Please take a look at:Mercury precession (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/new_interpretations/Mercury_Precession.htm)

A new Physics is possible.

an excerpt from the site:

The case presented is a very particular one of an hypothetical possibility of non uniform mass distribution of the Sun well suited to explain how the precession can be generated. The real mass distribution of the Sun is not really known with enough precision.

This idea is not consistent with the behaviour of stars.

You are proposing that in some undefined way the distribution of mass within the sun is uneven. Further, this uneveness is constant. Given that the sun is a gaseous body, with extensive convective processes, what is preventing those mass inequalities from evening out in an astronomically very short period?

Unless you can offer a plausible mechanism to achieve this, which I doubt, your speculation is seen to be unworkable.

I don't believe stars are "gaseous bodies".
Even if they were composed by Hydrogen an Helium only the huge pressure inside due to their huge mass and huge gravitational field the nucleus of them must be solid!

Demonstrate this mathematically please.

It is possible and very probable, demonstrate you that it is not.

i miss martillo's posts. They're good for a laugh :D

Martillo, the current view is wholly against your position. In science, those introducing a new concept have to demonstrate its validity. The established view does not have to be constantly restated for the benefit of those who chose not to accept it.
Your speculation may be valid. So far you have offered nothing in support of it. Here is your opportunity to do so, and win some converts in the process.
If you chose not to make this demonstration we can only assume that your speculations are idle and valueless. It is your chance and choice. Over to you.

Forum Freshman



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 91
Location: Uruguay
As I said a really huge pressure inside the stars would turn any material solid in the nucleus. Although I don't know the value of the real pressure inside and the "table" for the state of the materials at that pressure and their temperature is very reasonably to supose them solid. Is much more probable to be solid than to be in a gaseous state.
The speculation is valid and it deserves the opportunity to be considered seriously.

In other words you know nothing about stellar astrophysics. You have studied none of the research about the subject. You are incapable of delivering a mathematical justification for your assertions.
All you are doing is expressing opinions. Please provide a single scrap of evidence or mathematical analysis to justify your claim.
We are prepared to consider your speculation seriously. Go ahead. Give us the mathematical justification for a solid interior. Alternatively, give us the evidence. We are ready to be convinced, but once again you will not do that by simply stating an opinion.

I'm sorry but I don't have a mathematical demonstration but I have given a reasonably argumentation.
This is not enough for you to consider it as an interesting possibility, it's your choice.
May be others would do.
I think it is enough to present it in a forum just to talk about with others.

Martillo, the point is that your idea is not reasonable. The structure of the sun is very well understood. It is not solid. As a gasesous body your explanation for Mercury's precession will not work.
I agree that a forum such as this is a good place to explore speculative possibilities, but if they are based on false premises they should be abandoned. This speculation is based on a false premise. Even a cursory reading of some first year text books on Astronomy should show you it is not feasible. I do not understand why you prefer to put your 'opinion' over the work of thousands of scientists who have done the math.

In a post in another forum it is shown briefly the actual belief:
The Sun's core is about 16 million K and has a density around 160 times the density of water. This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water. However, the Sun's interior is still gaseous all the way to the very center because of the extreme temperatures. There is no molten rock like that found in the interior of the Earth.

"This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water."

Sorry but I can't believe something in this conditions could be "gaseous".

I do not understand why you prefer to put your 'opinion' over the work of thousands of scientists who have done the math.
I'm proposing new theories and of course they will not be compatible with other theories.
At this time you show me the incompatibility with the actual acepted model of the stars and I find that the model can be questioned.
This is great, to be possible to review models and discuss other possibilities. I believe forums are the perfect place to do that.

martillo, why do you think that your intuition is reliable under such extreme conditions?

Does your intuition really tell you how hydrogen behaves at 15 million kelvin?

I don't believe stars are "gaseous bodies".
Even if they were composed by Hydrogen an Helium only the huge pressure inside due to their huge mass and huge gravitational field the nucleus of them must be solid!"This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of ``only'' 7 times that of water."

Sorry but I can't believe something in this conditions could be "gaseous".There is a temperature called the critical temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_temperature) above which there is no way, at any pressure, to get anything that is distinguishible as a liquid phase, let alone a solid. Above this critical temperature as you increase the pressure you can get a relatively dense gas (I don't know if the 20 times denser than iron is accurate), but it is not a solid. Conductive and convective processes would definitely continue. The kinetic energy of the atoms at solar temperatures is sufficiently high that there is very little interaction of the kinds required to make liquid or solid phases. Plus the electrons are basically completely unattached to the nuclei so they can't interact to form any kinds of phases like we are familiar with here on earth.

-Dale

Plus the electrons are basically completely unattached to the nuclei so they can't interact to form any kinds of phases like we are familiar with here on earth.

I agree and in that situation any element forms a particular kind of matter never reproduced here at earth.
I believe that in that situation atoms cannot move as freely and aleatory as gases do. I think it is reasonably to suppose they can form a volume that once created is very difficult to deformate.
This way a non uniform mass distribution of the Sun is well justified (although, I know, not demonstrated) to be considered as possible.

Martillo, your opinions don't count up against the facts. All you are doing with these posts is to discredit the quality of education available at Brazillian Universities. Fortunately, most of will recognise that this reflects more on a specific student, than upon the institution.
All six states of matter can be reproduced on the Earth, so again your factual statements are shown to be in error.

Well, six states of matter... and the state of the nucleus of the Sun is...?
(you can easily answer this)
I guess you will have to agree that it is not "gaseous" (gas) as you said!
And it will be difficult to deformate...

Still the possibility that the nucleus of the Sun can have a non uniform mass distribution.

As you said is my believe and this is not teached at Brazilian Universities (of course!).

Well, six states of matter... and the state of the nucleus of the Sun is...?
(you can easily answer this)Yes, I can easily answer this, since it is high school physics. Plasma.

I guess you will have to agree that it is not "gaseous" (gas) as you said! Technically plasmas are not gases, though they have similar properties to a gas.
And it will be difficult to deformateOne of these similar properties is that they are very easy to deform.

Martillo, this is not rocket science. These are not difficult concepts. These are very well established facts about the character of the sun and other stars. It is not surprsing that many people do not know them. It is amazing that someone with an engineering degree is unaware of them. It is appalling that someone who is trying to 'rewrite' physics challenges their accuracy.

All six states of matter can be reproduced on the Earth, so again your factual statements are shown to be in error.I don't want to sound like an idiot here, but I am missing two. I know solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. What are the other two states? And what makes them different from the four I know about?

-Dale

Not idiotic at all. I only learnt of the sixth one a couple of days ago and it was only announced just under two years ago. The two you are missing are Bose-Einstein condensates and Fermionic condensates. Here is an extract from a news item on the latter.

Atoms behave very differently at temperatures near absolute zero depending on the value of their intrinsic angular momentum or “spin”. Bosons have spins with integer values in units of the Planck constant divided by 2π, while fermions have spins of 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 and so on. Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which means that they cannot occupy the same quantum state. However, there are no such restrictions on bosons, so they can all collapse into the same quantum ground state. This process, known as Bose-Einstein condensation, is at the heart of superconductivity - the flow of electric current without any resistance.

Since electrons are fermions they must form Cooper pairs - named after Leon Cooper of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of superconductivity – before they can form a Bose condensate. If this process could be mimicked in a gas of fermionic atoms, it should be possible to learn a great deal more about superconductivity.

This was from http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/1/14/1

Ophiolite,
I must agree I'm not expert in plasma but I doubt that the properties of it at the pressure predicted by today's model of stars are really known.
I don't believe the "ultra huge" pressure at the nucleus of the Sun predicted by the gravity of the huge mass of the Sun could be reproduced in a laboratory and that their deformation properties can be properly determined.

May be you can help showing us the predicted pressure at the nucleus and the highest pressure ever produced by any invented apparatus at the surface of hearth.

Martillo, I'm not going to go around doing your research for you. You are the one challenging standard science. You go google, and come back and show me why plasma could not exist under the interior conditions of the sun.
In passing, my own employer, in a routine process, applies 1.5 million psi. That's a little over 100,000 atmospheres. Remember, that's in a routine process. Nothing sophisticated. Nothing elaborate.

It can be "plasma" but at such pressures it can have some solid state properties, that's what I think.
I will "do google" and "do yahoo" (which I prefer) but I really doubt that anyhthing can be submited to both conditions in laboratory, Sun's nucleus pressure and temperature. Also more is needed: to study the deformation properties at such conditions! (I wonder how to do this...).

>> plasma could not exist under the interior conditions of the sun. >>

you playing with stupid man-made definitions, Ophiolite ?

The electric state of the Sun is beyond our comprehension.

I suspect no human has even a remote idea what is going on in the Sun.

Why don't y'all place what "facts" you can find in this thread, rather than throw shit....

I will just tell you that the Sun's extreme electric state does not allow the density to be as great as man made theory may suggest.



