The discussion revolves around the idea that gravity may be a result of the composition and temperature of elements, with participants exploring the implications of this theory and its validity within the context of established scientific principles.
Participants generally disagree on the validity of the original theory, with many expressing skepticism and demanding more rigorous standards for what constitutes a scientific theory. There is no consensus on the original poster's claims or their implications.
Participants highlight the need for quantitative predictions and testable evidence to support theoretical claims, indicating a limitation in the original proposal's scientific rigor.
This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the foundations of gravitational theory, the scientific method, or the standards for proposing new scientific ideas.
Atoms have massnuuskur said:You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Per Newton's work, gravity is something that is generated by bodies that have mass.
itallcomestoenergy said:I have this theory; gravitation is a result of the right composition and amount of elements, combined with the right temperature with a flux of course. This means there are many possibilities to create gravity, and anti-gravity if switched 180 degrees. Am I far out? what's your thoughts?
itallcomestoenergy said:I have this theory
How is it possible to prove this theory?Vanadium 50 said:Apparently we're going to discuss this one.
No you don't. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.
The sun, Earth and our moonnuuskur said:Well, arbitrary collection of elements produces gravity independently of temperature. I don't see how the initial idea is plausible.
Yes atoms have mass. What is the purpose of that statement?
But doesn't it start with a thought? I really need inspiration and help to figure this out!CalcNerd said:Your theory requires YOUR proof. Until then it should be moved to the Science fiction section.
I understand, but I don't have the background or knowledge to know where to begin...Vanadium 50 said:Are you not listening to me? You don't have a theory. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.
itallcomestoenergy said:I understand, but I don't have the background or knowledge to know where to begin...
CalcNerd said:Sure. But if you are proposing something that is to be taken seriously (not science fiction), then you need to be prepared to offer proof. And that proof needs to hold up to tests.
First: How can you prove me wrong? Arent you a scientist trying to figure out whatever is on your mind?Drakkith said:To clarify to the OP, theories in science are a collection of rules, methods, and math that are consistent and make useful and observable predictions about the real world.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory