JaKiri Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90 VS http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 So do you think that the first poster on the second will be banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I seriously think we should have a "How to conduct a scientific debate" tutor. That way people know in advance how they're expected to explain things. btw, I can't say anything about pinch's theory since i seriously still don't get it. So I can't really say it's wrong Only that I'm stupid. Or.. yah. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Without any maths its not a theory of any kind anyway, dont worry. The reason you cant understand it (neither can I by the way) is because he's using a communication medium which in no way suits physics. Pictures and paragraphs are no substitute for maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Not that I surely understand the maths of it, by the way (I HATE the mathematical aspect of physics, but i admit it's necessary) at laest it would have given SOME sort of basics ... That's why i suggest a "how to conduct a civil scientific debate" FAQ/Tutor thing. Seriously, I wasn't kidding - people might learn how to debate better, or - if this place is even for them or not. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 IT'S A WAVE DAMMIT, A WAVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 What's a wave? gravity? theres no SOLID evidence that gravity propagates at the same speed © as an EM wave, and there is evidence to the contrary. Probably not a wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It has to propagate at c to be a wave? Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I can't prove my theory, it is based on observable after effects. Like the big bang theory is based on observable after effects. My theory does create anti-gravity between distances of empty space. If that is observed then I get a bit closer to being right. I did notice on NASA's site that they have to make unexplained midway corrections on the flight of their satellites to mars, that might be the anti-gravity that I am talking about, but still, if anyone is any good at maths they could work it out. Einstein was good at the proof part, and maybe not so good at the theory part, whereas I am good at the theory part, and useless at the mathematical stage. I would make a good partner for someone involved in science. But yeah I agree that there is no pull, only pushing involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Heh, I just found this in that old post. Is this true? Because if it is then I am almost certainly right. "Scientists have detected a mysterious gravitational-like force which is pulling on distant spacecraft. They became aware of the force after analyzing the trajectories of four deep-space probes. "It is almost as if the probes are not behaving according to the known law of gravity," said Dr John Anderson, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the scientist heading the study into this anomaly. "We've been working on this problem for several years, and we have accounted for everything we could think of." Pioneer 10, one of the probes being affected by the mystery force, was launched towards the outer planets in 1972. It is now far beyond Jupiter but still in radio contact with Earth. By studying the Doppler shift of the radio signals from the craft, scientists have been able to calculate, very precisely, how fast it is travelling. The puzzle is that Pioneer 10 is slowing more quickly than it should. At first, scientists speculated that the slowing might be due to the gravitational pull of some nearby, unseen object. However, when the trajectory of Pioneer 10's sister spacecraft, Pioneer 11, launched in 1973, was analyzed, it was found that it too was being subjected to the same mysterious pull. Since Pioneer 11 is on the opposite side of the Solar System from Pioneer 10, the effect cannot be the gravitational force of some unseen body. "Our analysis strongly suggests that it is difficult to understand how any of these mechanisms can explain the magnitude of the observed behaviour of the Pioneer anomaly," Anderson's team stated. The mystery deepened when it was revealed that the same unexplained force has been affecting on the Galileo spacecraft on its journey to Jupiter, and the Ulysses spaceprobe that is orbiting the Sun. Several scientists have noted that the strength of the effect seems to be related to two of the Universe's physical constants: the speed of light and the speed of the expansion of the Universe. If this were true it would suggest a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It doesn't mean you're right. All they have presented there are observations and a couple of random possibilities (probably just the most interesting ones, considering it's from the media), and not any sort of explanation - so you can hardly shout "That's what I said!". Even if they are correct in that there is a "fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity", it's in no way supportive of your theory (and not really terribly surprising, given the nature of science.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well, lets say that in the past, all the mathematical formulas that you call proof, are wrong. So what does that mean about science? It means that you have to proove something with formulas that are wrong. The speed of light I am suggesting is wrong for a start, so I can't use that. Relativity is wrong, so I can't use that. Magnetism is wrong so I can't use that. Evolution is wrong but my theory is not based on evolution. What I am saying really is that I would need to use every formular based on my own starting formula which corrects the speed of light. But my formula would be based on light interferance, and this interferance has been explained in an odd way already, so I have to change peoples minds about that. Then I have to change peoples minds about Spooky science, because my theory suggests that the gravity wave can travel faster than light, and can reach distant objects instantly. It's a catch 22 situation. However, if scientists all start to notice anti gravity, then they surely are allowed to re-write some of the theories. In other words, observation is more important than maths at this point. Maths comes later. I am just the theorist, not the mathematician. I am just as important as the mathematician, but you are not treating me with any dignity. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It doesn't matter what other science is "right" or "wrong". Seeing one of the effects your theory predicts does not automatically mean your theory caused the effects. That's what I am trying to say here. Incidentally, there's no evidence linking "unknown force acting on these probes" to your anti-gravity idea, except for the fact that the force seems to occur in the same "direction". That's not compelling on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 No but that's the only thing I can predict that hasn't already been predicted. I would predict that light would interfere with itself due to the wave, but I can't because it's already been shown to be true. I would predict that messages can be sent instantly from one particle to another, but I can't because that has already been shown to be true. I could predict that a photon could hit two different places at the same time, but I can't because that has already been shown to be true. The only thing that hasn't been calculated so far based on my theory is the anti-gravity between large objects. So I use that as my main argument. The other things back me up, but are not predictable because they are already known. I even argue against my theory if I find something that doesn't work with it. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Even the standard diagram used to show how gravity works seems to demonstrate pushing rather than pulling. It oddly uses gravity as an explenation of gravity which is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 That's not the "standard diagram showing how gravity works". It's a representation of 3D space as a 2D plane, being used to illustrate how gravimetric fields affect local space and mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well to me it looks like water going down a plughole, which is an inward direction causing a dip, and a bend. Light would still bend in other words, things would still spin. Everything would still look the same. Water going down a plughole is a push force, because the weight of the water on the outside is greater than the stuff going down the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 "What it looks like to you" does not determine or influence what it is actually demonstrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I thought it was demonstrating the bending of space? Using this explenation as some sort of fumble, but then not explaining why space would bend in the first place. Space doesn't bend, the waves just get higher away from the planet. Higher waves push harder against an object causing the objects path to take the easiest route. So in a way you get a bend, but it would actually be possible to take the direct route if you had enough momentum and size. Light has the momentum to tackle most waves, but not the size to flatten the wave like a bunch of atoms could. Light must travel in a huge arc over long distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 This is in the wrong thread. Anyway, it's trying to demonstrate gravity, not the bending of space. So the waves get stronger the farther away they go, when gravity decreases at the rate of 1/R^2, or 1 over the number of radius' of the Earth you are away, squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 This isn't the wrong thread, I'm allowed to defend my theory. That gravity picture as you call it, uses gravity to explain gravity, you aren't allowed to do that. Once you come to the conclusion that gravity is a push force then the picture works better as an explenation of a force occuring exactly at the point that an object meets gravitational forces as a wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Defend your theory in the thread about it. Why am I not allowed to use gravity to explain gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Because the explenation re-enforces the theory, it's a self-perpetuating argument. The dip in the picture is downhill, and gravity makes it work. But actually waves make it work, and there is no downhill in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It's an ANALOGY! The picture is an ANALOGY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It would be great if someone who knew what they were talking about stepped in right about now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now