Has The Language Of Science Magazines Changed?

I've flicked through a science mag recently in my local newsagent and read about the latest thinking on the big issues such as Dark Matter/Energy, Pioneer gravity anomaly etc. The author seemed remarkably open to the simple statement that Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong. Although MOND (Modification of Newtonian Dynamics) is discussed as a possible alternative with respect to a changing gravity with increasing distance, there is also a possibility of a change with respect to orbital inclination. Is it now just a matter of time before it is widely accepted in the science journals that Newton MUST have been wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um ever herd of enstine?

of course newton was wrong

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong or just incomplete?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe, but the readers sound the same as always!

 

Even before Einstein, Newton's law of gravitation could simply be wrong. (Remember that he didn't even propose a mechanism for it and that it doesn't fit with Quantum Mechanics)

 

Oh Enstine?
Younger brother of Frank, usually pissed as a Newt'n 'often home late. That Enstine! George Enstine. What a lad!

 

Anything that makes science magazines less boring, is a good thing.

 

Yeah really... Like, who has time for all that boy stuff anyway?

 

We still use Newtonian everyday gravitational logic in order to send objects to outer space. He could be wrong about certain issues, but he couldn't be completely off the topic. He was one of humanity's great minds in terms of imagining and calculating the unseeable forces in the universe. His contribution to motion and gravity calculus turned yesterday's dreams into modern engineering.

No magazine is able to beat that.

 

You know what.. I initially read that as 'intestine'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry Asguard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope, I checked.
Mine are still in English, or French.

 

Is National Geographic a science magazine?

 

There's definitely more acceptance of the possibility of a simple error in the detail of Newton's law of gravitation. The forth coming Large Hadron Collider experiment could easily provide proof of such an error in the not-too-distant future. This has created a new fashion for the alternative ideas; those of previously named "cranks" could potentially be household ideas within 12 months time. We are on the brink of a new era, one way or the other. We'll know for sure whether the standard model is as good as mainstream scientists say it is or whether it is fundamentally flawed.

 

I would say so. Sort of.
It is not about science but it it is about a science.
If you were making a scientific point, it would usually be a reliable reference.

 

thank you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Weeeell, technically they should probably be referred to as popular science magazines, I think. The reason being that they are not peer-reviewed, which is usual considered the benchmark for science journals.

 

I will add that the recently observed "Bullet Cluster" puts pretty tight constraints on any modification to gravity. In fact, the observation proves that any solution to dark matter has to look like cold, weakly interacting particles, mathematically. One then has to face either introducing a cold, weakly interacting particle by hand, or tearing down and rebuilding the entire edifice of general relativity.

The dark energy problem, though, is much worse. Basically, physicists are clueless as to how to fix it. All we know is that it does exist, and it looks like nothing we've ever seen before. Still, modifying general relativity seems a bit outlandish, considering that there is no other reason that one should modify GR.

 

"On the shoulders of giants we stand", an phrase adaption per chance. (I'm sure we a quick search you can see where the phrase has arose) in any case I quote it as a reference to the subject that Scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. Simply put science has evolved over many years of theory, discovery and of course testing, when those theories could be reasoned to be accurate they became consensus which in turn meant our future scholars had to learn of their previous endeavors, as once they had learnt their foundation ("the shoulders of giants") they could work towards finding their own place to stand as potentially a future giant with load bearing shoulders themselves.

The only concern for science, is those that have "Atlas Syndrome". (The world on their shoulders)

 

Agreed. There's another quote (and I'm buggered if I can remember who said it): no scientist ever overthrew a current theory without first being thoroughly familiar with that theory.
In other words, new ideas don't come from left field, they're discovered by noting the flaws in current theories, and those come only from deep familiarity by working with that theory for a long time.