:
1. Scientific Theories NEVER EVER EVER Explain LAWS !!!! Ya Tossers !!!
Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:
2. Newtonian Gravity is … “A Force”. Einsteinian Gravity is *NOT * … *”A Force”*.
3. Newtonian: The Law of Superposition APPLIES.
Einsteinian: The Law of Superposition DOES NOT APPLY .
4. They’re NOT even in the same Geometry, for Cryin Out-Loud !!!:
Newtonian ‘gravity’ is Euclidean 3 Space; whereas,
Einsteinian ‘gravity’ is Pseudo-Riemannian 4 Space.
Newton ‘gravity’ — Instantaneous Actions at a Distance.
Einstein ‘gravity’ — Limited to the Speed of Light.
Drunken Sailors and Field Goal Posts have more in common than Newton’s and Einstein’s Fairytales.
WHY on Earth are you STILL appealing to Newtonian (Michell-Cavendish-Boys) ‘gravity’ ??
All that these Crayon Munchin ‘wiki’ PARROTERS are doing is taking an “EFFECT“ (things fall to the ground 9.81 m/s^2, which is BS to begin with ) and then conclude by mere DECLARATION ‘gravity’ is the “CAUSE“ ; It’s Non-Sequitur Fallacy.
They use this Value (9.81 m/s^2) and put it into their Fairytale “Descriptive” Equations…and “SAY” it works. Then they say: “VIOLA, ‘Gravity’ Exists !!” smh
The ATTRIBUTION or *”CAUSE“* of this “Effect” has not been Identified/Isolated => Scientifically Validated.
Mass attracting Mass (Cavendish/Newtonian):
Hypothesis: If Mass, then… Mass attracts Mass.
^^^^^^^^ The Mr. Magoo Circle Jerk of The MILLENNIUM !!
Independent Variable: Mass.
Dependent Variable: Mass attracts Mass.
Krijtjes Vreters, this is your ACTUAL Hypothesis:
Hypothesis: If gravity exists then larger masses will attract smaller masses.
This ^^^^^^^^ is an Affirming The Consequent (Formal Logical Fallacy).
Have a Nice Day.
ps. You’d *“FAIL“* 5th Grade General Science.
Please Define Mass…?
“Words have *PRECISE MEANINGS* in Science.”
Anne Marie Helmenstine; Ph.D. Biomedical Sciences, B.A. Physics and Mathematics
Dr. Mary Schweitzer (Paleontologist, NC State):
“Exactly Exactly! That’s one of the things I drive my students crazy on; *Words Count* , *Words are Important*, *Choose your Words Carefully* .”
(YouTube) Dr. Mary Schweitzer joins the Great Debate Community to discuss dinosaur blood and her work. (Time 34:15)
Here we Go !!! …
Mass Definition #1:
*MASS* is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its *RESISTANCE* to acceleration (a change in its state of *MOTION*) when a net force is applied.
RUhhh ROhhh…
*INERTIA* is the *RESISTANCE*, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.
This Includes changes to the object’s speed, or direction of *MOTION* .”
*These ^^^^^^ are the SAME ####-ING Thing !!!*
Then the Elmer Fudd Sophists try and WEASEL their way out here, LOL…
The *VELOCITY* of an object refers to the speed in a specific direction. … Velocity is nothing but the rate of change of displacement.
On the other hand, *ACCELERATION* is the rate of change of *VELOCITY* with respect to time.
Acceleration – Units of Measure: Meters (Distance) / Second^2.
Velocity – Units of Measure: Meters (Distance) / Second.
If you’re traveling at a constant rate, you have velocity but no acceleration.
If you’re traveling and your rate is changing, you have velocity and acceleration.
This ^^^^^^^^ is Lovely, WHO CARES !!! 
This is the COMPELLING FACTOR in the Matter…
If something is *ACCELERATING* does it have *MOTION* ?? Ahhh, yea.
If something has *VELOCITY* does it have *MOTION* ??
Ahhh, yea.
Definition of Mass #2:
*MASS* is a measurement of the AMOUNT of MATTER Something Contains.”
RUhhh ROhhh…
“The *MOLE* became part of the International System of Units (the SI) in 1971. Currently, it is DEFINED AS
the AMOUNT of SUBSTANCE that Contains as many entities as there are in 0.012 kg of carbon-12.”
THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY
*These ^^^^^^ are the SAME FRIGGIN Thing !!!*
Just because “A” Mole is a “SPECIFIED” AMOUNT of SUBSTANCE that Contains doesn’t nullify the fact that EACH (i.e., “Mole” and per Crayon Munchers — “Mass“) are ENTIRELY BASED ON… AMOUNT of Matter–SUBSTANCE that Something Contains !!!!!
btw:
“Moreover, studies have shown that the Amount of Substance is often ( *INCORRECTLY* ) identified with mass.”
THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY
ps. New Definition of a Mole:
*MOLE*: contains exactly 6.02214076 × 10^23 elementary entities.
The Tangled Webs you Mindless PARROTERS Weave !!!
What Is MASS ?? … “Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘THE AMOUNT OF MATTER’. History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count the number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate ‘THE AMOUNT OF MATTER’,
*THAT NUMBER WOULD NOT EQUAL MASS*“.
Taylor, Edwin., Wheeler, John: Spacetime Physics, p. 248, 1992
=================================================================================
Newton Trainwreck:
“The Laws of Physics are *ALWAYS * Quantum Mechanical Laws… you DON’T HAVE separate laws for big and small things. Ramamurti Shankar; Chair/Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark)
“Now in quantum mechanics it turns out that momentum is a different thing—it is no longer mv. It is hard to define exactly what is meant by the velocity of a particle, but momentum still exists. In quantum mechanics the difference is that when the particles are represented as particles, the momentum is still mv, but when the particles are represented as waves, the momentum is measured by the number of waves per centimeter: the greater this number of waves, the greater the momentum. In spite of the differences, the law of conservation of momentum holds also in quantum mechanics.
Even though *THE LAW F=ma IS FALSE* , and *ALL the DERIVATIONS of NEWTON WERE WRONG for the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM* , in quantum mechanics, nevertheless, in the end, that particular law maintains itself !”
The Feynman Lectures
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_10.html
“The discovery of Quantum Mechanics first, and then in the behavior of Light, and then in the behavior of Matter, finally culminating in 1926 with a full equation of Quantum Mechanics which told us that *The Laws of Motion of Newton WERE NOT RIGHT * and had to be modified with other laws which are Quantum Laws of Motion.”
Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate, Physics)
Richard Feynman Lecture on Quantum Electrodynamics: QED. 1/8
“First I want to tell you what goes *WRONG* with Newtonian Mechanics…the double-slit experiment is a problem; that’s what put’s THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR NEWTONIAN PHYSICS*.”
Ramamurti Shankar; Chair/Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)
Here comes the COW BELL, READY CLOWNS ?? …
So we have a Double Slit Experiment with a “Newtonian Particle”— an Electron. We close one slit and fire a Bevy of Electrons and we get 10 hits @ Point A. We close that slit and open the other slit and fire a bevy of Electrons and we get 8 hits @ Point A.
The “Newtonian Prediction” would be if we fired the same bevy of Electrons with both slits open we *MUST GET* 18 hits @ Point A. Well … *We Get A Big Fat ZERO !!* And what does that mean? Well… *”That is the End of Newtonian Physics.“* Ramamurti Shankar; Chair/Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/phys/phys201/transcript20.html
So in Relation to Newtonian (Classical) Mechanics:
” SHOOT DOWN …“
” THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN …“
”
DESTROY …“
” THAT IS THE END OF …“
“The Laws of Motion of Newton WERE NOT RIGHT …“
BallTARDS what is PARTICULARLY CONFUSING about this ?? Have a Nice Day 
The Mindless Retort: “Quantum Mechanics DOES NOT APPLY to apply to Big Things !!” 
“The Laws of Physics are *ALWAYS* Quantum Mechanical Laws…you DON’T HAVE separate laws for big and small things. Ramamurti Shankar; Chair/Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark)
“Our results illustrate a *DEEP INCOMPATIBILITY* between
Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics that cannot in any way result from
entanglement.”
Lapkiewicz, R. et al. (2011): Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature 474, pp. 490–493.
“Late last year Brukner and Kofler showed that it DOES NOT MATTER how many particles are around, or
*HOW LARGE* an object is,
*QUANTUM MECHANICS ALWAYS HOLDS TRUE*.
The reason we see our world as we do is because of what we use to observe it. The human body is a just barely adequate measuring device. Quantum mechanics does not always wash itself out, but to observe its effects for larger and larger objects we would need more and more accurate measurement devices. We just do not have the sensitivity to observe the quantum effects around us.”
