@MikeB

Quote:

Feel free to continue to believe the earth would slam into the sun (or the moon into the earth) if the rotation around each other slowed.

This doesn't have to be 'believed' it can be demonstrated. Get a bowl and spin a marble under the rim. The marble will circle the bowl until the momentum decreases then the curvature of the bowl takes over and pulls the marble into the center. The gravitational effect is similar. Mass tells space-time how to curve. Space-time tells mass how to travel. Mass is the marble. Space-time is the bowl.

Now if the earth falls into the sun all depends on the loss of momentum. Is that loss just enough to find a velocity where an stable orbit reoccurrs closer to the sun. Don't forget as we get closer to other bodies, Venus and Mercury, on the way the'll have a greater influence than they do now.

So beside the easy illustrative bowl/marble you can do in your kitchen we have various observed effects. The moon orbits the earth at a rate that's slightly faster than the gravitational effect. Putting speed and gravity together the prediction tells us the moon is flying away from us slowly, a few inches a year. Due to moon missions we have mirrors on the moon and can get very,very accurate measure of distance between these mirrors. Turns out the measures confirm the moon is indeed moving away a few inches each year.

Additionally we have man-made satellites which are held away from crashing into the earth by determining their speed of momentum and distance to solve the gravitational effects. Likewise when these statellites slow down they reenter the earth (often burning but sometimes crashing).

'Believe' is an incorrect wording. I have an expectation of behavior set by observation and confirmation. I like the scientific it's the most open and skeptical system we have. You are welcome to bring your belief of magentism. You simply have to provide a stronger case than the existing observation and confirmation than that of Gravity. Show us your 'it's all magnetics' makes better and more accurate predictions and I'll embrace it.

@BrianK

Quote:

'Believe' is an incorrect wording. I have an expectation of behavior set by observation and confirmation.

You do not, planets and stars in outer space are not bowls and marbles spinning in your kitchen.

Scientific theories are not the same as actual facts. I have no problem with you believing this, as long as you don't expect the same from me.

@MikeB

Quote:

You do not, planets and stars in outer space are not bowls and marbles spinning in your kitchen

This is a strawman. I never preseted nor said they are one in the same. However, the evidences I did present are exactly the same - the moon and earth along with the earth and man-made satellites.

Quote:

Scientific theories are not the same as actual facts.

The facts here are gravity and momentum explain the 'orbit of the spheres'. Einstein's Theory of Gravity is that which is the explaination we have which is best supported by the facts. Not only does the Theory of Gravity explains the facts it translates the facts into predictable and testable cases. These tests and predictions have been confirmed by facts.

Quote:

I have no problem with you believing this, as long as you don't expect the same from me.

I see you desire to falsely label a construct supported by evidence, as a belief. Fortunately, it's one the 'it's all magnetics' hypothesis does not enjoy.

@BrianK

Quote:

All physics textbooks should include this warning label: “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory. First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm

If you are interested and open minded enough, I am willing to go deeper into the matter. That means no ridiculing, but honest and open discussion instead.

@MikeB

Quote:

If you are interested and open minded enough, I am willing to go deeper into the matter. That means no ridiculing, but honest and open discussion instead.

I don't see the problem here as a lack of honesty or openness on my part. I'm open to consider whatever evidence you can produce.

Though I think the problem is definitional and qualitative. I take this from the quote and link you included.

For example, the author of this link clearly does not understand the difference between the commonly used theory (as in 'I have a guess') and the construct of a scientific theory. It's a problem I've seen occur in discussions with supporters of 'Intelligent Design' and Homopathic supporters. A Scientific Theory is based on facts that have been repeatively confirmed through observations and experiments. The understanding of a Scientific Theory is one that produces predictionable and replicable results based on factual understanding and logic with confirmation by observation and experimentation.

The denigration of calling something 'just a theory' shows more about the lack of understanding of the individual more than it speaks to science. I hope your evidence is stronger scientifically than the prattle of the article you linked to.

Gravity is a fact. Einstein's Theory of gravity is the best Scientific Theory that explains the fact of gravity. Evolution is a fact. The methods used for change and selection is the Scientific Theory of Evolution and describes the working of the fact. These items are clearly not 'just a theory'. The author has switched the definition and thus has constructed an arguement that's disengenious, dishonest, and in short wrong.

Quote:

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star.

And no one needs to.

For example, Atoms are definitional. Hydrogen is 1 proton. The number of neutrons vary. Thus, this composition has a range of mass assigned to it. Hydrogen w/o neutrons is lighter than say Deuterium which is Hydrogen with 1 Neutron which is lighter than Tritium is 2 Neutrons. As such this standard is universal. There is no need to check every atom in the universe. Change the number of protons and the atom is no longer Hydrogen but another atom. Measuring every atom makes no sense whatsoever. And again shows the lack of scientific understanding of the writer.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Apr-2011 at 05:16 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Apr-2011 at 05:03 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Apr-2011 at 04:55 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: Quote: For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory. .