IMO

Uri, go get a good counsellor, or get laid, or take your medication, but stop filling these pages with mindless drivel. You are delusional. Everyone here with any intellect at all knows you are delusional. You are also bloody boring and repetitive. Now go away.
If you are going to insist on sticking around, then pray tell me what kind of definitions there are other than man-made definitions?

>> what kind of definitions there are other than man-made definitions?

LOL

things are what they are, irrespective of what humans call them....

when you were little, mum was everything

then the world widened... definitions and more definitions for every little thing
then one definition for many things
then one definition to rule them all.... mmmh not quite yet

I suppose the definition status depends upon your understanding

and I wonder about yours, LOL !

So, in other words, there only are man-made definitions. You have demonstrated that you don't even have a command of language.
We know (anyone with an education or a brain knows) that humans have a natural tendency to classify; that, flexible as its application is, this tendency to classify is hard wired into our brains; that it can be flawed, so that items are mis-classified, or structures are imposed where none exist in nature; or vide versa.
But those errors and omissions are not reflections of some natural definition. Definitions can only be man made. It is inherent in the definition of definition.
Feel free to return to these pages when you have learnt to talk either English or sense; preferably both.

>> some natural definition

Indeed, we can only define something when we can find it.... no doubt given our record "it" will exist if is rational, science is finding the "it"
IMO

There always is a natural "it" so in many ways nature defines it, we recognise it.

anyway I leave it there, back to the Sun

The average density of the Sun is greater than most of the gas giants, it is just bigger in size (surface area is electric). Jupiter (about 0.1% of the Sun ??) is large enough to give out energy. These two examples maybe geometrically related IMO.

If that was the case then an "electric Sun" would have to be considered, I would think.

The average density of the Sun is greater than most of the gas giants, it is just bigger in size (surface area is electric).You are saying the sun is larger than a gas giant? - it is just bigger in size.
Jupiter (about 0.1% of the Sun ??) is large enough to give out energy. As a consequence of gravitational contraction, and possibly hydrogen phase changes.
These two examples maybe geometrically related IMO.
In detail, what is that meant to mean?

It can be "plasma" but at such pressures it can have some solid state properties, that's what I think.How? In a plasma the electrons and the nuclei are dissociated. So you are proposing that, at high pressures, protons will stick together in some sort of non-deformable structure. I think you have no clue about the strength of electrostatic repulsion.

Do the calculation, find the lattice spacing of a few hexagonal crystals and use the biggest value you find. Then estimate the pressure you think exists in the interior of the sun. Finally, see how big a "proton crystal" you could have before the internal electrostatic repulsion would exceed the external pressure. I would be stunned if you got anything even close to 1mm.

I really doubt that anyhthing can be submited to both conditions in laboratory, Sun's nucleus pressure and temperature. I know that a thermonuclear warhead generates much higher temperatures than the sun, I suspect that it also generates the high pressures of the sun. In any case, the warhead's physics is very well understood (obviously). I don't know what would lead you to believe that the sun is so much more mysterious.

-Dale

Electrostatic repulsion between protons is about 10EX40 times stronger than their mutually gravitating attractive force.

So, a concept relying on pressure must bear the burden of explaining how the pressure is made to act upon such repulsive particles for more than a tinysecond, after which they are rapidly departing the area.

Was there a topic that started this thread? Oh yeah.

The possibility of Mercury perihelion being explained by Newton gravity and a specific geometry of the sun's shape has been subject of serious science discussion for decades.

A scientist named Dicke has published ideas about this. It is suggested that an interested reader may Google " Mercury Dicke " and look into it.

Here is one link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/mercury_orbit.html

so called facts from link above..
>> Mercury's perihelion precession: 574 arcseconds/century
Newtonian perturbations from
other planets: 531 arcseconds/century
GR correction: 43 arcseconds/century
Newtonian correction from Dicke bulge: 3 arcseconds/century >>

The only real observational fact is the 574 arcseconds/100 years...
the remainder of those figures is total conjecture based upon inadequate theories...

Newtonian perturbations is BS...... if so why is Venus' orbit so circular....

GR explanations have no credence whatsoever.

Interesting link Cangas, about which I would make two points:
1. Given that this link is not from a peer reviewed journal suggests that Dicke has been having trouble getting any kind of acceptance from the scientific community. Now that doesn't make him wrong, it just diminishes the probablility he is right.
2. From the standpoint of this thread it is of passing relevance, since Martello is arguing not for an oblateness, but a variable mass concentration that would only be possible in a solid body. Something the sun could not be (unless he wants to hook up with Michael Monzilla and his solid iron sun model).

Actually, I have read more than one recent peer-reviewed paper in which Brans-Dicke Theory is still mentioned as an alternative to GR. Here is an excerpt and link to Wikipedia's page on Brans-Dicke Theory:

"In theoretical physics, the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation (sometimes called the Jordan/Brans/Dicke theory) is a well-known competitor of Einstein's theory of general relativity. The theory was developed by Robert H. Dicke and Carl H. Brans, building upon earlier work of Pascual Jordan. At present, both general relativity and the Brans/Dicke theory are compatible with all well accepted observational and experimental evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans-Dicke_theory

Well caught, 2inquisitive. However, I still can't see Martillo accepting it as supporting his position, since he wants his view of graviation to win out, not any Tom, Dicke or Einstein.

Ophiolite:
Interesting response, about which I would make two points.

First: I am amazed that you are unfamiliar with Dicke and his credentials, regardless of any alledged deficiency of my presentation of his theory or qualification. Few serious students of gravity theory, who have not been living as a hermit on the dark side of the moon for decades, could have missed his theories.

Second: Although the thread is specifically directed toward one particular non GR gravity theory, the implication is easy to make that someone could also be interested in other attempts to explain gravity in non GR fashion also involving mass distribution within the sun.

Third: ( Did I say TWO points? ) Dicke's theory may be examined in the classic gravity book "Gravitation", authored by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. I have no idea whether these obscure people or their obscure book have ever been peer reviewed. :rolleyes:

Few serious students of gravity theory, who have not been living as a hermit on the dark side of the moon for decades, could have missed his theories.I have absolutely no doubt you are completely correct in this deduction. I leave it to serious students of gravity theory to challenge you, should they feel you have gone to far.
I am not a serious student of gravity theory. I am not even a light-hearted, gravity defying, student of gravity theory. On the whole my interest in gravity theory is barely measureable. Nor have I ever, to my recollection, made any claim to be a serious student of gravity theory.
I do, however, have some minor knowledge of astrophysics, since it bears upon planetology, which I am a serious student of. It is under that guise that I have attacked the illogic of Martillo's 'solid sun' hypothesis.
I am pleased I was able to contribute to the quality of your day by 'amazing you'. We should all be amazed at least once a day.

Martillo, the point is that your idea is not reasonable. The structure of the sun is very well understood. It is not solid. As a gasesous body your explanation for Mercury's precession will not work.
I agree that a forum such as this is a good place to explore speculative possibilities, but if they are based on false premises they should be abandoned. This speculation is based on a false premise. Even a cursory reading of some first year text books on Astronomy should show you it is not feasible. I do not understand why you prefer to put your 'opinion' over the work of thousands of scientists who have done the math.
Martillo makes a reasonable point. You are putting the reasoning found in first year text books against as simple statement that the pressures in the center most locations of the sun are so large that "solidity" is much more than an idle speculation requiring no more description than that provided.

Mentioning works of thousands of scientists who are trained in the "standard model" of contemporary models proves nothing more than consnesus. In an analogous scientific consensus a world wide AIDS meeting in SOuth Africa a few years ago was controversial as the President of South Africa had questioned the standard model that "Hiv caused AIDS". A petition was circulated among participants who readily signed the petition asserting the truth of the current dogma. The signatories were not all research scientists who had studied the etiology of AIDS as there were administrators, technicians, helath care workers, and many more disciplines. When Keri Mullis, Nobel Laureate asked a colleague what was the the proof of the cause of AIDS, he was told that "The HIV/AIDS connection is assumed and we go on from there." Unsatisified, Mullis made an extensive research of the published literature and concluded that no scientific literature has proved that any virus causes AIDS and that there was no scientific proof that HIV had ever been isolated to the exclusion of all other organic entities in the universe.
It is alweays easier to be in the midstream of consensus, as it so safe and warm there, or so the consenus apparently believes.
Returning back to Martillo, if solidity cannot be proved by inspection directly, and I certainly aren't going to observe that, then does an unbelievably dense condition of liquid disturb the consensus instincts? Is there anything other than mathematical models and textbooks that prove the gaseous state of the sun?
I am not being antagonistic here nor am I disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but there never has been any offending elements to a statement that is reasonable at the same time it is tersely stated with all the parameters fairly well determined even with the complete absence of any equal signs anywhere on the page. Some scientists do very well in graduiate school but are not really investigators as much as they are academics with current standard models safely understood. I do not condemn these people nor criticise their value to the scientific disciplines.Then there are h=the Mrtillo's that come along, and somewhat fearlessly (Meaning fearless not in the sense of bravely)
but in the sense of wonderment that he has found a twig of scientific curiosity that intrigues him and he seems more like sharing this wonderment or an interesting hypothesis than anything. Regarding Martillo, I make a very tenuous guess about ,cares less about the truth of whether the sun is solid or is really a big orange pumpkin. Prove him wrong he will just go on to something else.
However,O, consider this. That someone actually proves Martillo wrong, not by piling a huge stack of texbooks in front of him, rather, that with a combination of observational data, reasoning , mathematics and perhaps a lot of luck, the sun is actually proved other than being solid to any significant degree. Where is the highest value? The weight of text books or one published paper, and which would be discussed for the next hundred years?
Geistkiesel

Ophiolite:
I only learnt of the sixth one a couple of days ago and it was only announced just under two years ago. The two you are missing are Bose-Einstein condensates and Fermionic condensates.
Apologies for going off on a tangent, but I don't think it's worth starting a thread...
Aren't electron and neutron degenerate materials separate phases of matter too?

