A challenge to mainstream science

nevyn · Sep 8, 2006

I have often seen it written that extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. It is so often used by mainstream science to squash alternative science that I thought it time they had it turned around on them. I am offering a challenge to mainstream science to provide that extrordinary evidence for its most basic laws and theories. Those that all other mainstream theories are built upon. The best place to start is always with those things that mostly affect us humans here on earth. Well, actually, they affect every form of life no matter where they are. Gravity and Light. Without either of these we would not exist, so I find it very strange that I can not get a good answer on either of these from the scientific consensus. I'm not asking for an explaination of the affects of these, I can figure that out for myself. I want to know what they are and how they operate. Since all mainstream theories must include Newton's theory of gravitation, I would also like some proof that Newton's laws are actually laws. Given that Newton was trying to connect Kepler's laws with gravity, and it is easy to prove Kepler wrong, why is Newton still considered valid? His first law, while at first appearing quite obvious, is actually not. Is there any evidence that a body will cotinue to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force? My observations say that all bodies come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them (and that rest may actually be in motion). The only time a body travels in a straight line is under the force of gravity. So that can't be used to describe gravity (or what happens without the influence of gravity). Newton was trying to prove that gravity was a property of, and propertional to matter. by using the amount of matter in the earth and the moon to predict the orbit of the moon. When it didn't, and failed even more for the orbits of the planets, how then did this concept get turned around to calculate the amount of ma

qso1 · Sep 8, 2006

nevyn: I have often seen it written that extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. It is so often used by mainstream science to squash alternative science that I thought it time they had it turned around on them. Me: I have seen this used to try and get alternative science proponents to provide evidence for alternative theories. When evidence for those theories is not provided, the theory quashes itself IMO. And I speak as a non scientist who is generally open to ideas so long as the idea has some merit in the form of evidence. nevyn: It is so often used by mainstream science to squash alternative science that I thought it time they had it turned around on them. Me: Evidence for the basic laws and theories have been provided. We learned about that in elementary and high school science which at least in the classes I had, were demonstrated in practical excercises. nevyn: so I find it very strange that I can not get a good answer on either of these from the scientific consensus. I'm not asking for an explaination of the affects of these, I can figure that out for myself. I want to know what they are and how they operate. Me: It may not seem so strange once its realized that scientists have not attempted to explain gravitys origins as they themselves do not know. The effects as you pointed out, are well known. nevyn: I would also like some proof that Newton's laws are actually laws.... Me: The proof of Newtons laws is found in spaceflight. Manned or unmanned spacecraft orbit earth, go to the moon, reach interplanetary destinations on trajectories that are calculated with Newtonian physics as the basis for those calculations. Kepler developed the idea that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than perfectly circular. He developed what have later come to be known as Keplers laws, the elliptical orbit law, equal area law, and law of periods. He used these la <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

yevaud · Sep 8, 2006

Bottom Line: If those "alternative" thoughts can't prove themselves, then they're done. That's how science works. That their proponents wouldn't shut up and keep pushing failed ideas for the next five decades is axiomatic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

derekmcd · Sep 8, 2006

"The best place to start is always with those things that mostly affect us humans here on earth. Well, actually, they affect every form of life no matter where they are. Gravity and Light. Without either of these we would not exist, so I find it very strange that I can not get a good answer on either of these from the scientific consensus. I'm not asking for an explaination of the affects of these, I can figure that out for myself. I want to know what they are and how they operate." In reference to gravity, you are not alone. We could be well on our way to figuring out how gravity operates the way it does if LIGO, Geo 600, et al. detect gravity waves. As for light, I thought that was pretty well understood. What questions of light do you have? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

kmarinas86 · Sep 8, 2006

I would also like some proof for the law of conservation of energy and matter. It is my belief that this only came about because of the total reliance on mathematics. But in reality, there is no such thing as a closed system. Something maths can never handle and therefore the law against it. Have you observed any cases when one form of energy has been reduced without increasing another kind of energy?

