I am probably going to be critizied for this, but

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter modeman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion critically examines the assertion that gravity is not the sole force governing the orbits of celestial bodies. Participants reference an article proposing a "Stellar Repulsion Force" (SRF) that allegedly surpasses gravitational force, particularly in stars. However, the consensus among contributors is that this hypothesis lacks scientific merit and fails to account for established principles of astrophysics, such as Newton's laws and the stability of stellar structures. The discussion emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific validation over fringe theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with gravitational force calculations (G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N(m/kg)^2)
  • Basic knowledge of astrophysics and stellar structure
  • Awareness of scientific methodology and peer review processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of hydrostatic equilibrium in stars
  • Study the implications of Newton's law of universal gravitation
  • Explore the concept of radiation pressure in stellar physics
  • Investigate the peer review process in scientific publishing
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, physics students, and anyone interested in understanding the forces that govern celestial mechanics and the importance of scientific rigor in evaluating new theories.

  • #31
Danger said:
Yeah... you make good points there (the first two, anyhow).

The first two good points I ever make at PF?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
The following was addressed to SpaceTiger
Crazy8s said:
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.
 
  • #33
I find it difficult to find anything credible in any portion of the zetatalk website. This is the website founded by a woman who claims to talk to aliens and other subjects beyond even the realm of pseudoscience.
 
  • #34
DrChinese said:
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 :biggrin:
 
  • #35
EL said:
The first two good points I ever make at PF?
Not at all. :biggrin:
I always enjoy reading your posts. Just never mentioned it before.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
774
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K