From another thread:I think I'm winning!My children think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real too. You are just deluding yourself if you think you are winning when you can't even respond to the simple challenges (critical temperature, electrostatic repulsion, stable lattice formation, thermonuclear warheads) issued here.

Just for fun I went ahead and did the calculation I was suggesting you should do earlier. If we use a lattice separation distance of d and an object radius of r then we can easily calculate the electrostatic pressure on the outer layer of the lattice as follows:
The charge density is:
ρ = e/d³

The surface area is:
A = 4πr²

The charge in the outer layer is:
q = A ρ d = 4πr² e/d²

The charge in the rest of the object is:
Q = V ρ = 4/3 πr³ e/d³

The electric force is:
F = kqQ/r²

So the electrostatic pressure is:
P = F/A = kqQ/r²/(4πr²) = 4π/3 kre²/d⁵

Which can be solved for r by:
r = Pd⁵/(4π/3 ke²)

A typical square crystal lattice has a separation distance of .5 nm and the sun's internal pressure is estimated at 3E16 Pa, which leads to r = 1.1 mm. Even if we assume that they are off by a factor of 300 and use a pressure of 1E19 Pa we still only get r = 32 cm. The simple fact is that, as large as the pressures may be, they are still small relative to the electrostatic forces you would get with your proposed solar nucleus. Even if there were some reason for such a core to form (which there isn't) a 32 cm core is not going to alter the orbit of Mercury one bit.

-Dale

Aren't electron and neutron degenerate materials separate phases of matter too?My post was based upon assiduous farming of the internet, rather than my knowledge of physics. I abandoned study of the latter as a 1st year undergraduate when I discovered the exams were not susceptible to a high waffle content. :)

Dalespam,
Time has passed over this post and I want to remark that I'm considering a possibility to explain the Mercury's orbital precession within Newton's concept of gravity based on his Gravitational Field of Force expressed in his definition of the Universal Gravitational Force Law ( F = GM1M2/r2).

You and others have pointed out that there is a probable incompatibility with today's model for stars core since a solid core cannot, at first, be sustained in today's model based in the premise that the interior of a star is in plasma state and this way you disregard the new possibility very fast.

I believe the new possibility I have presented is very interesting and I believe that the current model of stars could be reviewed just to see if a solid core could be possible. This goes beyond my current expertisse now but I'm studying new possibilities.
I accept your objections as reasonable and well founded ones and I don't have a good answer for them yet but I just strongly believe in the new possibility and that in the future new considerations can arrive to make it the right one.
You well know I'm proposing a theory that goes against Relativity Theory and I have to say that the new theory is under development and some questions still remain to be solved, propositions still remain to be demonstrated and validated, etc.

I know you don't believe in a new possibility for Physics, that today's theories are right and you don't want to waste your time analyzing new possibilities.

I only can say that I see new possibilities and although I don't have all the answers now this does not mean they are not possible, just more time is needed to develop them more.

Still much work remains to be done...

Does 10 times the density of lead sound solid or 250 Billion atmospheres pressure? (3.7 Trillion Psi).

They do indeed but due to 15+million degrees temperature it is still considered gasesous.

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/SunLayers.html

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

32 cm balls are really small.

the first two pages of this thread is martillo making a wacky claim, and then ophiolite cutting him down. hahaha

the first two pages of this thread is martillo making a wacky claim, and then ophiolite cutting him down. hahahaI wasn't cutting Martillo down. I applaud Martillo for his imagination and inventiveness, his courage and persistence. I was cutting down his idea, which does those attributes a disservice.

Today's model of stars talks about "plasma". It is not gas, not liquid, not solid, it's "plasma" although a good definition of it is not found.
Actually nobody knows how is the interior of stars since for example "X rays" cannot be taken, all that exist about it constitution are theories.
Nevertheless I believe that even within today's model a "quite solid" core of stars hypotesis can survive as something that does not deformates easily.
That's the essential hypotesis, something that doesn't deformates.

This way my proposition of the non uniform distribution of the mass of the Sun as the cause of part of Mercury's precession (the other parts due to the effect of the other planets) stands as a possible one.

A final comment: to be honest I actually believe stars are something much more sophisticated than the simple ball of fire of today's model but this is a matter of another thread.

martillo, the model you are using to propose your view of precession is simply wrong. On your webpage, you state that the sun is in one fixed position, with offsetting mass densities on each side. The sun is not stable in a fixed position, it orbits around the barycenter (gravitational center) of the solar system. I lost a previous page I referenced due to a computer hard drive problem, but here is another page illustrating just how complicated planetary orbits actually are. Pay particular attention to the sidereal years of each planet's orbit as that is directly connected to 'precession'. A cut & paste:
When meauring a sidereal period, you can either use the sun as the center of the orbit, or the barycenter of the Solar System. Both are useful, although the sun is the one more commonly used. The position of the Sun can very from the barycenter of the Solar System by as much as twice the Sun's radius in any direction, and most of the movement is due to Jupiter. As a result, if you're looking at an inner planet it makes more sense to define the sidereal year in terms of the sun's location, but if you're looking at the planets beyond Jupiter it makes more sense to use the Solar System's barycenter.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/planets.html

Another factor that complicates determining orbital motions and precessions is fact that all planets do not orbit in the same plane. For example, Mercury's orbital plane is tilted with respect to Earth's orbital plane. This also complicates determining precessions and whether those precessions are from an Earth-based frame of reference or from the reference frame of an observer 'above' the solar system.

2inquisitive,
Of course I know how complicated could it be to determine exactly the orbit of a complex system composed of the Sun and the planets and the moons...
I know that to handle it precisely the barycenter of the total system must be considered.
The problem is that the total precession cannot be explained by Classical Physics even taking into account that barycenter you mention. The calculations differ from empirical data. Some other effect must be taken into account. Relativity Theory added an extra term (may be, as you have mentioned, due to the limited velocity of propagation imposed to the gravitational force) and the calculations got closer.
What I'm proposing is to take another effect as the cause of that "missing term" in the precession, a non-uniform distribution of Sun's mass.
I believed that it would be obvious that I was talking about that missing part but I realize now it is not actually clear in this point.

I'm sorry but is not easy to explain some things in a consistent, simple, brief and complete manner, all at the same time. Please forgive me this...

martillo,
I know that to handle it precisely the barycenter of the total system must be considered.
The problem is that the total precession cannot be explained by Classical Physics even taking into account that barycenter you mention.
The 'Classical Physics' didn't even know about the 'wobble' of the sun. Do you actually believe that the orbital position of the sun about the barycenter does not make a difference? Do you understand that it is not the barycenter that is moving, but the position of the sun itself?

2inquisitive,
The 'Classical Physics' didn't even know about the 'wobble' of the sun. Do you actually believe that the orbital position of the sun about the barycenter does not make a difference? Do you understand that it is not the barycenter that is moving, but the position of the sun itself?
I understand you well.
I believe the movement of the center of the Sun around the barycenter of the entire planetary system (Sun included) makes a difference, but I also believe this has been already taken into account to compute the total effect of the system over Mercury.
You make me doubt, I believe this has already been taken into account reaching some value wich differs from empirical data in some seconds of angle.
I believe this difference could have been explained with better precision only through the introduction of a relativistic effect.
I believe one of Relativity's great success was exactly this, to give another effect which improved the accuracy of the theoretical computation in Mercury's precession which couldn't be reached with Clasical Physics taking into account all possible effects of the entire planetary system, even the movement of the Sun around the barycenter!

Do you believe this effect haven't been considered before?
Do you believe it is not necessary any relativistic effect (or the new one I'm proposing) to accuratelly describe Mercury's precession?

It is not gas, not liquid, not solid, it's "plasma" although a good definition of it is not found.Plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29) is well defined. Not only are plasmas well defined, but they are easily produced here on earth (even to the point of being a cheap novelty item). Plsama can be readily studied in the lab, and its properties are sufficiently well understood that very intricate useful devices (e.g. plasma screen TV) can be constructed based on the properties of plasma. You are pretending that plasma is something mysterious when it is not.