search · Sep 8, 2006

Nevyn do not take it too hard but this will sound hard. This were your statements: A. "The best place to start is always with those things that mostly affect us humans here on earth. Well, actually, they affect every form of life no matter where they are. Gravity and Light. Without either of these we would not exist, so I find it very strange that I can not get a good answer on either of these from the scientific consensus. I'm not asking for an explaination of the affects of these, I can figure that out for myself. 1. What are the affects of gravity and light? Can you tell them? B. "My observations say that all bodies come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them (and that rest may actually be in motion). The only time a body travels in a straight line is under the force of gravity. So that can't be used to describe gravity (or what happens without the influence of gravity). " 2. Can you describe your observation experiences? What was your object, medium and reference? Did you try that experience outside earth gravity effect (either in space or in a ballistic gravity zero profile flight)? C."Newton was trying to prove that gravity was a property of, and propertional to matter. by using the amount of matter in the earth and the moon to predict the orbit of the moon. When it didn't, and failed even more for the orbits of the planets, how then did this concept get turned around to calculate the amount of matter in the planets?" 3. Do you actually know what is the difference between mass, matter or weight? D. "It is my belief that this only came about because of the total reliance on mathematics. But in reality, there is no such thing as a closed system. Something maths can never handle and therefore the law against it." 4. Do you know that greenhouse is a closed system? Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? This were your questions:

lysol · Sep 8, 2006

Ouch... Scientific laws are laws because no matter how people scrutinize or try and disprove them. For the moment they cant. Scientist are viscous to each other when it comes with new ideas. I like it because its the only social group i found that doesnt put up with people trying to make crap up. you try to claim something that doesnt actually happen, your going to get caught. And its because of this that the alternative thoughts are squashed. Not becuase of the dogma of the "laws" of physics...but becuase there is no evidence of them. So until they can be at least have some scrap of evidence, they remain in the opinion/hypothesis stage of the scientific methods. Nerds and geeks dont normally cut each others creativity or opinions. Its when they try to BS each other they are eaten alive. Best examples i can give are: Hypothesis: Alternative medicine, until a quanitive measurement of what it does is proven...its nothing more than this. Theory: Plate Tectonics, has multiple sources of evidence and has stood up to scruntiny very very well. It isnt a law until science can observe it and recreate it....out society needs to be well into a type 1 civialization before this theory can be law. Law: A fundimental and universal force of nature that we to the best of our knowledge know and understand. And in no way has there been a way to disprove it "yet". Planets go around the sun, force and acceleration...distance over speed multiplied by time. I say yet because unlike religion...science will always have an open mind...just better have evidence to back it up for peer review. So alternative science remains simply alternative because it squashes itself upon review. That is why we have the scientific method to prevent "bad" science. The Iconions got it right 20 centuries ago because they had a free society until the mystics took over and that knowledge was lost

nova_explored · Sep 8, 2006

In regards to an objects direction and momentum- everything in the universe is under a state of change and interaction and therefore every object is affected even to the slightest degree. in a perfect vacuum there is no object or force to affect an object by pulling energy (momentum) from it into the space it surrounds because a perfect vacuum is without properties, under the laws of thermodynamics a system (that being an object) obeys the conservation of energy, where that energy state absolutely must be affected by an outside force to exhibit any kind of change. it will remain the same forever without influence. that unchanged form can either be in motion or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Sep 8, 2006

Lysol, that is a very good post. I'd like to elaborate a bit on what a physical law is: They tend to be empirical definitions, and make little claim as to the how of a phenomena. the law of gravity only dictates the inverse square drop, and the mass relationship. Keplar's laws only dictate the observed motion of the planets, and some of the why was uncovered in Newtons laws of motion (also observational, and definition based). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 10, 2006

Saiph, you've hit the nail I'm trying to get at right on the head. Science tends to name things, but it doesn't really give much in the way of how things work. It is the how that I am interested in. I can't say I truelly undestand something until I know how it works. I can see the affects of gravity, I can even feel them. I can measure its inverse square relationship and come to some abstract undestanding, but until there is a true view of what is actually happening I can't say that I truelly understand it. I'm not here to discuss alternative theories. But I've come across some of these questions in my search for understanding and I couldn't answer them adequately. My problem with creating laws is that they limit all subsequent understanding to the confines of those laws. And I know the attraction of such things because I come across it in my profession as a software developer. I've written software before and then realised that I would like to have gone a different way, but the thought of having to rewrite large quantities of code often stops me from doing so if the need is not great enough. Then you end up fudging things to fit together and while this may produce a solution that works, it is not the best solution and will cause pain later on. In my field it is called a Maintenance Nightmare and this is how I see the current state of physics with its need for dark matter and then dark energy to control the dark matter, dimensions beyond any we have experienced (and I know that doesn't mean they don't exist). So I thought that surely greater minds than mine have looked at these questions. Surely someone can show me the pieces I am missing. The scientific method is not infallible. Science can be influenced by outside factors such as politics and religion (or the need to destroy religion). This can cause science to push certain theories in order to prove their position. Many will ask how can something made up of so many peo

