N
nevyn
Guest
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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