Nevertheless I believe that even within today's model a "quite solid" core of stars hypotesis can survive as something that does not deformates easily.How? I already showed that the pressures are insufficient to overcome the electrostatic forces, so what other mechanism are you proposing?

-Dale

martillo,
Do you believe this effect haven't been considered before?
Do you believe it is not necessary any relativistic effect (or the new one I'm proposing) to accuratelly describe Mercury's precession?
I do not believe the effect has been considered in the popular media. I have seen websites with detailed mathematics and content that state the precession of Mercury's perihelion is explained by taking the sun's motion into account, no relativistic effects needed. martillo, you were on the right track, thinking of a variation in the sun's gravity was the cause. It is just not due to an imbalance of mass in the sun, but a change in the distance between the sun and Mercury. Yes, the effects of other planets in the solar system has been considered in the popular literature, but the actual 'orbit' of the sun around the barycenter is not in the pro-relativity websites. Mercury orbits the sun about every 88 earth-days. However, the sun's rotation around the barycenter is due mostly to the tug of Jupiter on the sun, and Jupiter takes about 4332 earth-days to complete an orbit. Each 88 days, as Mercury completes one revolution of it elipitical orbit, it passes near the sun (perihelion). Each 88 days, the sun will be in a slightly different location however, due to its own orbit that takes about 8.6 years to complete. This causes a slight difference in the distance between the sun and mercury, varying the amount of acceleration due to gravity between mercury and the sun. It is the same effect you are speaking about, just a different cause. The sun has moved the next time mercury comes around! :D

2inquisitive,
I believe my proposition of a non-iniform distribution of the mass of the Sun can help in the description of Mercury's precession and can also help in the description of the precession that exist on other planets as you mention!

Your beliefs are insignificant beside the simple matter of established physics which render your speculations pointless. You have still failed completely to answer dale spam's excellent analysis of electrostatic forces. Will you do so?

Dalespam análisis irrelevant. Even in materials at ambient temperature the electrostatic forces are greater than the pressure or gravitational ones and solids exist.
At the huge temperatures of Sun's core atoms may have loosed quite all their electrons preventing them to stablish chemical bonds, I know, but I think that at its huge internal pressure matter is so dense that it would be really difficult for atoms to move between other atoms and this means a state of matter that not deformates easily; in other words it has solid properties. Sometimes the boundaries between solid and liquid are not discrete and the there is a continuous range of possible states. May be I can say that Sun's core is "quite solid" to define it better thinking in that it can deformate but slightly in hundred or thousands of years...

Even in materials at ambient temperature the electrostatic forces are greater than the pressure or gravitational ones and solids exist.Wrong. The electrostatic forces are zero in room temperature solids. If they were not the solids would fall apart.


I think that at its huge internal pressure matter is so dense that it would be really difficult for atoms to move So demonstrate it already. You keep saying "I think" and "I believe", so start analyzing and stop wishing. We know your opinion, try some reason and logic.


between other atoms and this means a state of matter that not deformates easily; in other words it has solid properties.How does it get those "solid properties"? What prevents it from deforming? What resists external forces? "I think" and "I believe" are only sufficient if you are some sort of psychic and can move things (or keep them from moving) with your mind.


Sometimes the boundaries between solid and liquid are not discrete and the there is a continuous range of possible states.This is well known. At the critical point the density and viscosity of the liquid and gas phases are equal. Beyond that point it is impossible to distinguish between the liquid and gas phases, there is no longer any abrupt transition. But both liquid and gas phases are fluid and therefore deformable.

-Dale

dalespam,
So demonstrate it already.
You want it all ready and peer reviewed isn't it?
I know.
I'm Sorry but that will take time.

Even a semblance of a single rational argument will do. Anything better than your current wishful thinking.

-Dale

Something with numbers would be nice Martillo. I already provided you with a host of links on another forum to research papers on solar astrophysics. Refute even one of the points raised in those, with mathematically sound arguments, based upon established physical reality and you will have my attention.

A New Physics is under construction.
You can choice to sit and wait for all be ready, proved, demonstrated, peer reviewed, available at journals, recognized books, etc or you can choice to be one of the developers participating actively.
The choice is yours.
I already know you will take the first so: see you in a far future...

You're sure your 'new physics' is correct before it's predictions have been tested, or is even ready to make testable predictions? The developers of string theory are lot more humble, as was Einstein.

See all of you in a far future...

Um, see you too...

A New Physics is under construction.
You can choice to sit and wait for all be ready, proved, demonstrated, peer reviewed, available at journals, recognized books, etc or you can choice to be one of the developers participating actively.
The choice is yours.
I already know you will take the first so: see you in a far future...Do you even recognize how absurd this post is? You talk about "a far future", but your idea is a merely an ad-hoc patch on an old theory from centuries in the past. You mention "a New Physics" but your proposal at best makes no progress at all and only explains a single observation that is already elegantly explained by modern theories. You disdain peer review and instead of science you offer only faith in your personal belief.

If you want to move towards the future then at least develop a new theory, not an ad-hoc patch to help an old theory limp along a bit further. If you can't come up with something new, then at least use modern theories to explain a new observation, not an observation that has been well understood and explained for decades.

I think it is amusing that you consider yourself to be some sort of physics visionary when your ideas are designed to go backwards, not to make progress.

-Dale

martillo,

2inquisitive, I believe my proposition of a non-iniform distribution of the mass of the Sun can help in the description of Mercury's precession and can also help in the description of the precession that exist on other planets as you mention!

What about the effects of gravitomagnetics on the orbits of planets? How does gravitomagnetics effect Mercury's precession?

Dalespam,
If you want to move towards the future then at least develop a new theory, not an ad-hoc patch to help an old theory limp along a bit further.
I thought you knew me better from past posts as others do.
Please take a look on my site: A New Light In Physics (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics) and you will see about what "New Physics" I'm talking about.
Actually I believe my site is just a start-point towards a "Real Physics".

Prosoothus,
The called "Gravitomagnetics" does not actually exist. It's just another theory that tries to explain precessions in spite of Relativity proposing a different gravitational field with some kind of "magnetic-like effect" but it haven't succeded.

Gravitomagnetics, frame dragging and the Lense-Thirring effect are all different descriptions of the same effect. I believe the effect does exist, it is the dragging of ether (dark matter) around a rotating body. However, I believe the effects are on electromagnetic processes only, distorting the path of light for instance. I do not think it 'draggs' planets around with it, the precession effect; it only effects light and atomic processes like atomic clocks. My hypothesis is like the 'absolute space' of Newtonian physics, with relativistic phenomena an effect caused by changes in the ether itself. Mass attracts the ether, causing changes in the density and motion of the ether, which we observe as distortions of the EM waves propagating through the ether. In my opinion, the ether is a medium for EM propagation. Differences in the density and motion of the medium, the dark matter ether itself, will cause us to observe the 'gravitational' lensing, Shapiro effect, Lense-Thirring effect, etc, that is attributed to gravity only in relativity theory. The ether is dark matter in my hypothesis, the ether itself has mass and is attracted to baryonic mass. It adds to the the total mass of observed ordinary matter in systems, such as galaxies and solar systems.

martillo:

Anyone giving your site serious consideration can fairly safely stop here:
Here is a "perfect" experiment thought to show the inconsistency of Relativity Theory. (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section1-1_Considerations_against_Relativity.htm)
Relativity is well known to be internally consistent, meaning that it does not contradict itself, and consequently cannot be disproved by means of any thought experiment.

The problem with your thinking is here:
Note that age is an intrinsic property of living individuals. Intrinsic means invariant under a change of the referential of observation.
This is not a part of relativity theory. In fact, SRT explicitly states otherwise.

Also your points in the section:
B) Non-invariant laws
regarding de Broglie's law, and in
C) Pendulums and gyroscopes
stem from misunderstandings of what SRT actually predicts. There's a lot of "all is relative" pseudo-philosophy spouted by people who clearly know nothing about the Lorentz transform, and find Einstein's relativity postulate a little too revelatory considering it dates back to the time of Galileo and Newton.

Relativity does not predict that all frames are indistinguishable (the Foucault pendulum certainly does not pose a problem for SRT, it just shows that the Earth's surface is noninertial), nor does it state that all measureable quantities are the same in all frames. It follows from the relativity principle that λ = h/mv will hold in all inertial frames, but not that the wavelength will be the same in all frames (in fact, given lenght contraction, you'd expect a difference).

I'll have to leave:
D) Feasible experiment as a proof
For someone who knows more about particle physics than I do, though I'm pretty sure relativity is built into Quantum Electrodynamics, which seems to be widely regarded to be a very accurate theory by physicists.

I didn't bother going through the rest of the site yet, as the material on your first page seems to be a very poor basis for reconsidering the whole of contemporary physics. I urge you to be very careful about developing misconceptions regarding modern theories, particularly SRT. There seems to be an endless supply of inconsistent interpretations of this theory.

martillo,

The called "Gravitomagnetics" does not actually exist. It's just another theory that tries to explain precessions in spite of Relativity proposing a different gravitational field with some kind of "magnetic-like effect" but it haven't succeded.