search · Sep 10, 2006

Well said I see it somehow that way. There is a bit of a mess somewhere in science and too many pulling different directions. But regarding your comment on laws and "maybe" flaws... Another thread from this forum: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=472917&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

nevyn · Sep 10, 2006

To be honest, I'm struggling to describe the affects of gravity without referring to Newtonian gravity or Relativity. I don't want to get into a discussion between theories as this is not what this thread was created for. And I'm not the one creating a law of what gravity is, so I don't need to defend my position since I don't have one. I think the word affect was probably a bad choice, but I still can't come up with a better one. What I was trying to say is that knowing that gravity seems to have an inverse square relationship and knowing what gravity actually is are two totally different things. As for light, science does not tell me what light is. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? No it's both??? The analogy is always the two-slit experiment for the wave nature of light but there is one problem with that. Water waves occur in 2 dimenions. Light occurs in 3 dimensions. Water waves can cancel each other out, but there is still water there, it does not destroy the water but science says that this same thing actually destroys light. There is no light when the waves cancel each other. And all of this with no medium to travel in. Some things I do know about light: it is created by combusting matter. It spreads out uniformely in a sphere unless blocked from doing so. It diminishes with an inverse square law. Even though it is obvious that light diminishes (we don't use candles in light houses for a good reason) I can't find out anything about it. Astronomy seems to think that light never diminishes (since it proposes that it can see so far back in time and to the edges of the universe). Are you trying to say that I am wrong, bodies do not come to rest with respect to all forces acting on them? A great example is a billiard table (which physics is so fond of). At the start of the game, or whenever all balls are not in relative motion to each other, are they motionless? No. They are moving with the earth at whatever speed it orbi

vandivx · Sep 10, 2006

<"I can't say I truelly undestand something until I know how it works. I can see the affects of gravity, I can even feel them. I can measure its inverse square relationship and come to some abstract undestanding, but until there is a true view of what is actually happening I can't say that I truelly understand it. "> science has long ago given up hope to understand real physics behind most theories - one major example is the whole field of QM, another is inertia of masses which is still up in the air even though physicists gloss that over by talking about hypothetical Higgs particle and nobody understands physical mechanism behind gravitation either despite knowing all about curved space and tensors of general relativity, all you get is mathematics underpined by unintelligible abstract picture curved space that is not much better than those 10 dimensions give or take some that physicists talk about as if they were real face it that if you want answers of the kind you mentioned, you got to get them yourself or go without and wait till somebody comes up with them because they are not out there, also those minds out there are not so great as you might expect... <"My problem with creating laws is that they limit all subsequent understanding to the confines of those laws. " /> but my dear Watson where would you be without those laws?? you'd be flailing in vacuum in great confusion untill somebody would come up and distil that confusion into some law and untill that happened no significant progress could come about, that's what the laws do and why we need them and why those who come up with them go down in history as geniuses and don't mistake basic physical laws with some programing textbooks <"this is how I see the current state of physics with its need for dark matter and then dark energy to control the dark matter, dimensions beyond any we have experienced (and I know that doesn't mean they don't exist <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Sep 10, 2006

To your first post: Science does address how things work. The problem is there are some phenomena which have defied such investigation to this day. Gravity is only one example of many. And when this occurs, the various observations are distilled, and codified into an empirical law. Gravity, regardless of how it works, will have a strength proportional to the masses, an inversely proportional to the square of the distance. That's the law, even Einsteins description of gravity produces this result (albiet there are extremem cases where it's no longer true). As such, they don't really limit any thought about the matter, since it's only a description of the phenomena. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />At the end of the day, there a only so many people that control which hypothesis reach the masses. If they can not understand something, then they will not allow it through.<hr /></blockquote> First, if they didn't understand it, the presenter failed in his duty. Second, lots of wrong ideas are published, as that isn't the duty of the referee. Their duty is to ensure a high quality of work, that is self-consistent and can be understood. My profs (and I) have had papers reviewed by referees that completely disagree with our idea/conclusion. But they still allow it to be published. Another aspect to the scientific community that helps prevent purely political ideas, is that one makes a name in the field by being controversial. Yes men get nowhere in the fields (usually <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). But you do make a point. Sometimes the correct answer isn't adopted immediately, because people don't believe it, disagree with it, refuse to see it. But they do get out. Your Aurora example is a good case. You say it was initially rejected...and yet we still know about it today. So, in brief, laws are only descriptions, and tools, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Sep 10, 2006