The sun's gravitional force is offcourse much weaker than earth's (for the moon) as it's much farther away.

Otherwise earth couldn't remain on such a distant orbit to the sun while still retaining it's rather slow speed.

Same would be true if orbits were defined by magnetism (which they aren't).

Brian's bowl-example actually wasn't that bad as there is the (sciencetific) theory that huge masses make a "dent" into 3D-space and that gravity is just everything trying to roll into the center of that dent.

Imagine a roulette-bowl in a vaccum, with (allmost) no friction between the bowl and the ball. The ball would keep on rolling on the same level around the bowl forever. But the moment you stop it it will fall down.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@MikeB

I didn't just read the opening paragraph, I read the whole article
Quote:

There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd.

This is patently necessary. If the moon did not rotate on its axis one turn per lunar month as it orbits around the earth then we would get to see all of its surface, and it would not have an area referred to as the back of the moon often miscalled the dark side of the moon.

Quote:

In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the “solar wind” actually tends to push earth away.

Quote:

For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity.

This photonic pressure is very weak and like the magnetic repulsion forces are not large enough to make any discernible difference. The exhaust on your car points backwards to help clear noxious gases, not to provide vital thrust.

Quote:

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity.

You surprise me, they seem to issue patents for everything else. They then leave it to the US court system try to sort out the mess. (In 1903 the Wright brothers announced the first successful powered flight. The subsequent court cases stunted developments in USA to such an extent that in 1916 the American military had to buy surplus aircraft from France to avoid total embarrassment.)


Quote:

This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called “infinitesimals” which have never been observed.

In what way is calculus flawed? It can be difficult to explain, and if your maths teacher is anything like the one I had, the explanation can be difficult to follow, but (here is the important bit) it works

Quote:

To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves.

This is an entirely separate matter. Newtons equations work. Einsteins equations work better. Somebody else wants their name up in lights for finding out why. Somebody always has to take the clock apart to find out where the tick is. It goes by the name of "scientific advance", and one day we may well have spaceships with artificial gravity, inertial damping etc.

Quote:

Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall.

No they don't. At least not to people who are willing to listen, follow the maths, and learn.

Quote:

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.

There is also no mention of computers or the internet in the bible, so should the person who originated this *expletives deleted* have posted it in the first place. If any one sentence reveals the hidden agenda of its originator, this is the one.
I refuse to retreat into the dark ages of prejudice and ignorance proposed by religious fundamentalists and zealots, be they mullahs in the middle east, or morons in the midwest. Your "founding fathers" have no power over me.

Quote:

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

My apologies to BrianK et.al. but this seems to read as "science is UnAmerican"
I thought that you lot got rid of McCarthy years ago.

PS apologies for the long rant, and also to any Americans out there who aren't trying to push us back into the dark ages.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

A very simple question. According to scientists the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Why would this be the case based on the "Universal theory of gravity"?

According to the theories of gravity everything with mass is enduring an attraction force. Why does it appear to be accelerating instead of decreasing?

If you cannot answer this question by religiously holding onto universal gravity theories. Can you accept the theory may be wrong? If so we may find an actual basis for discussion.

Last edited by MikeB on 24-Apr-2011 at 09:21 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

And again shows the lack of scientific understanding of the writer

The author is a well educated physicist. Do you understand that with such a stance you destroy the oppertunity for indepth discussion?

The main reason for me to link to his believes is to show that well educated professionals are criticizing the theories of universal gravity.

Last edited by MikeB on 24-Apr-2011 at 09:45 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

it works

It does not really work and many additional bogus theories are and will be needed to "make it work". As in explaining how the planets orbit in space observations translate into mathematical predictability and attributed to past/current believes. It's not exact because the basic understanding isn't there. The predictable behaviour is attributed to the wrong force.

For example one could invent a theory that humans with a larger volume weigh more than humans with less volume. In the vast majority of cases this is true and thus "it works", but in reality it does not work like that at all.

@MikeB
When I was a snot nosed kid in short trousers my maths teacher set me questions where pi=22/7. When I got a little older we used four figure tables where pi=3.142. A little later still we used six figure tables and then pi=3.14159. When electronic calculators became generally available they showed eight figures and then pi=3.1415927.

Every value that I have ever used for pi has been wrong, but that does not mean that pi=42.
Einstein did not prove that Newton was wrong, he proved that Newton was not sufficiently accurate. I, and others will be perfectly happy to move on to a new theory. All you have to do is come up with a better theory. Scientific acceptance is not like a court of law. It is not sufficient just to prove the other guy wrong, you have to prove yourself right.