Gravitomagnetics, a theory proposed by Einstein, states that a moving gravitational field creates a sister field, just like a moving electric field creates a magnetic field. If the gravitomagnetic field does exist, its effects must be included in calculating the actual orbits of the planets. In other words, it would be wrong to try to calculate Mercury's precession using just gravitational fields and ignoring the gravitomagnetic fields of Mercury, the Sun, and the other planets. It may even be that Mercury's precession may be accurately calculated using only gravitomagnetics and Newton's gravity, and avoiding GR gravity all together.

Prosoothus,
Considering:
Gravitomagnetics, a theory proposed by Einstein, states that a moving gravitational field creates a sister field, just like a moving electric field creates a magnetic field.
and
It may even be that Mercury's precession may be accurately calculated using only gravitomagnetics and Newton's gravity, and avoiding GR gravity all together.
I find a contradiction here since I think Einstein would never propose a gravitational field that would avoid GR Theory!
For Einstein there is no gravitational field, just space-time distortion that causes acceleration!
Gravitomagnetics wasn't proposed by Einstein, as you said and as I said it offers an alternative to describe gravity forces without GR!

przyk,
I didn't bother going through the rest of the site yet, as the material on your first page seems to be a very poor basis for reconsidering the whole of contemporary physics.
It's your choice...
I just must say to you: you don't know what you are missing.
You had the lucky to be adviced that a "New Physics" is possible and coming, it's your choice to disregard it.

I don't have the time to explain and convince how I'm so sure about all that in the forum...
Sometimes our mind is more stubborn that we would like to!
This being valid for everybody in the forum.
I'm sorry.

I thought you knew me better from past posts as others do.You should not assume such things. My entire knowledge of you stems from this thread.

The fact that you have a website with some other ideas does not change the fact that your "new physics" idea presented here is nothing more than an ad-hoc patch on old physics that makes no progress whatsoever. This is particularly so considering that your idea here, being completely ad-hoc, is not derived logically from your other theories.


Please take a look on my site: A New Light In Physics (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics) and you will see about what "New Physics" I'm talking about.Your website is pretty much the same as your solar-nucleus idea (at least chapters 1 and 2). Specifically, you are not looking forward to the future, but desperately clinging to the past. Rather than presenting any kind of unified new theory you simply try to put patch after patch on old theories. You are not the visionary marching off to the future that you are trying to pretend here.

Let me be clear, you have every right in science to propose a theory and have it examined in the light of logic and experiment. What I am objecting to here is not your theory itself, but your characterization of it and yourself as "new physics" or "far future". It is not; it is simply a collection of ad-hoc patches on ideas that have been around for centuries.

-Dale

The called "Modern Physics" will be buried and a new Physics will rise.
(The "Modern Physics" of Einstein, De Broglie, Schrodinger - bad called "Quantum Mechanics" -, Bohr, the subatomic "Standard Model" and the "Electromagnetic wave Theory")

I'm right saying that.

Classical physics is not a "New Physics" no matter how many ad-hoc patches you slap on. You are deluding yourself.

-Dale

Of course I know that but I'm talking about "Modern Physics".
What you call "ad-hoc patches" actually are new physics laws.

By the way I'm not pretending to be any kind of visionary. I have just said that knowing the stubborness of our minds a new Physics will come in a far future only.

martillo,

I find a contradiction here since I think Einstein would never propose a gravitational field that would avoid GR Theory!

Unfortunately, he did. But Einstein was just full of contradictions. For example, he claimed that the Michelson-Morley inferometer detected no motion of the Earth through an aether, but then said that large masses, like the Earth, are dragging space (or aether, if that's what you want to call it) around. If Einstein was right and the Earth was dragging space around, and the speed of light is only equal to c relative to Einstein's space, then there would be no need to use SR to explain the results of the M-M experiment.

Gravitomagnetics wasn't proposed by Einstein, as you said and as I said it offers an alternative to describe gravity forces without GR!

Gravitomagnetics was proposed by Einstein, and it was already detected. Check out this link:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Of course I know that but I'm talking about "Modern Physics".
What you call "ad-hoc patches" actually are new physics laws.Do you even know what "ad-hoc" means? Your solar nucleus idea is a perfect example of an ad-hoc hypothesis.


By the way I'm not pretending to be any kind of visionary. I have just said that knowing the stubborness of our minds a new Physics will come in a far future only.Speak for yourself, martillo. You may be stubbornly clinging to classical physics, but the scientific mainstream is filled with new ideas for the future.

-Dale

scientific mainstream is filled with new ideas for the future.
Sure, like "superstrings" and "parallel universes"...

You are right, I cling to Classical Physics. It only needed some corrections, some new laws and the right structure for the elementary particles that were missing but Physics deviated the course to a rare state with inconsistencies, strange "paradoxes" and absurdities.
May be I should not talk about a "New Physics" but "Classical Physics Renewed"!
Now is time to recover good sense. Now it can be done.

Prosoothus,

Well, I must admit I was wrong and that GR talks about a gravitomagnetic field...
I saw inside the link you provided. There is something strange don't you agree?
the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts.

I believe a deeper análisis must be done. It could be an strange electromagnetic effect between the superconductors and the sensors in spite of a gravitational effect.

Classical Physics is coming back!

Classical Physics RENEWED!



This sounds better. Thanks to Dalespam.
I used to like Physics at school where just Classical Physics was teached...

You are right, I cling to Classical Physics. ...
May be I should not talk about a "New Physics" but "Classical Physics Renewed"!

Classical Physics RENEWED!

This sounds better. Thanks to Dalespam Good, then we agree on this point at least! I'm glad to help, and we can simply agree to disagree on the rest.

-Dale

Most likely, if someone actually disproves any modern physics theories (which can only be done experimentally), like QM and relativity, they'll go the same way as classical physics: useful approximations to the truth that give very accurate predictions in most situations.

Definitely. You would think that would be obvious to anyone who studies science. I would expect that the physics courses of the far future will still teach SR and classical physics, regardless of what else comes along.

-Dale

But only one theory will be truth.
The truth is only one.
Two different statement cannot be both true. If one is true the other is false.
Of course several statements can be all false. Only one can be truth.

Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!

But only one theory will be truth.
The truth is only one.
Two different statement cannot be both true. If one is true the other is false.
Of course several statements can be all false. Only one can be truth.

Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!ROFL! :D This explains a lot! You guys who look to science for "truth" always make me laugh.

You are right about one thing: you are not a visionary. You are a religious fundamentalist who somehow got lost in science. No wonder your posts are full of "truth", "I believe", unsupported assertions, claims of mystery, and hints of great rewards "in a far future" for those who choose to join your faith.

Science is not about "truth". Science is about prediction. For example, SR and LET cannot possibly both be true, however science cannot possibly choose one over the other because they make identical predictions. So "truth" is outside the purview of science: the scientific method is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between a "true" theory and a "false" theory that makes the same predictions.

Your search for truth is unscientific as are your posts asserting that you have found it. I would recommend finding a religion whose doctrine you can believe; in the end you will be happier at church if your goal is "truth". There is nothing wrong with searching for truth, I am a devoutly religious person myself, you just are looking in the wrong place right now. In the end the scientific method is a poor substitute for God; you won't get "truth" and you won't get good science.

-Dale

Dalespam,
Science is not about "truth". Science is about prediction. For example, SR and LET cannot possibly both be true, however science cannot possibly choose one over the other because they make identical predictions. So "truth" is outside the purview of science: the scientific method is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between a "true" theory and a "false" theory that makes the same predictions.
Are you sure?
This is your opinion about Science.

In the end the scientific method is a poor substitute for God; you won't get "truth" and you won't get good science.
I don't think scientists community agree with this.

Have you "peer reviewed" all these assertions?

You guys who look to science for "truth" always make me laugh.
Why?


you won't get "truth"
Why not?

Martillo, you are revealing that you know almost nothing about the philosophy of science, or about the principles upon which the scientific method is built and operated.

Dalespam is not expressing his opinion about science. He is making a few factual statements about how science is defined and practiced by the scientific community.

His assertions do not need to be peer reviewed because they were derived, promoted, dissected and honed by generations of scientists.

We laugh because under the guise of talking science, but confusing it with 'truth' you corrupt science and move yourself, and those who might be seduced by your arguments, away from both 'truth' and science.

You cannot get 'truth' because nothing can be proved absolutely in science. That is axiomatic.

[By the way, please avoid further confusion by recognising the difference between 'facts' and 'truth'.]

Ophiolite,
You cannot get 'truth' because nothing can be proved absolutely in science. That is axiomatic.
That's your main premise of your vision of "Science".