Concerning light: Physics tells us it can behave as a particle, and a wave. This means it's neither, but has properties of both. As for light interference, it's really a shifting of where the energy is located. If the light destructively interferes in one place, the energy is no longer located there. However, if it does disappear in one place, there is another place where it constructively interferes, and the "lost" energy is shifted to that location. The analogy to water waves is still intact, btw. When the two water waves interfere, and the wave disappears, there is no wave there, just as there is no light at such a location. Light is an EM wave. Just because the EM wave isn't there, doesn' t mean the EM fields are absent. Astronomy does believe light diminishes with distance, but it also recognizes that it only gets fainter, it never completely disappears. To see further and further away we have to use telescopes capable of detecting fainter and fainter light sources. Also, the most distant light sources we observe, are amongst the brightest sources that have ever existed, which is why we can see them at all. As for bodies comming to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them: By definition they cannot. If a net force is exerted upon a body, then it experiences an acceleratioin, meaning it is not at rest. If the body is not accelerating, it is not experiencing a net force. A billiard ball at rest on the table, is experiencing no net forces upon it, by the table, or the earth. you're right, it is rotating around the sun...and that's an acceleration, and a force acting upon it. On mass: Mass is a bodies restistance to acceleration, it is a measure of inertia. In the absence of gravity, or say any resisting force, asking how much work is required to move an object is irrelevant as any work applied will cause it to move. Now, if you ask how m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 10, 2006

My opinion is that there are no need for laws. Only theories. So the answer to a question above (and it was not Saiph) is that without laws where would we be? We would be in a more maleable world. One that can change theories completely because the theory did not reflect reality. When new observations come in, we can change anything we need to. Ofcourse they would still need to explain those earlier observations, but with more understanding. Yes, science does sometimes give the hows. And I am greatful for that when it does. But with something like gravity, all of humanity is relying on a good explanation. It may very well save us all one day. You say that no matter if we find out how gravity works, it will still be proportional to the mass of the object. I disagree. That is a hypothesis. Tell me how you determine the mass of the earth, or any other body, and I may change my mind. Einstein may very well agree with Newton, but then he had that assumption before he began. This is my point exactly. The laws dictate what goes next rather than the observations. And the order of laws dictate that understanding too. The basis of science was made before we even knew electricity existed. The concepts of electricity were created before we knew about inductance. Now we are bringing in plasma as a 4th state of matter and I've even read of a 5th state which would give us 6 states of matter if you consider a Bose-Einstein-Condensate as the 0th state of matter (the state of matter in the absence of a heat field). Noone has gone back to try to explain things with all this extra knowledge. While I think there are flaws in the scientific method, I agree that it works pretty well in general. But something that needs to go before Newtonian Mechanics would be a very large paper. More like a series of books, as it would affect every avenue of science and they all would need to be addressed. Science does not allow for that at the moment. I think one of t

Saiph · Sep 10, 2006

First, how many people know about Halton Arp? Tons. Other controversial figures who went against established doctrine: Einstein, and Planck. Arp has a name, and he made it by being controversial. In the end, he'll be right, or wrong. Right now, because he's going against the common view, he's not the most "popular" researcher out there. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think one of the core problems is that every scientist studies a very small field within the larger establishment. They don't know what happens in other fields. And if they did, would not be qualified to discuss it (or potentially understand it). <hr /></blockquote>And what Indicates that this is a problem? How do you know they only look at one narrow field? I'd actually argue the opposite. Many scientists switch fields, and are very successful because of it. Those with broad interests do well. Sure, they focus at any one time on a relatively narrow set of topics...but that's becuase they've only got so much time to do so. Also, conventions and conferences are designed to help combat this insular nature. At these events there are lots of topics over many fields, not just to cater to the crowd, but to allow researches an efficient way to scopeout other fields. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You say that no matter if we find out how gravity works, it will still be proportional to the mass of the object. I disagree. That is a hypothesis.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry to disappoint, but it's an observation, not a hypothesis. Last, but not least: What do you consider to be the scientific method? Because I don't follow anything you say about it. You say it's flawed, as something must come before newton....and that doesn't fit really. So, in explicit, simple terms, what do you see as the scientific method? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 10, 2006