Scientists are not the ones who claim to know it all, or put boundaries on the permissible extent of human knowledge, in fact this disparity was noted and entered for peer review in the 1990's. The fact that there is not yet an answer is NOT evidence of a conspiracy to cover up the facts, it just means that the answer is more complex than Jack O'Niell's "Magnets"

If you want to be really amazed at whats out there, take a look at this

Last edited by Nimrod on 24-Apr-2011 at 10:50 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@MikeB

Oh dear.

I did some research into Ellery Schempp (read, put his name into google), expecting to find the same sort of crank that you've quoted before now, but this time? This time you've outdone yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellery_Schempp

You're right, he's a physicist, a scientist and a rational thinker. He's also a strong opponent of the creationists and, here's the big bit - he wrote that gravity article as a parody of creationist criticism of the Theory of Evolution.

Here's some major points:

Quote:

On November 26, 1956, Ellery staged a protest against the school requirement that each student read 10 Bible passages and the Lord's Prayer each day during homeroom. Instead, Ellery brought a copy of the Qur'an and read from that. For this, he was sent to the Principal's office. With the help of his father, Edward Schempp, and the American Civil Liberties Union, they sued the Abington School district over their policy of mandatory Bible readings.

So what you have is Schempp's opinion of the creationists, rewritten to be an utterly misleading critique of another strong theory, that of Gravity. It was a theory Schempp considered to be pretty much beyond the sort of critique the creationists give to Evolution, but obviously it isn't.

So he debunked his own 'article' for our convenience and enlightenment.

The next that I'm taking directly from Ellery Schempp in the debunked article is particularly important:

Quote:

That anyone would not get the joke is a sad commentary on the state of science knowledge or our sense of humor or both! I mean, if you tie in gravity to obesity, Saturn’s rings, moral ‘decline’, and universal health care, and you don’t see the fun, what’s to say?

Sadly, my sense of humour in these matters is a bit battered and I no longer see the complete and total, wilful misunderstanding of science as quite so funny as I perhaps used to. Dealing with Creationists can do that. But still, Schempp raises an important point - followers of minority and utterly discredited theories that don't deserve the label 'science' will misrepresent the actual theories to suit their own ends, and we need to remain aware of that.

Last edited by T-J on 24-Apr-2011 at 11:05 AM.

@T-J

Regardless of his personal intends, he correctly stated the theories of universal gravity is merely a theory and not fact.

And regarding the theory of evolution, there are also gaps. Thus additional alternatives should also here be considered.

@MikeB

Again with the 'its only a theory' strawman. Did you bother to read Schempp's debunking? Or does his writing only carry weight when it superficially appears to agree with your ideas?

Here's an idea: go and turn your 'theory' from a collection of halfbaked assertions on the internet into a series of equations describing the Universe. Then we'll be able to test the predictions of your 'magnets' idea against the predictions of the entire scientific community's 'gravity' theory, and see who wins.

Come on, if we're all missing 'the basic understanding', then surely your solution must be quite simple to work, easy to understand and therefore simple to teach?

No?

Last edited by T-J on 24-Apr-2011 at 12:06 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

So he debunked his own 'article' for our convenience and enlightenment.

O.K. I hadn't spotted that, but the article you linked to is a bit long, and as I have already hinted, most people fail to read beyond the opening few paragraphs, if at all, so I will leave my long winded rambling as it is.
Like you, I find my sense of humour to be somewhat battered, especially when somebody tries to tell me that maths doesn't work.

Quote:

@Nimrod Quote: it works It does not really work and many additional bogus theories are and will be needed to "make it work".

I will accept that calculus is a little bit more complex than 1+1=2, but I do not accept that it has to be bodged to give the preferred answer.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @T-J Regardless of his personal intends, he correctly stated the theories of universal gravity is merely a theory and not fact. And regarding the theory of evolution, there are also gaps. Thus additional alternatives should also here be considered.

Universal gravity is a theory that has weight added to it every time an astronomer uses its calculations to line up a telescope to make observations. It can be refuted by just one person looking through the lens and seeing nothing. (Provided he got his sums right and remembered to remove the lens cap.)

There are two problems that occur when you are tracking evolution. the first is that most of the evidence either way has been eaten. the second is that when you place a piece of evidence into a gap you then have two gaps, one either side of the new piece of evidence.

The problem is in both cases even if you can point to a flaw in either theory, you still haven't proven Sitchin (remember him?) or Navinchandra Shah to be anything other than booksellers.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@T-J

Quote:

Come on, if we're all missing 'the basic understanding', then surely your solution must be quite simple to work, easy to understand and therefore simple to teach?

Scientists are discovering more and more planets and moons to have a magnetosphere. This has scientists puzzled in many cases like for example with Ganymede, but is crucial for this theory "to work".