Let me say you something.
I have a mind that can keep some limited quantity of knowledge and it works strongly based in the acquired knowledge. My beliefs, decisions and actions depend strongly in that knowledge and I surely don't want wrong knowledge in my mind. Right decisions and actions comes from right knowledge only. I want right knowledge in my mind and right knowledge means truth (Truth is just that: right knowledge).
Then is something right to look for truth.

For me Science is the conjunct of all the knowledge acquired by humans, the procedures to keep it, diseminate it, use it and the procedures to discover new knowledge and prove it right.
You said:
You cannot get 'truth' because nothing can be proved absolutely in science. That is axiomatic.
I'm sorry but I disagree.

For example we know now that we live in a planet that is round and orbits around the Sun and it have been totally and undoubtely demonstrated, isn't it?

May be at some time Science is not sure about some knowledge and Science haven't found the way to definetly prove it but I believe some day it will be capable.

Truth is reachable.

You are entitled to your opinion martillo, but please stop calling the resultant construction "science". It is not science. That is not my vision, it is not DaleSpam's opinion. For what I hope is the last time, listen: tens of thousands of scientists do not define science the way you do. You are simply wrong. Call your construct something else, and follow it to your hearts content, but do not confuse the issues by calling it science.

If you are sincere about finding what you call right knowledge, may I recommend you try listening to those who have deeper insights into topics you are exploring. The Universe is what it is: not what we wish it to be. {Unless you are a solopsist.}

For example we know now that we live in a planet that is round and orbits around the Sun and it have been totally and undoubtely demonstrated, isn't it?.No it isn't.

The planet is not round.
We do not orbit around the sun.

The planet has a very complex shape. In gross form it is an oblate spheroid, which one might reasonably call curved, though perhaps not round. In detail it is more pear shaped. Superimposed on this is the very rough, fractal topography of continents and oceans. No, it is certainly not round. Although some people used to think that was the truth of the matter. Science never did.

We do not orbit the sun. We orbit the barycentre of the solar system. Superimposed on this are other motions related to the sun's passage around the galaxy. If the Pioneer gravitational anomaly turns out to reflect a misinterpreation of Newton, then this view is likely to be changed yet again. This will delight and dishearten in equal measure many scientists, but if they are good scientists it will, on reflection, not surprise them unduly.

The truth is not out there.

Ophiolite,
The planet is not round.
We do not orbit around the sun.
Yes it is.
Yes we do.

Those were right statements.
You have only entered in a more detailed level of description that could even be detailed much more by an specialized astronomer and so on...

To describe things we undoubtely must determinate a level of abstraction and for each level there's a right description.

The truth can be expressed in different levels of abstractions.

Ophiolite,
listen: tens of thousands of scientists do not define science the way you do. You are simply wrong. Call your construct something else, and follow it to your hearts content, but do not confuse the issues by calling it science.
I think it is a good description although it could be improved.

Martillo, the statements you made are not right. They are wrong.

We do not orbit the sun. Absolutely not. No way. No este el caso. That is not right. It is not the truth. It is wrong. As DS has remarked science involves making predictions. If we assume the Earth orbits the sun we can make approximate predictions, but our answers are incorrect. They may provide a practical answer, but then they are just 'rules of thumb', or guidelines: they are not current science.

Nope, Martillo's definitely lost this one.

This is your opinion about Science.

I don't think scientists community agree with this.

Have you "peer reviewed" all these assertions?Hi martillo,

This has already been well-addressed by Ophiolite and I probably don't have anything substantial to contribute beyond what he said, but I will comment anyway.

My comments reflect my personal experience as a scientist ("scientist" defined as someone with at least one peer-reviewed manuscript) for the past several years. So, in that sense, my comments have been peer-reviewed; it is not a topic of debate but simply how we do science. There are undoubtedly some scientists (above definition) that would think of science as a vehicle for finding "truth", but I have never even personally met one so they are definitely not the scientific mainstream in my experience.

If my personal experience as a scientist is insufficient for you then consider the following quotes:

Science: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) "Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them."

Scientific Method: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."

Intro to Scientific Method: (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html) "It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

-Dale

The planet is not round.
We do not orbit around the sun. ...You are falling into the same trap that you identified earlier when you said:By the way, please avoid further confusion by recognising the difference between 'facts' and 'truth'.He is calling it "truth", which relates to theories, and it is actually a "fact", which relates to observation.

-Dale

Ophiolite and Guthrie,
We do not orbit the sun. Absolutely not. No way. No este el caso. That is not right. It is not the truth. It is wrong. As DS has remarked science involves making predictions. If we assume the Earth orbits the sun we can make approximate predictions, but our answers are incorrect.
It is right! All depends how much precision do you impose to the term "orbit".
May be you will feel better if I say that Earth "turns around" the Sun. Would this make you feel better?
You must realize we need to describe facts with a limited quantity of time and resources and the meaning of words have always the limit of contextual meaning.
Have you thought that the same fact is expressed in different languages and manners? In other situations I can make graphics or show pictures or movies, etc, etc.
They are all ways to describe the same truth!
Of course if you are looking for more precission of that fact you must look for a more precised description. May be you would need to go to NASA to see a detailed report of Earth "rotation" around the sun in some specific interval of time of the history of the planet! And even with that data you will ask "But this show me the movement relative to the barycenter of the solar system whyle the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy and even the galaxy moves!!!
The problem is which is exactly your question and which is the proper answer.
A truth is always found when the proper answer is given to an specific question and in this way the truth is reachable.

Dalespam,
There are undoubtedly some scientists (above definition) that would think of science as a vehicle for finding "truth", but I have never even personally met one so they are definitely not the scientific mainstream in my experience.

If my personal experience as a scientist is insufficient for you then consider the following quotes:

Science: "Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them."

Scientific Method: "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."

Intro to Scientific Method: "It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

The three quotes you have mentioned says that Science is concient that along the entire history of Science many statements and theories that seemed to be true at some time were demonstrated wrong in other times.
They state that scientists are cautious and alert to new discoveries.

You cannot negate that every scientist is always running for a truth.
At the end every scientist and may be every human in the planet do that in some way.
And you cannot negate that many truths have already been found!!!

I think is just pesimism to say that the right and true theories will never be found...

And you cannot negate that many truths have already been found!!!The truth is only one. Two different statement cannot be both true. If one is true the other is false.Hehe! Oh, this is so fun!

-Dale

The three quotes you have mentioned says that Science is concient that along the entire history of Science many statements and theories that seemed to be true at some time were demonstrated wrong in other times.Read them again, those statements did not refer to any historical events at all. Instead, they described a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. The fact that you don't understand that simply underscores your ignorance of science.


You cannot negate that every scientist is always running for a truth.Certainly I can negate that. In fact, I have never met even a single scientist that would claim that their scientific pursuits will ever lead to "truth". Unlike you, my colleagues understand science.


I think is just pesimism to say that the right and true theories will never be found...You miss the point entirely. For the sake of argument, let's say that some perfect "right and true" theory is found. Let's say further than a "wrong and false" theory is also found which makes the exact same experimental predictions in all cases (like LET and SR). How would the scientific method ever guide you to the true theory and away from the false theory? It fundamentally can't; it can only distinguish between ideas based on their predictive accuracy, not their truth. That is why I say that science is about prediction and not truth.

-Dale

“ Originally Posted by martillo
The truth is only one. Two different statement cannot be both true. If one is true the other is false. ”

Hehe! Oh, this is so fun!

It's not fun, it is Logic.

You miss the point entirely. For the sake of argument, let's say that some perfect "right and true" theory is found. Let's say further than a "wrong and false" theory is also found which makes the exact same experimental predictions in all cases (like LET and SR). How would the scientific method ever guide you to the true theory and away from the false theory? It fundamentally can't; it can only distinguish between ideas based on their predictive accuracy, not their truth. That is why I say that science is about prediction and not truth.

If they are different they differ in something, at least in their principles, if not they are the same theory. Then it can be searched for which are valid and which not.

Science is also about truth.

Are you saying that Science doesn't care about what is right (true) and what is wrong (false)?
What are you talking about?
What Science would be that?
I can't believe I have to discuss this...

I think I will leave this thread now I have no time for this.

If they are different they differ in something, at least in their principles, if not they are the same theory.Exactly. They differ in their theoretical principles (postulates), but not in their predictions (conclusions). At most one set of theoretical principles can be "true".

A perfect example of two theories that are different in their principles but not in their predictions is LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and SR (Special Relativity). In LET light propagates through the luminiferous ether, moving rods contract, and clocks dilate to give us the illusion of invariant c and relativity of simultaneity etc. In SR there is no luminiferous ether, c really is invariant, time dilates, length contracts, and simultaneity really is relative etc. Clearly, the theories are very different and at most one can be "true". However, for their experimental predictions both use the Lorentz transform. The Lorentz transform follows logically and inevitably from either set of postulates.


Then it can be searched for which are valid and which not.How?

For a concrete example let's use LET and SR. How would you apply the scientific method to choose LET over SR? What experiment can be done to distinguish between LET and SR? How can it scientifically "be searched for which are valid and which not"?