Parent Article: Bulletin of the American Physical Society.
The current record holder (2013) for Quantum Interference is: C284 H190 F320 N4 S12. 10,000 AMU’s !!
Eibenberger, S., Gerlich, S et al; Matter-wave interference with particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10,000 amu (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2013,15, 14696-14700)
arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343
Metal Paddle 30 Micrometers long (Trillions of Atoms):
“A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.”
Parent Paper: O’Connell, A. D. et al. Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator; Nature doi:10.1038/nature08967 (2010)
GOODBYE NEWTON 
: Sing It with me now…
1. *Primary School Falsification:* *TIME* is a “Conceptual” relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it’s based on an “Alleged” single rotation of the Earth on it’s axis in respect to the Sun (A Day). It’s a “CONCEPT” (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can’t put Time in a jar and paint in red. I mean c’mon now, let’s reason together…can you Dilate/Bend/Warp Non-Physical “Concepts”??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper?? “FREEDOM” is a Concept also…can you Bend that ?? That which you are using to measure…isn’t the thing you’re measuring. *A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn’t Yardsticks !!
If I bend a Yardstick…does the Football Field bend also?* (The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) — (The Football Field is analog to TIME)
So if something affects say…Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern “Clock” for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth’s “Alleged” rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected? These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ Recess, for goodness sakes. *IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids !!*
2. *Grown-Up Falsification:* Quantum Mechanics “Non-Locality”– a brief synopsis: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html Non-Locality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity. Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase “Spooky Action @ a Distance“, then he and his buddies conjured a ‘thought experiment’, (SEE: ‘EPR Paradox’ 1935) in a feeble clumsy attempt to ‘Debunk’ Quantum Mechanics. Why? Well… he couldn’t have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his ‘theories’ would IMPLODE. (Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn’t appreciate the Paper being “Peer-Reviewed” i.e., Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Scientific ####### ) http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his ‘thought experiment’, it apparently covered the Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Science Mytho-MatheMAGical Philosopher’s Butt and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled. BUT THEN…
In the 1960’s, John Bell explored Einstein’s ‘alleged’ Paradoxical thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell’s Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap. http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf Then John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student…because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell’s Paper. And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY !! … Bell’s Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman: http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf Then in 1982, Physicist
Alain Aspect
EXPERIMENTALLY… Jacked It “YARD“ Forever !!
Ever since Aspect’s Falsification, “Non-Locality” has been *CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT* over 3,000 times,
Without Exception !!!
“One could see that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the two most fundamental theories of matter, really *
DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER
* in the sense that Relativity is: local, it’s causal, it’s determined, it’s continuous and Quantum Mechanics is just *THE OPPOSITE* . “
David Bohm (Renowned Professor, Physics) ‘The Best Dr. David Bohm Interview’: (Time 7:13)
“General relativity and Quantum Field Theory are *
INCOMPATIBLE
* .”
The Final Contradiction.
And Remember…
“The Laws of Physics are *ALWAYS* Quantum Mechanical Laws.
Ramamurti Shankar; Chair/Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark)
So if the Laws of Physics are ALWAYS Quantum Mechanical Laws and Einstein’s Fairytales Stand in
DIRECT CONTRADICTION to them, THEN…where does that leave Einstein’s Fairytales ? 
**** There are:
NO KNOWN SOLUTIONS FOR ANY OF EINSTEIN’S FIELD EQUATIONS FOR
TWO OR MORE MASSES
!!!
“As the field equations are non-linear, they cannot always be completely solved (i.e. without making approximations). For example, there is no known complete solution for a spacetime with two massive bodies in it (which is a theoretical model of a binary star system, for example).”
ps. Ya see that “Non-Linear“ Phrase, ^^^^ Yonder ? That means the Law of Superposition DOES NOT HOLD (i.e., You can’t arbitrarily add additional Masses to any of his Field Equations.) ERGO…
Einstein’s Field Equations ‘Describe’ a Universe with:
a. ONLY ONE MASS. OR …
b. A COMPLETELY
EMPTY
FRIGGIN UNIVERSE !!!!! 
ps2. Just like there are no Married Bachelors; There are NO Scientific Theory Equations, FFS !!!!
Another ‘TINY’ little problem…
