I am probably going to be critizied for this, but...


by modeman
Tags: critizied
adjkgh
adjkgh is offline
#19
Nov17-05, 11:39 PM
P: 23
just a question i had in mind while reading everyone's comments.
is orbit stronger than gravity?
every planet has their own gravitational pull, some that are greater than others and yet none are crashing into each other. i know that another force in the opposite direction pulls it back into place so the planet stays in between but for example, the moon isn't flying off towards to the sun when the sun has a greater gravitational force than the earth. is it because the moon is in orbit around earth and that is why gravity is not strong enough to break that orbit?
franznietzsche
franznietzsche is offline
#20
Nov18-05, 11:24 AM
P: 1,782
Quote Quote by adjkgh
just a question i had in mind while reading everyone's comments.
is orbit stronger than gravity?
every planet has their own gravitational pull, some that are greater than others and yet none are crashing into each other. i know that another force in the opposite direction pulls it back into place so the planet stays in between but for example, the moon isn't flying off towards to the sun when the sun has a greater gravitational force than the earth. is it because the moon is in orbit around earth and that is why gravity is not strong enough to break that orbit?

Orbits are maintained by gravity. You're seperating two things that are the same. There is no such thing as an "orbit force". The earth's gravity is stronger on the moon that the Sun's because the earth is much closer. But if you notice, while orbiting the earth, the moon is also orbiting the sun.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#21
Nov21-05, 07:20 PM
Mentor
P: 22,007
Quote Quote by adjkgh
...and yet none are crashing into each other.
Consider the anthropic principle applied to the solar system: since the solar system is roughly 5 billion years ago, any "crashing into each other" likely would have happened long ago. And, in fact, astronomers do believe that the solar system went through a "cosmic pinball machine" stage of development. But it is stable now because...after so long, it couldn't be anything but stable.
jjw004
jjw004 is offline
#22
Nov27-05, 07:23 PM
P: 4
All of this is very impressive. Else where I was confronted with the idea of "repulsive gravitation" that was offered as an implied part of Einsteins work on relativity. I doubted such a prospect and was chastised. These indians may be dancing to a slightly different but promiissing tune?
jw
Crazy8s
Crazy8s is offline
#23
Dec9-05, 04:11 PM
P: 25
Quote Quote by SpaceTiger
And that is exactly why I despise online crackpots. When the scientific community rejects them, they hawk their theories to laymen who don't know any better. I like to think that one of the main purposes of science is to give the general public an understanding of the universe in which they live. It's much more difficult to do that over top of a background of self-obsessed incompetents with inordinate amounts of free time. Admittedly, real scientists could put more effort into spreading real science, but that's no excuse for the crazies. It is possible that some enthusiastic fringe researcher will come up with a ground-breaking idea, but they should always go through official channels first. If it's right, experiment will eventually demonstrate that fact and the theory will be accepted. Only then is it ok, IMO, to start hawking it as "truth".
Sorry for the rant (it's not directed at moderman), but this sort of thing irks me a lot. Perhaps I just foolishly hope that my work (and that of my fellow astronomers/astrophysicists) will actually contribute something to the world.

...and without those rare people of brilliance who come across as crackpots at first, science would never have come to this high level of knowledge that it currently is. Your obvious cynicism towards those who do not accept theories that are not fully functional, and offer new possibilities, truly shows that your own creative abilities are severely hampered. Every single person who offered substantial advancement in science was initially considered a "crackpot" or a "quack". Einstein, Tesla, DaVinci, Copernicus, Newton, and so, so many others. It is a good thing that they worked hard to overcome the obstacles set before them by the very scientific institution they wished to help advance.

How insane Copernicus must have looked to all of his peers when he boldy stated that Earth was not the center of the universe... Shame on his peers for being so short sighted. Would you have laughed at his peers for being so cynical towards him?

It would be a true statement to say that many of the people who have outlandish ideas could be considered so, but if you dismiss all who have such "crazy" ideas, you are selling short our ability to further our knowledge of our universe.
SpaceTiger
SpaceTiger is offline
#24
Dec9-05, 04:57 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by Crazy8s
...and without those rare people of brilliance who come across as crackpots at first, science would never have come to this high level of knowledge that it currently is. Every single person who offered substantial advancement in science was initially considered a "crackpot" or a "quack". Einstein, Tesla, DaVinci, Copernicus, Newton, and so, so many others.
By whom? For what reason? Do you have evidence?

Unless you actually mean to say that anyone who has ever been called a crackpot should be taken seriously, your argument suffers from a pretty fundamental logical flaw. The fact that some brilliant people have been called crackpots by someone at some point in their lives is hardly justification for researching the TimeCube.

Perhaps you should instead try to present some reasons as to why you disagree with my judgement in this particular circumstance. Why do you believe that the universe is governed by the Universal Repulsion Force instead of gravity?


Your obvious cynicism towards those who do not accept theories that are not fully functional, and offer new possibilities, truly shows that your own creative abilities are severely hampered.
This is inappropriate and displays poor judgement, if you ask me. You really don't know anything about me, so it's pretty arrogant to assume you understand my psychology. Also, your wording is interesting. What theories are you saying are not "fully functional"? How much do you know about these theories?


It is a good thing that they worked hard to overcome the obstacles set before them by the very scientific institution they wished to help advance.
How insane Copernicus must have looked to all of his peers when he boldy stated that Earth was not the center of the universe... Shame on his peers for being so short sighted. Would you have laughed at his peers for being so cynical towards him?
It's pretty silly to compare a modern day internet message board to a time when people were being jailed and killed for their scientific beliefs. Also silly is your contention that Copernicus was ridiculed by his peers. In actuality, it was Copernicus himself who was hesitant to release his theory. His peers were the ones pushing him to publish. There were, of course, scientists who disagreed with him, but that's the case with any theory.