I think I will leave this thread now I have no time for this.Retreat does seem like the best plan for you right now.

-Dale

Both theories are wrong.
Not interested in that problem.
Bye.

Both theories are wrong.
Not interested in that problem.
Bye.What a pathetic dodge. Simply generalize it.

In theory A there are theoretical postulates Ta that lead logically to a set of predictions P. In theory B there are theoretical postulates Tb that lead logically to the same set of predictions P. A is "true", and B is different than A, so B is not true. So how can we use the scientific method pick A over B?

If you cannot think of a way, then you admit that I am correct in my assertion that science is about predictions not truth.

-Dale

If you cannot think of a way, then you admit that I am correct in my assertion that science is about predictions not truth.
I have NO TIME to solve your problem but this does not means I would admit anything.
I DO NOT admit that assertion!

I have NO TIME to solve your problem but this does not means I would admit anything.
I DO NOT admit that assertion!Right. Your time definitely will be much better spent learning about religious fundamentalism than learning about science. :rolleyes:

Of course you won't admit that science is about predictions and not "truth". That would hurt your ego. But don't worry, all of us who understand science already know without your admission and the rest wouldn't be swayed anyway. So there is really no need to cause any mental anguish here.

-Dale

Martillo,
I appeal to you: abandon this foolish misinterpretation of the purpose, scope and methodology of science. You clearly are not uneducated, or lacking in intellect. Apply this intellect and education in the pursuit of worthwhile goals. Abandon this pointless and groundless wild conjecture. You are wasting your time. It troubles me considerably to see someone waste their talent in this way. Please reconsider your position.
Ophiolite

"Truth" in science is always provisional. All you can do is test your theory and see if it makes accurate predictions. If it does, then it is "true", accepting that the next set of more detailed experiments may render it "untrue" as it is currently formulated. There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in the objective world. Think of science as asymptotically approaching "truth". Yes?

Ophiolite,
I appeal to you: abandon this foolish misinterpretation of the purpose, scope and methodology of science... Abandon this pointless and groundless wild conjecture.
I made an spontaneous description of what I understand as Science and about truths.

Now, as established scientist, please describe ( or define) Science and "the purpose, scope and methodology of science".

The purpose of science is to investigate the nature of the Universe.

The scope of this investigation extends only to those things which can be investigated in a systematic, consistent manner.

The methodology of science may be summarised as follows: observe a phenomena; gather further observations concerning the phenomena; speculate upon the possible causes and effects of this phenomena; carry out further observations relating to this speculation; construct a hypothesis that explains the observations to date and predicts possible consequences; at each stage subject the speculation/ conjecture/ hypothesis to rigorous self examination and peer review, in order to identify flaws, and inconsistencies; in the light of such examination refine or abandon the hypothesis; after the hypothesis has been demonstrated to predict accurately, and has not been shown faulty in any regard, and once this has been substantiated by a number of other researchers, making independent observations, then elevate the hypothesis to the status of theory (it doesn't get any better than that).

I am not an established scientist. I am merely one who was trained in the scientific method, employs it on a day to day basis in an engineering environment, and has retained a distinct interest in it for four decades.

Your 'spontaneous description' of your understanding of science does not match this. One of us is wrong.

Ophiolite,

I made an spontaneous description of what I understand as Science and about truths.

Now, as established scientist, please describe ( or define) Science and "the purpose, scope and methodology of science".
You clearly have internet access. Why don't you recearch it and see? It's pretty well defined. :rolleyes:

Ophiolite,
Your 'spontaneous description' of your understanding of science does not match this. One of us is wrong.
At least you agree with me in:
But only one theory will be truth.
The truth is only one.
Two different statement cannot be both true. If one is true the other is false.
Of course several statements can be all false. Only one can be truth.

But you have stated the purpose, the scope and the methodology of Science while I haven't entered in those subjects.
I just give a concept or definition of what Science is and you haven't do this so where is the discrepancy?

I have wrote:
Let me say you something.
I have a mind that can keep some limited quantity of knowledge and it works strongly based in the acquired knowledge. My beliefs, decisions and actions depend strongly in that knowledge and I surely don't want wrong knowledge in my mind. Right decisions and actions comes from right knowledge only. I want right knowledge in my mind and right knowledge means truth (Truth is just that: right knowledge).
Then is something right to look for truth.

For me Science is the conjunct of all the knowledge acquired by humans, the procedures to keep it, diseminate it, use it and the procedures to discover new knowledge and prove it right.
You said:

“ You cannot get 'truth' because nothing can be proved absolutely in science. That is axiomatic. ”


I'm sorry but I disagree.

For example we know now that we live in a planet that is round and orbits around the Sun and it have been totally and undoubtely demonstrated, isn't it?

May be at some time Science is not sure about some knowledge and Science haven't found the way to definetly prove it but I believe some day it will be capable.

Truth is reachable.

There is nothing to match with what you said because we talked about different things.
What is so bad in what I wrote for all of you get nervous?


By the way.
I don't disagree with the methodoogy of Science you described. I think is fine.
You undoubtely refer to the fact that the theories I'm proposing haven't been validated by the "peer review" of a journal and because of that you don't believe in them and you will not even read them.
That is well founded choice and prevent anyone to spend their time in wrong lectures.
Fine, but I must say to you that is your choice. There is a possibility that could be right at least in some of the concepts I'm exposing and you could be missing interesting things.

I honestly believe I have made some theoretical discoveries that I'm making available at the internet and it is open for a "worldwide peer review"!
May be somebody find something right, or just interesting or just a good inspiration.
I believe in them but I will not submit it to any journal because there are many things that remain to be proved and demonstrated for the new theories to be validated and they will never publish it. Also I think is too extense and all subjects are interrelated and cannot be separated and is not apropiated for an article in a journal.
As I mention at the main page I have no time and no more resources to develop it further and I leave to "real physicists" to develop it more.
You know, I believe "real physicists" will take that work and write appropiated articles in journals for people like you that only believe in journals.
They will mention me just if they want to and find it appropiated. It will be their choice not mine.

If you want to say I'm not a scientist is ok, actually I don't feel as one. I feel as an Engineer very interested in some Theoretical Physics subjects mainly related to electricity and magnetism for which I had a good preparation. I just think I made something that will contribute to Science. May be in a far future and if I'm actually right at least in some few subjects..., I know!

Superluminal,
I have found this definitionat wikipedia:
Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. In a broader sense, the term is also used to refer to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[
It is not so far from what I said.
I just want to add that when refering knowledge it is obviously refering to right (true) knowledges because wrong (false) knowledges (that existed in Science along its history) are discarded.
What is really the problem in what I have wrote?

I just want to add that when refering knowledge it is obviously refering to right (true) knowledges because wrong (false) knowledges (that existed in Science along its history) are discarded.
What is really the problem in what I have wrote?
The problem is you understand diddly-shit (translation: fuck all) about the nature of science. The quote you have provided in no way is obviously refering to true knowledge.

The entire underpinning of science for at least the last couple of centuries is that everything can be overturned. Nothing is provable. As another poster remarked, we approach the truth asymptotically, but we never get to it. And sometimes we are a very long way away, indeed.

That is what is so wrong. You fail utterly to understand the first principles of the practice of science. Why then should we pay the slightest attention to anything else you say when you are so obviously wrong on this simple, basic issue?

Answer: there is no reason at all.

Why am I continuing to debate it with you?

Answer: 1. So that casual readers are not deceived by your warped understanding.
2. In the remote hope of that I shall be able to educate you.
3. Because such willfull ignorance really pisses me off.

Ophiolite,
The entire underpinning of science for at least the last couple of centuries is that everything can be overturned. Nothing is provable.
Fine.
This only shows the high degree of uncertainty in today's Science particularly in Physics.

Do you really believe that nothing is provable?

I don't.
May be many things haven't been definetly proved right or wrong yet (may be because of lack of resources or time, etc) but they will someday.

Do you really believe that nothing is provable?
It is wholly irrelevant what I beleive in regard to this. The point is that the it is a basic tenet of science that we cannot prove absolutely the truth of anything. All conclusions are provisional. We may strongly suspect that we are very close to accurately describing or understanding some aspect of some topic, but that is not the same as proving it betond doubt. There is always the possibility that the next observation may invalidate the conclusions reached till that point.

You are free to believe that some things are provable, but please stop calling such statements science, or associating them with science. They are not. Why are you finding this so difficult to accept? Why are you right and several million scientists are wrong?

Ophiolite,
You are free to believe that some things are provable, but please stop calling such statements science, or associating them with science. They are not. Why are you finding this so difficult to accept?
For example it has already been proven definetly that Earth is a planet, that is round in shape, that moves around the Sun, That the Sun is a star. It also have been proven definetly that we have a hearth, that it work as a pump making blood circulate through our organism carrying oxygen among other molecules for the cells.


You stated:
The point is that the it is a basic tenet of science that we cannot prove absolutely the truth of anything.
I disagree with that.

Many things have already been definetly proven!

