Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gravity: A Theory in Crisis (no joke!)
CEH ^ | May 5, 2009

Posted on 05/06/2009 10:28:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Gravity: A Theory in Crisis

May 5, 2009 — Note: This is **not** a joke. How could gravity be a theory in crisis? Isn’t gravity one of the best-understood facts of nature? Don’t we all avoid jumping off cliffs because of the law of gravity? Gravity is doing just fine, thank you. It’s our theory of gravity, and the cosmology built on it, that is in crisis – according to a report on PhysOrg today: “Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis.”...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abagofmagicdust; abracadabra; artbell; cosmology; cosmotology; creation; electricuniverse; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; marsskull; science; scientism; stupidondisplay; voodoo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: Marie
The "wave and particle" conundrum is actually easily explained in the context of my theory. That was one of the facets that, to me at least, provided it early credibility. Mass and energy are the same thing, but sort of like ice and steam. One is solid, one is gas, both are water.

It does get a bit thick, but once you see it, you'll be like Homer Simpson (Dohh!!). It really is not as hard as people make it out to be.

81 posted on 05/06/2009 6:53:50 PM PDT by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thomas C. Van Flandern, founder of Meta Research died January 9, 2009. I certainly hope someone at NASA took him aside to show him the proof of artificial structures on Mars obtained since 2001 ... if they exist; the public paying for the exploration certainly is not getting the truth.


82 posted on 05/06/2009 7:58:05 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Yes, except that nobody can directly observe the past to know the age of the universe, it is all circumstantial, and radioisotope dating is not strictly physics (it was covered in chemistry); and once you apply it to rock ages because you must presume initial conditions to know the age, and once again nobody was around taking measurements at the beginning to know what the original composition of the rocks were.


83 posted on 05/06/2009 8:29:57 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

The broader point I was trying to make is that evolution touches a lot less of science than evolutionists insist, and it appears evolutionists impose evolution on other hard science disciplines simply to gain greater credence when they stray from science into origin mythology.


84 posted on 05/06/2009 8:31:29 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Yeah, but I hear the sailing there is fantastic...

85 posted on 05/06/2009 9:05:37 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Isn't a particle merely a little bit of space and a smidgen of time wrapped up with energy?

Not really. Where did you get the idea that a particle is composed of some amount of space and time?

A particle is a packet of energy with various attributes. A given particle has a location in spacetime, but it's not generally thought of as being composed of space or time.
86 posted on 05/06/2009 9:47:55 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

I’ve known it all along.
Gravity sucks.


87 posted on 05/06/2009 9:49:43 PM PDT by djf (Live quiet. Dream loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
nothing I learned in any of my physics courses dealt with fossils, geology, or radioactive decay.

You clearly didn't take much physics. Even third semester physics for non-majors covers radioactive decay. And the related physics don't look good for a young Earth.
88 posted on 05/06/2009 9:54:11 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
Your summary of your theory isn't coherent. But the one thing which seems fairly clear is that you dispute even Special Relativity, which puts you in a pretty difficult place regarding agreement with experimental evidence.

You'll have to explain, for example, where the energy of a nuclear bomb blast comes from if not liberated from mass. You'll have to explain why particles accelerated to near-light speeds are observed to gain mass. And your postulation of an absolute coordinate system implies a variable speed of light, which will cause you some big problems.
89 posted on 05/06/2009 10:17:09 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Marie
From what I understand, the components of particles end up being reduced to nothing more than energy. And yet, they have mass.

It's not a stupid question.

Energy has many forms, and a given amount of energy can be converted between these forms with some limitations. Mass is simply one of these forms of energy, as related by the equation E=mc^2. The concept is really as simple as that.

Just as a side note, it's not true that particles are reduced to only energy. The Standard Model of particle physics postulates other attributes of particles (including electric charge, for example) which are currently irreducible. So it would be more accurate to say that a particle can be reduced to some amount of energy and a list of its fundamental attributes.
90 posted on 05/06/2009 10:34:06 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy

The summary was just that, a summary. Detailed discussion requires far more space. I do dispute special relativity, but in a more narrow scope than you may expect.