If light is not a particle, what is a photon then? But some good points none the less. If light diminishes, then why would it never disappear? on mass: So inertia is the concept and mass is the measurement of that concept. Who made that measurement and how? Since apparently mass and then I suppose inertia are independant of gravity. How could anyone make that measurement? So if I ask to move the earth, that is irrelivent, but if I ask to move the earth relative to the moon, then it becomes relivent? Please explain.

nevyn · Sep 10, 2006

You are right, people do switch fields and as you say they become more successful than others because of it. My point exactly. Broadening the mind is always a great thing. I am yet to here how you determine the mass of the earth in order to observe that gravity is proportional, and therefore a property of it. Newton tried to use volume by saying that both the earth and the moon are made up of the same particles uniformely distributed among the space available to each. Now we say that they have a uniform distribution of mass. Same thing but with a different name and I'm still no more informed about what it is that is uniformely distributed or how that must be a property of matter and how that related to gravity. The scientific method, as I see it: 1) Observe. 2) Hypothesis. 3) Experiment. 4) Go back to 1. That is all that is needed. What I see as Newton's scientific method is: 1) Observe. (well, actually Hooke and Brahe (stolen by Kepler) did the observing and asked others to make the math connection) 2) Hypothesis. (well, actually that was Hooke's too) 3) Make hypothesis into law. And today we have: 1) Observe. 2) Hypothesis. 3) Experiment. 4) Theory. 5) Law. Once it reaches a law, it is never taken back to the first stages again. Others just assume that it is correct and keep building away above it. And sometimes that assumption is valid, because it is a correct law. But it is an idea, never a fact. There are things that we can never know. The beginning of the universe. Does it have an edge. The 'secret motion of things' as described by Bacon. But we can approximate these things with ideas. But just because an idea predicts a fact, and that fact is then found with experiment, it does not mean the idea is fact. An idea is always an idea. And a fact is always a fact. Making something a law imples it is a fact, when it is not and can never be so. I'm no

Saiph · Sep 10, 2006

The thing is, light behaves as both a particle (a photon) and as a wave. But, it doesn't act both ways at the same time, and you can use either description to answer nearly any problem dealing with light. A photon is the particle properties of light, it's a "wave packet", a tightly grouped bundle of waves that only exist in a small region, due to interference of many other waves. Light diminishes, but never disappears, because it is quantized, it can never get weaker than one photon. A light source sprays out photons randomly, uniformly, and radially in all directions (assuming a standard point source). As the photons travel away from the source, they get further and further from their neighbors. Say at 1 meter away, there are 100 photons crossing a 1 meter square area every second. Go further away, and those 100 photons are spread over a larger area. So if you observe a 1 meter square area again, you'll "catch" less than 100 photons per second. The light, is thus dimmer. However, you can never get zero, as light can never get weaker than 1 photon (unless the source stops emitting <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). Even if you go far enough away, that you no longer catch 1 photon per second...that just means you'll catch say 1 photon in that square meter every 10 seconds, or 100 seconds. Wait long enough, and you'll catch one from that source, regardless of how faint it is. How do you measure inertia (a.k.a. mass): Simple, exert a force upon it, and measure the objects acceleration. If you want to know how much work it takes to move the earth, you need to provide me with a resisting force, or a desired speed relative to another object. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

derekmcd · Sep 10, 2006

"You say that no matter if we find out how gravity works, it will still be proportional to the mass of the object. I disagree. That is a hypothesis. Tell me how you determine the mass of the earth, or any other body, and I may change my mind." F = GmM/r2 Something tells me that's probably not the answer you are looking for. Nevertheless... that is the formula to determine the mass of the Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Sep 10, 2006