It's a fact that Science passed through many stages in its history, making statements sometimes true and sometimes demonstrated wrong after but always evolving looking for the right (true) knowledge in all of the areas of Science that means all the Universe and nature!

It's pesimism to believe humanity will never have right knowledge and will never be sure if what is believed is true or not.

As you said may be the process is assymptotic, ok, but is progressive and humanity have been improving its knowledge with more and more right (true) knowledge each time.

You are not being optimist just because you know there were errors in Science in the past.
Probably there are errors in the present and there will be errors in the future but every human know that and don't condemn Science for that.

Science just must not be magnificient about all its accumulated knowledge but it must be conscient about its very important role in the search of the truth and cannot evade it. It's the main "tool" humanity have to understand the universe it live and itself!

Science must not be magnificient and here and now this means that you should be no magnificient simply disregarding my theories without right fundations and not even reading them properly...

I strongly believe in them, I have strong arguments and I'm just asking to have the opportunity to be analyzed by more expert minds.

I strongly believe in them, I have strong arguments and I'm just asking to have the opportunity to be analyzed by more expert minds.I don't need an expert mind to know your speculations are crap.
Your adherence to nonsense that flies in the face of things that, by your terminology, have been proven, is grounds enough for me to ignore your conjectures.
Your refusal to provide a single piece of substantiating evidence other than your own opinion wraps this up rather neatly. You are talking nonsense, and, to my great annoyance, you are wasting your life. Stop it.

Optimism has **** all to do with it. Your intransigent refusal to accept the underpinnings of the scientific method expose you as a fool and a charlatan.

Have a pleasant life. Gooday to you sir.

I will adress the real problem here:

The problem is not about the theories since we are not discussing about them, the problem is that you don't like ME, nobody in this world, outside the Science community to could have made a huge great discovery in Theoretical Physics and you neglect the possibility to have to recognize ME.

That's the real problem.
That's the truth behind.

I'm conscient about that "feelings" on many of you at the forums.

By your own statement you're here
to be analyzed by more expert minds.
But you don't like the answers, so you decide it's personal. Clever.

Oli,
It's not I don't like the answers, I accept them as honest criticism from ones who have studied and really belief in other thing (current theories).
I just defend my point of view with the best arguments I can find always knowing that I could be wrong, but also believing that if I have strong arguments my point of view still remains as a possible one.

I just have some ideas I believe could be excellent ones and I want to discuss them here.
What's the problem with that?

The problem is that I have always answered with good arguments and the discussion always end not with consistent arguments but with a not well justified disregarding ones and for me that is the signal that the others give up to continue the discussion trying to go away with that kind of disregarding post.

That signal tells me I'm right and so I continue...

It is obvious there is something personal when there is no more rational discussion and personal disegarding comments appear.

I don't believe stars are "gaseous bodies".
From one of your earlier posts. BELIEF no matter how strong, has nothing to do with science. You haven't shown either THAT IT IS TRUE or HOW IT COULD BE TRUE. Therefore there is no point in further discussion on the rest of it. You are proceeding from incorrect premises. It doesn't matter how strongly you argue, (which is not the same as having a strong argument), if you can't demonstrate then there's no grounds for discussion.
That signal tells me I'm right and so I continue...
Then you're misreading the signals.

I DO show "HOW IT COULD BE TRUE" and I give reasonable arguments for that.

Then you're misreading the signals.
I don't think so.

I DO show "HOW IT COULD BE TRUE" and I give reasonable arguments for that.
No. You speculate without any mathematics or any other evidence to back you up. You made an assertion based on wishful thinking and incorrect understanding, and then argued that "it could be possible" and then asked others to give the mathematics to show that you're wrong. So from your posts you rate your unsubstantiated beliefs and speculations higher than existing scientific findings BECAUSE you want yourself to be correct...
I don't think so.
One more example of your wishful thinking "overcoming" the evidence.

So from your posts you rate your unsubstantiated beliefs and speculations higher than existing scientific findings BECAUSE you want yourself to be correct...
It is not a scientific finding I know, it haven't been proven.
Who have ever presented a "scientific finding" of his own in a forum's post?
Forum's are not for that.

Forums are made to learn and teach things and to analyze speculations.
It is a speculation right but it has its good arguments and it deserved the opportunity to be discussed here.

I'm not asking to aprove them here now, I just wanted to discuss it here and you know, I already got the answer: it is possible!
Possible enough to be analyzed by the scientific community, yes it is!


But the discussion went to other topics...

it is possible!
So is destroying the Earth with a banana - if science itself is wrong and my "theory" is correct. (That 2 + Wednesday = ants if you want to know, but don't build one yourself, it's dangerous).
If you can't present any evidence or calculations then there's nothing TO discuss. Only your belief, and you're getting all the discussion (and feedback) on your belief that it warrants.

So is destroying the Earth with a banana - if science itself is wrong and my "theory" is correct. (That 2 + Wednesday = ants if you want to know, but don't build one yourself, it's dangerous).
Thiat was your totally irresponsible opinion and may be the others' ones.



...you're getting all the discussion (and feedback) on your belief that it warrants.

Yes, as I said I have already got the answer I looked for:
"It is possible!
Possible enough to be analyzed by the scientific community, yes it is!"

"A New Light In Physics" thanks all of you!

Although I initially expected a totally different attitude to the new ideas at the forums...



The theories are at the web in an excellent manuscript available for free download and also in a printed version.
Some people at the forums know about them and may be I will enter the forums times to times...

Let we see now how the Scientific Community reacts, wich will be its attitude (I know it will take a long time...).

Possible enough to be analyzed by the scientific community, yes it is!"
They won't be impressed with the poor understanding you show on page 1 of the theories you're trying to replace.
"A New Light In Physics"
They'll also think this is a rather presumptuous title.
Let we see now how the Scientific Community reacts, wich will be its attitude (I know it will take a long time...).
You really wan't to know? Alright:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Sorry but I will wait for what intelligent scientists will do.

Where anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent by definition, I suppose.

And as you said earlier: by your own words you came here for "more expert minds". And because you disagree with their expert opinion you decide that it's pesronal and they (all of them) are wrong and you are the only one who is correct.
Again. You BELIEVE your ideas are correct. When it is pointed that they are not (and why they are not) you ignore what is said and continue along your deluded way.
Good luck for the future, you'll need it.

przyk,
Where anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent by definition, I suppose.
Not anyone, the way of the disagreement is also important and tells very much.


Oli,
Good luck for the future, you'll need it.
Thanks.

Just for the case, the end of the "Blowing away" part in the main page of the site says:
The new theories haven't been proven yet!

For now is only a very consistent theory that explain all the main experiments already done, even those which only Relativity explains.



I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that.

The theory have very strong and consistent arguments. It deserves the opportunity to be analyzed by more expert minds.



I want to say something:

Anyone can write anything that can be related someway to the new theories and cite my work just if they want and find appropiated. It must be his decision and not mine.

Superluminal,
I have found this definitionat wikipedia:

It is not so far from what I said.
I just want to add that when refering knowledge it is obviously refering to right (true) knowledges because wrong (false) knowledges (that existed in Science along its history) are discarded.
What is really the problem in what I have wrote?You should learn to read more carefully. From that same Wiki page about Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) that you just refered to is the following quote:

"Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. ... In short, science produces useful models which allow us to make often useful predictions."

That is almost word-for-word what I have been saying. Sorry, but your attempt to settle this argument by appeal to authority (whatever limited authority Wiki posesses) will only settle it in our favor.

-Dale

Do you really believe that nothing is provable?Nothing is provable with science.


I don't.
May be many things haven't been definetly proved right or wrong yet (may be because of lack of resources or time, etc) but they will someday.It is not a question of time or resources, it is a question of the fundamental limits of the scientific method. The fact that you don't get that is simply a clear display of your scientific ignorance. You are approaching your physics theories as a religious fundamentalist would, not as a scientist would.

-Dale

For example it has already been proven definetly that Earth is a planet, that is round in shape, that moves around the Sun, That the Sun is a star. It also have been proven definetly that we have a hearth, that it work as a pump making blood circulate through our organism carrying oxygen among other molecules for the cells.These are simply data ("facts"), not theories ("truth"). This is a pretty transparent attempt on your point to avoid the argument.

simply disregarding my theories without right fundations and not even reading them properly...

I strongly believe in them, I have strong arguments That you strongly believe in them is not an argument for their correctness. So far your belief is your only argument, so you do not have strong arguments at all. Go back to religion, where your belief is sufficient to illuminate "truth".

-Dale

These are simply data ("facts"), not theories ("truth"). This is a pretty transparent attempt on your point to avoid the argument.
Not that I'm adding much, but the certainty you can claim for any given fact is also dependent on a number of factors, including the reliability of your own senses and memory.

Who says the astronauts and NASA didn't all lie and circulate fake photographs, historical records are inaccurate or hoaxed, and businesses and government organizations really are sending satellites into orbit? I'd think this is a ridiculou