No one has asked for an explanation of a nuclear bomb. Yes, the energy is liberated from mass. You remind me of the unjust king, who demanded to be given all knowledge while standing on one leg. I never claimed to know all things. Just a plausible framework. Before you tear it apart, perhaps you should attempt to understand the halting scratched I have made.


91 posted on 05/06/2009 10:50:07 PM PDT by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Gravity is not just a good idea. It’s the law!


92 posted on 05/06/2009 11:37:55 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Yes, except that nobody can directly observe the past to know the age of the universe, it is all circumstantial, and radioisotope dating is not strictly physics (it was covered in chemistry); and once you apply it to rock ages because you must presume initial conditions to know the age, and once again nobody was around taking measurements at the beginning to know what the original composition of the rocks were.

Nobody can directly observe an electron, either. The circumstantial evidence of it's existance is sufficient for me.

Regarding radioisotope dating, it IS physics rather than chemistry. Where you have an isotope with a known half life, and can measure the proportion of the isotope and its decay products, you can have a pretty good idea of how long that isotope has been sitting there.

93 posted on 05/07/2009 5:44:06 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
The broader point I was trying to make is that evolution touches a lot less of science than evolutionists insist, and it appears evolutionists impose evolution on other hard science disciplines simply to gain greater credence when they stray from science into origin mythology.

The age of the Earth and the universe has nothing to do with evolution, except that creationists need to disallow both an old Earth and evolution to retain their faith.

94 posted on 05/07/2009 5:46:59 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy

As I said, radioactive decay, and all information regarding atoms, was covered in Chemistry, not Physics. If that has changed recently, I wouldn’t know about it, but that’s how it was when I went to school.


95 posted on 05/07/2009 6:31:48 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

LOL!

What’s the “Theory of Cosmology”?

And Newton was overturned in 1915. The problems were recognized back in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Creationists were too busy keeping people from putting up lightning rods to notice.


96 posted on 05/07/2009 6:34:32 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

While I entirely agree with you that the scientific theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth, or the universe, or even the origin of the species or the history of how we came to be.

However, as an evolutionist pointed out to me a few weeks ago on these boards, evolution can’t work in short periods of time, which is why we can’t observe it creating new species, but if you just give it millions of years then it is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific impossibility if the earth is too young.

On the other hand, a young earth is not a necessity for the creation story, it just adapts easier to history as described in the Bible.

I don’t believe the earth or the universe is old, but I also don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old. Actually, I have no firm belief on how old the earth is, because looking at all the evidence, I don’t see a reason to accept as fact any of the numbers.

It takes a year to build a skyscraper. If someone created one out of thing air, but we lost all knowledge of how it was created, it would look like the top floor was put on a year after the bottom floor, because that is what science would say is necessary.


97 posted on 05/07/2009 6:42:50 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy
Just as a side note, it's not true that particles are reduced to only energy. The Standard Model of particle physics postulates other attributes of particles (including electric charge, for example) which are currently irreducible.

When an electron hit a positron (anti-electron), the result is two or more gamma ray photons with no particle results.

98 posted on 05/07/2009 6:49:39 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
However, as an evolutionist pointed out to me a few weeks ago on these boards, evolution can’t work in short periods of time...

It can't work in long periods of time either.

99 posted on 05/07/2009 6:50:42 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Type in "Chemistry Radiosotopic dating" on Google and you will see that people in CHemistry classes are covering the topic and asking for help.

However, I see that there are physics hits for the same search (Physcs radioisotropic dating), which means that it has bled over into physics from it's natural home in Chemistry. Can't say why.

Physics - (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.
I guess the "modern extension" of nuclear physics would cover radioactive decay, and by extension dating methods, even though we covered atoms and decay in chemistry when I went to school.
Chemistry - The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.
I guess at some point they decided that radioactive decays wasn't an "atomic system" so much as a "nuclear physics" question.

Radioactive decay is a relatively simple process, and was easily understood in a basic Chemistry class when I went to school.

100 posted on 05/07/2009 6:54:44 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson