Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your Brain
Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your BrainWhat makes someone take a disliking to an everyday bit of science? I posted a story on Democratic Underground about surgery in zero gravity conditions, and got a reply from someone who said they 'don't believe in gravity'. With a bit of prodding, it turned out this came from a book, which says that the paths objects follow are due to everything expanding all the time, and not really connected to the masses of objects at all. I tried to get a conversation with them going about mass, and the orbits of planets, Einstein's theory of space curved by mass, and so on, but they just really boiled it down to this:
"I like the idea of expanding atoms, expanding along with the expanding universe. I'm going to believe it for awhile cuz it makes more sense than some of the piffle that passes for science in certain areas. I'll stop believing it when the universe begins to collapse again."
No real argument given; just a dismissal of Newton and Einstein's theories, the basis for astronomy and all the space travel we've done, as 'piffle'. If you look at my post that was a reply to, you'll find an email exchange between the author of the book and a (disappointed) reader, which seems to show how much the 'theory' is a bunch of handwaving with no real thought behind it - he seems to think Newton came up with an inverse square law for the force of gravity at random, and that it hasn't been shown to predict what really happens (and I suspect he therefore thinks he can come up with another theory at random too, and expect it to be taken as seriously as Newton's, whether or not it corresponds to reality). And yet the other poster seems happy to accept this (probably having bought the damn book), over the combined understanding and experience of possibly millions of scientists, over the years.
What is the mindset that makes people reject accepted science like this? It's not a question of there being an actual problem with the existing science, that the new theory solves while being consistent with the known evidence; it looks more like "that's sounds too complicated for me - wouldn't it be simple if reality was like this?" Why will people reject the scientific method, and then expect their beliefs to be taken as serious science?
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Not exactly sure what color it is, but it sounds nice.
The author that poster was referring to doubted the validity of the inverse-square law? Pardon me. I need to go phone the local broadcasters and tell them they can begin selling advertising to everybody in the universe because the inverse-square law no longer applies and everyone can receive their signal. Except me. I used to be able to but the radio waves grew too big and no longer fit in my radio.
for gravity, when it's regarded as a force at a distance, as in Newton's theory. He said:
Secondly, let me state that there is no particular reason why the dynamics according to Expansion Theory must conform to Newton's invention of an inverse-square force, as I explain on pages 78 - 79. However, it must, of course, conform to observation and hard data.
Thirdly, I'd rather not speculate based on heresay. Could you point me to the data that you refer to? Specifically, what object was dropped, where was it dropped, when was it dropped, from what height, how was the drop-distance measured and timed, what was the margin of error, who did the experiment, was it repeated by others and independently confirmed and to within what degree of agreement, etc. I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you're asking for an expert, definitive analysis, you must first supply expert, definitive data if you're seriously after the truth, rather than a quick, off-the-cuff dismissal of Expansion Theory.
I suspect the author may actually know full well that "observation and hard data" show an inverse square law (ignoring relativistic effects), but is relying on his readers not making the connection of all the planetary mechanics known, the satellite orbits, and so on. Note he cannily asks for experiment details of measuring gravity in different areas, which may or may not be easy to come by - it's like asking someone who believes in a spherical earth for the nautical observations of someone who circumnavigated it - the fact that thousands don't get lost is good proof of the real geometry, but as a layman, you can't necessarily present that as details of a 'repeatable experiment'. Another reader of the book points to an experiment that apparently did show a small deviation from the inverse square law (in a bore hole in Greenland), but the fact that the observed basic orbits require an approximate inverse square law, related to mass, which this 'Expansion Theory' doesn't actually give, isn't pointed out.
The attitude (so familiar from 9/11 'truth' theories) is that if one small aspect isn't quite right, you can throw away an entire explanation and replace it with something completely untested (and demonstrably false, in fact).
You are alive, so you will always have the chance to be happy.
You are alive, so you will always have the chance to be happy.
The woowoos of course!
I can't see DiCaprio pulling that role off though.
