0

When doing science in any field the goal is to obtain knowledge. How can one be justified in using ideas that are classified as a phenomenon? Yet be considered the mainstream?

Example. Scientists are the problem. They are considered mainstream only if their theories are based on phenomena. Example: Gravity is considered a phenomenon. It is considered a phenomenon because we cant explain it. Because it doesn't work and it doesn't exist. If it did exist, we would certainly have discovered it by now. However, instead of making the Logical conclusion that we need a real Force. We continue for 200 years with this force. Gravity does not even explain Gravity. Lot alone anything else in our universe. We do not correct the error. What we do is add another phenomenon to explain the first phenomena such as dark matter. Then when that failed they created another phenomenal dark energy. That is science now? You cannot use a phenomenon to explain the phenomenon that explains phenomena. That it's not science under any circumstances or any definition. At best it is witches and Fantasies. This is why they're not finding the truth. They are taking us further away and destroying anyone's chance of seeing reality.

please tell me what is the error not the mathematical error. The error in thinking in this equation don't do the math just common sense. Rember this is the calculation of gravity. Whats missing from the equation? The Newton Force is a quantity that is measured using the standard metric unit known as the Newton. A Newton is abbreviated by an "N." To say "10.0 N" means 10.0 Newton of force. One Newton is the amount of force required to give a 1-kg mass an acceleration of 1 m/s/s. Thus, the following unit equivalency can be stated:

1 Newton = 1 kg • m/s2

Its gravity he does not have gravity in his gravity equation. Because Gravity would not work so he made up a Newton. It's phenomenon. Newtons says a force must have it pair in reverse. I must be stupid what is the opposite of gravity? Am I missing something? His gravity doesn't qualify under his own laws?

closed as off-topic by Conifold, Not_Here, Dan Hicks, Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Keelan Nov 22 '17 at 11:05

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – Keelan
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    This is closer to philosophy but it is phrased in the form of a rant and so is off-topic as primarily opinion based. Edit out pronouncements and condemnations, and streamline your argument. Currently at the end of it you only have appeal to emotions. Also, what exactly do you expect from answers? Critique of your argument? Discussion of modern philosophical criticism of scientific methodology? Something else? – Conifold Nov 17 '17 at 2:58
  • 1
    Agree that it's a rant and a bit scrappy but it's a good question. – PeterJ Nov 17 '17 at 13:22
  • 1
    As with other commenters, I'm not particularly keen on the way this is worded. However, it is symptomatic of a number of other questions I have seen that appear to misunderstand how scientific theory develops. Often characterised by stating that Newton was wrong, or similar. As such, I've tried to answer the broader question, not the bit about units which still eludes me. – Alex Nov 17 '17 at 16:58
  • 1
    I agree that this essay starts with a pretty good question. But then it dissolves into a rant. After some editing, I would like to see the question again. (ignore previous comment) – Mark Andrews Nov 17 '17 at 20:30
  • 2
    Posting (at least here) is best served cold. Passion can go into researching the issues, but it has to be completely repackaged for people who do not know you or your interests, and have only relatively short text to go by. Context and background, explanation of terms, references, structured arguments, etc., go a long way. The reference was not to plagiarism but to discontinuity of the passage, as if a text was reshuffled and it became impossible to follow where a thought starts and how conclusions are reached or what they are. If I suspected plagiarism I would have said so explicitly. – Conifold Nov 20 '17 at 19:40
3

Ah, No. Several issues with this. Let's start with the goal of science. It's not to obtain knowledge per se, but rather to identify the best explanations for what we see around us. No scientist worth his or her salt is ever 'certain' about what they know. Instead, they'll tell you that a particular piece of knowledge as been 'proven', or conforms to experimentation that was designed to prove or disprove a given theory.

In the case you describe above, Gravity is indeed, a phenomenon, and we don't properly understand it. But, that's not because it's not correct. It's the best available model for what we've observed constantly in the universe. To be frank, calling Gravity 'incorrect' is an extraordinary claim, and in science there is a maxim - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What I'm saying is this. Your claim may well one day prove to be true, but I'll only believe that when presented with the requisite evidence. Right now that evidence doesn't exist and as such, I'm forced to go with the best available model we have, and that's gravity.

This is really no different to what Copernicus faced back in the day; there was a very awkward Terracentric model of the universe that could describe the movement of the planets. When the solar centric model was first put forward, it could explain the movements of the planets and the stars to the same degree of consistency, and Occam's Razor (a scientific principle that says that if two theories both describe a system, the simpler should always replace the more complex) decreed that we should move to a solar centric model for representing the movement of the planets.

True; the dark matter / dark energy model looks awkward and clunky and it's entirely possible it will (one day in the future) be replaced with something far more elegant and simple. As a scientist, on that day I will rejoice in the better understanding we've formed of the universe. Until that day, I'll work with the best model we have.

And that just happens to be Gravity.

  • 1
    Wow. Uh, no. I'm not going to change my answer because like I said before, there's no evidence for your position. If you don't think I have all the knowledge available, then show me where to get it; post links, point me to scientific journals or other creditable sources that contain the knowledge of which you speak. Like I said, as a scientist I'm more than open to the idea that our theory of Gravity is wrong, but I want to see more than an unreferenced claim that Newton is a fraud. – Tim B II Nov 17 '17 at 5:52
  • that's a good idea post links ill do that I did not think about that. – internet-entity Nov 17 '17 at 11:05
  • gravity is not incorrect because we don't understand it, It is incorrect because it doesn't work. It can explain for only 5% of the force we need in our universe. You cant use it to calculate gravity it won't work. Its fake and Newton hid the truth. in plain sight. But nobody noticed. I did and it solved every problem in physics. again the scientists just ignored it a child could have done what I did. – internet-entity Nov 17 '17 at 16:59
2

Scientific theories are intended to describe events that occur in our universe. They generally have the form of a model, sometimes mathematical, that can be used to describe a class of events.

We don't currently have a (useful) theory that encompasses everything so we make do with a diverse set of models. As such, each of those models has a field of applicability. For example, it might cover gravitational events or electromagnetic radiation or atomic events etc.

Necessarily that field of applicability has bounds i.e. there are only so many events that it applies to. For example, Maxwell's equations only apply to electromagnetic radiation.

What we consider a "good" scientific theory is one that gives an accurate description of a large number of events. Ideally, it would also be useful for accurately predicting future events.

To that end, Newton's theories of motion and gravity are great theories. Why? Because they describe and predict a vast number of events. Pretty much everything that we can see without specialist equipment, that involves stuff with mass, can be adequately described.

Now, around the turn of the 20C, some people started to notice that the models we had for various events didn't really join up. Primarily between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations. Also, improvements in technology meant that they were starting to see discrepancies between what the models predicted would happen and what was actually observed.

This wasn't really an indication that the existing models were wrong. It was that we were starting to see the edges of their fields of applicability. Eventually, the Newtonian models were superseded by quantum electrodynamics and general relativity. The key requirements of these theories were that a) they gave identical descriptions to Newtonian and Maxwell models within the field of applicability of those models and b) they better described the events outside of that field. Effectively extended the field of applicability that our models now describe.

Fast forward to the 21C and we're in a similar position to the one we were in 100 years or so ago. Our current models do a very good job of describing almost everything that we know about (quantum chromodynamics was added in the '70s). However, there are some discrepancies between what they predict and what we see. Dark energy and dark matter are "placeholders" that are used to help us accumulate information about some of those discrepancies. Also, our main models: general relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics don't join up. As such, scientists are researching newer models that describe events as well as these models do in their field of applicability. But with the intent that they will adequately describe the dark areas, and hopefully new phenomena, as well.

  • Good answer I think that's in line with what people think. However, if say this The electron in the atom is a perfect tiny galaxy. Exact duplicate of our galaxy, they think I'm nuts. however, i can prove it in 5 minutes. The scientist appear to be blind they are not letting people know anything. you would be amazed we know the truth. every bit of it, they are keeping hidden I know cause I found it. – internet-entity Nov 17 '17 at 16:53
  • 1
    @internet-entity I can't speak for anyone thinking that you are nuts. I can safely say that you are wrong. The observable behaviour of an electron in the proximity of a nucleus is well understood and it most definitely is not the same as the observable behaviour of stars in a galaxy or planets around the sun. – Alex Nov 17 '17 at 17:51
  • 1
    @internet-entity I’m waiting – Alex Nov 17 '17 at 22:11
  • 1
    Not fussed where you start Einstein – Alex Nov 17 '17 at 22:50
  • 1
    @internet-entity even more straightforward than that. Just show that the equations of motion of an electron are identical to those of a galaxy. Child’s play. – Alex Nov 17 '17 at 23:01
1

Briefly, the position is this. We have learnt that the exploration of the external world by the methods of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. If to-day you ask a physicist what he has finally made out the aether or the electron to be, the answer will not be a description in terms of billiard balls or fly-wheels or anything concrete; he will point instead to a number of symbols and a set of mathematical equations which they satisfy. What do the symbols stand for? The mysterious reply is given that physics is indifferent to that; it has no means of probing beneath the symbolism. To understand the phenomena of the physical world, it is necessary to know the equations which the symbols obey but not the nature of that which is being symbolised.

Feeling that there must be more behind, we return to our starting point in human consciousness - the one centre where more might become known. There we find other stirrings, other revelations (true or false) than those conditioned by the world of symbols.

Sit Arthur Eddington In Ken Wilbur Quantum Questions

  • that would indeed be how we proceed. However, proceeding does not equal progress. with your system, we still have not answered the question about the electron or anything when the truth I have proven it was so simple a child would have seen it. The system you refer to is why we did not see it. – internet-entity Nov 19 '17 at 22:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.