It would be a true statement to say that many of the people who have outlandish ideas could be considered so, but if you dismiss all who have such "crazy" ideas, you are selling short our ability to further our knowledge of our universe.
And if you accept everyone with "crazy" ideas, you'll find yourself quickly becoming very confused. Again, it's very presumptuous of you (and wrong) to say that I only listen to theories with majority support.
Crazy8s
Crazy8s is offline
#25
Dec9-05, 05:05 PM
P: 25
GR falls apart on the quantum level. You don't know where gravity even comes from, you can only suppose it comes from some subatomic particle. You don't even know if it travels in waves or not. Galaxies rotate differently than GR predicts. Pioneer is acting differently than expected. I can go on, and on, and on, and on....

Go back and re-read your cynical post. You will see about what I refer.

Eyes wide shut.
SpaceTiger
SpaceTiger is offline
#26
Dec9-05, 05:41 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by Crazy8s
GR falls apart on the quantum level. You don't know where gravity even comes from, you can only suppose it comes from some subatomic particle.
I don't think many mainstream scientists would claim that GR applies on quantum scales. That really doesn't say anything about its predictions on larger scales, though. The fact that we don't have a complete theory of everything doesn't isn't evidence against mainstream theory in testable regimes.


You don't even know if it travels in waves or not.
Until we build a detector that we're sure can detect these waves, this can't be called a real problem. The mainstream theory predicts them and there is indirect evidence for their existence, but we don't yet have a direct detection. That's it.


Galaxies rotate differently than GR predicts.
We have a theory to explain this. If dark matter is ever ruled out by observation, modification to our theory of gravity may be necessary, but again, this isn't direct evidence against GR.


Pioneer is acting differently than expected.
It wasn't designed to test gravity, so the Pioneer anomaly should be viewed with great caution. There are other, more conventional, explanations for its behavior that are also possible. Until it can be corroborated with something more reliable, I would be prone to leave it as a footnote.


I can go on, and on, and on, and on....
I don't get the impression that you can, since most of the things you listed don't constitute serious problems with standard gravity on the scales we're discussing. The only one that even comes close is the Pioneer anomaly, but that's pretty shaky ground to be standing on.


Go back and re-read your cynical post. You will see about what I refer.

Eyes wide shut.
Again, I'm going to politely ask that you refrain from this sort of behavior. I can assure you that it won't help your case.
EL
EL is offline
#27
Dec10-05, 04:10 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 789
Quote Quote by pervect
Except, of course, in the occasional paid advertisment :-(.
So please help me in this thread : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102135
I find two or three of them every day, write them down, and Greg finally bans them.
Note that the advertising is automatic through google, so it's not that Greg wants them here, but the only thing he can do is to ban them when they pop up.
Danger
Danger is offline
#28
Dec10-05, 12:46 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,961
Quote Quote by EL
Great. I find a couple of them each time I log in. Hopefully their frequency will go down soon...
I don't get ads.
Throw your $25 in the pot, you cheap bastard.
EL
EL is offline
#29
Dec10-05, 05:14 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 789
Quote Quote by Danger
I don't get ads.
Throw your $25 in the pot, you cheap bastard.
Hehe, I will...when I get a well payed job...

Seriously though, myself I can live with them, since I (hopefully) have to ability to conlcude which are crackpots. It's worse for new members, who either may be fooled, or if they manage to see through them, get the impression this site is unserious and just leave.

(So that's actually a reason for me to not "contribute" at the moment: I would not be able to hunt the bad ads down! )
Danger
Danger is offline
#30
Dec10-05, 05:20 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,961
Yeah... you make good points there (the first two, anyhow).
EL
EL is offline
#31
Dec10-05, 05:29 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 789
Quote Quote by Danger
Yeah... you make good points there (the first two, anyhow).
The first two good points I ever make at PF?
Ophiolite
Ophiolite is offline
#32
Dec15-05, 03:00 PM
P: 257
The following was addressed to SpaceTiger
Quote Quote by Crazy8s
Go back and re-read your cynical post. You will see about what I refer.
Are you not confusing objective, balanced scepticism with cynicism. From an independent perspective your posts seem considerably more cynical than those of SpaceTiger.
I would also be interested in your evidence for saying Newton and da Vinci were considered crackpots. That runs counter to everything I have read about either man.
daveb
daveb is offline
#33
Dec15-05, 03:51 PM
P: 927
I find it difficult to find anything credible in any portion of the zetatalk website. This is the web site founded by a woman who claims to talk to aliens and other subjects beyond even the realm of pseudoscience.
vincentm
vincentm is offline
#34
Dec16-05, 06:22 PM
vincentm's Avatar
P: 339
Quote Quote by DrChinese
And THAT is why I like PhysicsForums!
And I am especially glad that the same crackpots cannot peddle their wares here.
To be honest i don't know how i came across this site, but i am glad i did. I think i can pretty much say its safe to say that the experts here are very competent in the fields of science that they do post about on here. Please note that i don't post much here i mostly read and i will be starting school and hopefully later i will be able to contribute a bit more to the discussions that do take place on this wonderful site.

physicsforums, does rule
Danger
Danger is offline
#35
Dec27-05, 03:20 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,961
Quote Quote by EL
The first two good points I ever make at PF?
Not at all.
I always enjoy reading your posts. Just never mentioned it before.


Register to reply