You can determine the mass of the earth by observing how things orbit around it. The distance to an object, and the period of the objects orbit can be used (along with newton's gravitational law) to give the mass. As for empirically establishing f=g*m*M/r^2...there's the "Cavendish" experiment. Basically very sensitive balances, and large heavy spheres. Onto the scientific method: It really goes something like: Observe a phenomena Pose a question Hypothesis an answer/explaination Create an experiment to test the Hypothesis Analyze the results Conclude. Repeat at the hypothesis stage if required. Newton's appraoch was much the same. His "laws" are really part of the analysis phase, as it is only a mathematical description of the force gravity exerts upon objects. Laws are also constantly re-evaluated every time they're used in later experiments. There are many ways to find the mass, and if it doesn't match, then there's a problem. The laws are tested constantly through use. If they're used, and the answers don't match up with observation...you've got one of two things wrong. Either the laws are wrong (not likely after centuries of use) or you used them wrong. Gravity is a prime example of this. Newtons gravity didn't fully explain mercury's orbit. Einstein had to come along, and tweak it with relativity's version to fully predict and describe Mercury's orbit. Even today gravity is constantly tweaked to try and explain Dark matter with a new theory called "MOND" that basically says gravity doesn't always drop of with distance...after a while it diminishes at a different rate. Granted, the theory keeps hitting hurdles, and dark matter theorists are more successful so far in explaining things...but it does exist, and people do work on it. Theories do not become laws. Theories are merely a self-consistent model created from th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 11, 2006

You can determine the mass of the earth by observing how things orbit around it. The distance to an object, and the period of the objects orbit can be used (along with newton's gravitational law) to give the mass. This means that you are using Newton's law of gravitation to prove Newton's law of gravitation. Basically saying that Newton's idea of uniform matter is wrong, but let's use his theory anyway, just turn it around and now we know the mass of an object by its orbit. Circular reasoning. That's my problem with it. There is no good reason for using Newtons formula to determine mass. You have to assume Newton is correct to do so. I'll have to look into the Cavendish experiment again though. Yes, I'm aware of the MOND stuff (although I haven't looked too deeply into it). I just don't like the idea that gravity behaves differently the way they describe it. And like you say, they keep coming up against hurdles. But as for dark matter, that I just can't accept either. If we can't see it, and we can't probe it, and it seems to only exist in certain places because it needs to be there for gravity to explain everything, well, there are just too many ifs and maybe's regarding something we can't even determine is there. Seems like a big fudge to me, especially when it's supposed to be 99% of the universe. It seems more likely to me that there is something wrong with the underlying principles, and we need to rethink a few things instead of putting more stuff on top. And some are looking into this. Regarding light: Established science has gone along for quite some time finding affects and then naming some particle for it (photon for light, graviton for gravity, etc). When they decided that enough was enough, they put a limit on the number of particles. Then they started getting flavours, colors, etc. Even creating new fields of science for symmetry, QCD, etc. In my view, and it is only that, this is too much. Too many par

derekmcd · Sep 11, 2006

"Basically saying that Newton's idea of uniform matter is wrong, but let's use his theory anyway, just turn it around and now we know the mass of an object by its orbit." I might be wrong, but is that statement in reference to Newtons assumption that the density of the moon was the same or nearly the same as earth's density? I believe he did determined the mass of the moon incorrectly. This, however, does not affect the formula to determine the mass of the earth. F=GmM/r2 F is the gravitational force (F=ma), G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is the mass of the moon. ma=GMm/r2. Cancel the moon's mass. a=GM/r2. Now solve for M, the mass of the Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

search · Sep 11, 2006

If I need to recognize an error in my approach is that I did not provide you with any specific website that would go in the direction of your questions except the one regarding how to filter information. I do recognize that, however: Regarding trying to discredit you no. You can do that yourself. If you want to challenge mainstream science then you better start knowing the laws you want to discredit and the language used (mathematics). Same would go for somebody which would try to discredit a software program. First that person would have to know about programming and the language used. As you say, when you encounter a snag in your software and you do not want to go back and redo all the work you just write something to fix the snag and move on. Well physics maths throughout history are full of "constants" and "theorems" if you want some comparison to your work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem http://personal.stevens.edu/~nkahl/Top100Theorems.html As for answering your question(s) I do not think you really know what your question(s) is/are otherwise you would do a simple and specific question one at a time. What you are doing is trowing as much mudd into the wall to see if anything sticks and not allowing others to TRY to explain one thing at a time. It does not mean anyone will suceed but at least the chance is there. Nevertheless another (probably useless) attempt: Gravity and light what and why: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm Good luck in your quest

A challenge to mainstream science

nevyn

Guest

qso1

Guest

yevaud

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

search

Guest

lysol

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

search

Guest

nevyn

Guest

vandivx

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

nevyn

Guest

Saiph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

search

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page