On the Forces and Knowledge of the World: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| title = On the Forces and Knowledge of the World | | title = On the Forces and Knowledge of the World | ||
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6616.pdf Link to paper] | | url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6616.pdf Link to paper] | ||
| author = [[Joseph J | | author = [[Joseph J Smulsky]] | ||
| published = 2012 | | published = 2012 | ||
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]] | | journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]] | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
The paper continued clarifications on the validity of Newton's laws of gravity. Opponents of the law and of Newtonian mechanics led a number of arguments in their favor. Based on the solution of a number of problems by the program Galactica it is show that these arguments are untenable.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | The paper continued clarifications on the validity of Newton's laws of gravity. Opponents of the law and of Newtonian mechanics led a number of arguments in their favor. Based on the solution of a number of problems by the program Galactica it is show that these arguments are untenable. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|forces knowledge world]] | |||
[[Category:Gravity]] | [[Category:Gravity]] | ||
Revision as of 13:49, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | On the Forces and Knowledge of the World |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Joseph J Smulsky |
| Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |
| Published | 2012 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |
| Volume | 9 |
| No. of pages | 3 |
| Pages | 569-571 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
The paper continued clarifications on the validity of Newton's laws of gravity. Opponents of the law and of Newtonian mechanics led a number of arguments in their favor. Based on the solution of a number of problems by the program Galactica it is show that these arguments are untenable.