The biggest magnet in our solar system is the sun. Scientists agree its heliosphere expands beyond the orbit of the planet Pluto (I call it a planet for many reasons, such as 3 orbiting moons and having a thick atmosphere, although it functions more like a binary system as its barycenter with its largest moon lies in between Pluto and Charon).

Scientists do not yet know how far the heliosphere goes, but I predict it will at some point be discovered it expands all the way to other stellar systems. The sun has a north and south pole just like the planets which circle around it, the planets are aligned in accordance of this polarity (based on just the theory of universal gravity the earth could just as well orbit above the Sun's north pole or south pole, but this is not the case).

All the planets orbit the sun in the same direction. The direction the sun rotates. In outer space particles align in a similar manner and flow in the same direction. In outer space the distance between molecules are in the realm of multiple centimeters and gravitational forces are thus very weak (on the surface of the earth gravity is a far more powerful force to take into account).

Quote:

the distance between molecules are in the realm of multiple centimeters

I should clarify this is also a simplification based on modern scientific models. Similar to how most students are being taught how molecules are like, little connected fibrating little orbs but it is already understood reality is different.

@MikeB

Quote:

According to the theories of gravity everything with mass is enduring an attraction force. Why does it appear to be accelerating instead of decreasing?

No one has ever said science is complete in it's understanding. However, we do have well established formula's for electromagnetism and gravity. We can determine distances, masses, and magentic forces. We can compare which of the two forces is dominate in the relationship. The problem with you article is that it in no way provides us something that provides us better or more consistent answers than we have today.

Quote:

If you cannot answer this question by religiously holding onto universal gravity theories. Can you accept the theory may be wrong? If so we may find an actual basis for discussion.

Sure gravity might be wrong. Making a claim does not establish a truism. You need to provide a model that better fits the facts. For example Einstein is accepted as more correct than Newton because Einstein's mode is able to predict the results to more events more accurately.

Quote:

The author is a well educated physicist. Do you understand that with such a stance you destroy the oppertunity for indepth discussion?

Defaulting to a person due to a degree is a logical fallacy called - appeal to authority. After reading T-J's evidence of Ellery I'd agree this was apt to be a tongue-in-cheeck response to Creationists is the best truism here.

You were looking for open and honest communication. I demonstrated that I was open to the ideas. I applied reason to the hypothese presented. And I was honest in the summary of the degree of failures of understanding. The only way one could have an 'open-mind' and accept Ellery would be if their head was open in such a way that their mind would fall out and be lost.

I think I explained very well one of the cited statements - no one has measured all atoms - and why that's simply not necessary. I didn't do an exhaustive disprove as there's already 28 pages in this thread I'd easily use another 28. But, I do want to pick on 1 more. That being the idea that -- the law of infinitesimals is wrong. Ellery indicates that an 'infinitesimal' has never been observed, which is true. Though this is a strawman because no one stated that such an item must exist in the real world. This is a mathematical construct to measure area. ..

Describing this for you. Make 4 bell curves the same shape and size so they are the same. Label A,B, M, and ZZ. In curve A make 1 square. Anysize will do. Measure that square and that will give you an area. As you can see it's fairly poor as it doesn't cover the entire space. In curve B make 2 rectangles of the same length to cover the most area. You can see here in curve B the area is poor but it's a bit better than A. Now for M instead of 2 use 13. You'll notice not perfect but significantly more encompassing than either A or B. Now ZZ is the 'perfect' solution. That is if you could make an infinite number of squares in the area. Since we can put an infinite number in there that find all area. NOW -- it's unrealistic to look for an inifinitely small object but mathematically it does work.

The other thing of note is certainly the 'it's not in the Bible' comment. Science doesn't care about the Bible or Koran or Necronomicon. And it shouldn't. Science doesn't fit a belief. Though science can fact check many of those beliefs. There's no need for gravity to be in the Bible and neither do we accept the Bible's statement that a bat is a bird is true. The 'bat is a bird' is a statement from the Old Testament, which if taken as true can easily be fact checked by science and demonstrated as false.

The problem isn't my assement of Ellery it was open and honest. There are clearly errors in Ellery's statements and a severe lack of factual observations.

@MikeB

If it was all due to magnets wouldn't the planetary poles all line up with the sun? I just had a quick look at the axial tilt of the planets and found some interesting numbers. Mercury and Jupiter stand proudly to attention like good little soldiers, while Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune are leaning over like drunken sailors reeling home from the pub. Venus is either spinning backwards or standing on her head, depending on how you look at things, while Uranus is drilling his way through space like a very large calibre rifle bullet.
I accept the fact that the magnetic pole is not the same as the axial pole, but wouldn't that make things even worse under a magnetically operated universe?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.