"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
Martens, R., Kepler's Philosophy and the New Astronomy, 2000
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
28 comments:
I guess it's true that gravity may not be at work on planetary bodies in the Solar System.
I find it amazing that we believe gravity as fact, immediately without tests or experiments, which what one needs to prove something fact. Astronmers respect Kepler, but, what they shouldn't have done was automatically jump to the conclusion that Isaac Newton was right. That's not good Science.
BTW, Did you hear that Charles Darwin's birthday is coming up on the 12th? He shares the EXACT same birthdate as Lincoln. Oh, wait, you did, because you commented on my post on that....Whoops. Forget I said that.
Anyway, if you want to blog about scientists, you should join the blog carnival: Blog For Darwin. Most science blogs are doing that for his upcoming birthday and anniversary of On the Origin of Species. That explains the Darwin posts on my blog. Why don't you join us?
Let me tell you something, OiM.
This blog has turned out very similar to the "battlefield" that me and other Darwinians have been fighting for quite sometime. At least, it was more civilized. Trust me, I've heard some pretty nasty comments from Creationists who don't seem to let it go. There's something in the human psyche that doesn't allow for us to admit the mistakes that have been proven wrong. Kinda strange psychology, isn't it?
This blog has got to me one of my favorites on the Blogosphere because I love intellectual discussions. I do try to keep with you all, but, I'm 16 and Iknow more about Biology and Paleontology than the fields that are debated on this blog. I think you should change the name of this blog to "Science Domain" or something. In a nutshell, I've had fun here and I expect to in the future. Thanks for the experience, dude.
All the Best,
Raptor
Lewis,
Glad you enjoy it and thanks for your kind words...=)
You're more than welcome.
KEPLER REFERS TO "MAGNETS"
What is striking is that Kepler kept refering to "magnets."
Newton described the force of gravity, but freely admitted he didn't know what caused gravity and specifically offered no opinion on what caused it.
Kepler, on the other hand, did offer an opinion on what caused gravity -- magnetism of some kind.
And Kepler was right to suggest "the Sun is likewise a magnetic body."
As we now know without question the Sun is a magnetic body.
NASA TEACHES THERE ARE 'ELECTRIC CURRENTS FROM SPACE'
I recently concluded a very long discussion with interlocutors on the Bad Astronomy Website.
For the first half of the discussion my interlocutors denied there was electricity in space. Finally, when one of their own who had not been involved in the discussion came on and acknowledged Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth were electric currents, only then did my interlocutors admit to electric currents in space.
Evidence had little to do with their decision -- politics did -- apparently it's not what you know, but who you know over at Bad Astronomy that counts.
Sad that an overwhelming presentation of evidence wasn't enough.
Subsequently, I find that NASA explicitly teaches that these electric currents are Birkeland currents and acknowledges the history of Kristian Birkeland, the discoverer of these electric currents that were named in his honor.
The reason this is interesting is several fold:
1. My interlocutors at Bad Astronomy were completely clueless about electric currents in space.
2. NASA teaches electric currents exist in space.
3. NASA acknowledges the proper name (Birkeland currents) and history, but not on their newsline press releases (something I had severely criticized NASA for).
Here is the link from NASA's educational service: Electric Currents from Space.
Notice the NASA logo on the website address.
EVEN THE BEST OF THEM MAKE MISTAKES
The following passage is from NASA's website that teaches about the magnetosphere and provides an assessment of the predictions about the magnetophere prior to the space age:
"Many important magnetospheric features had indeed been inferred before spacecraft were available, but in almost every case some important detail was missing or wrong. The Chapman-Ferraro cavity was predicted as a temporary rather than permanent feature, and the same was true for the radiation belt. Alfvén's convection contained a nucleus of truth, but electric field effects supplemented rather than supplanted the Chapman-Ferraro picture, and the convection which they produced was found to flow from the tail sunward, opposite to its direction in Alfvén's theory. Birkeland's auroral currents did exist, but their configuration was not the one predicted. The existence and importance of the magnetospheric tail generally went unsuspected, and so did the existence of parallel electric fields along auroral arcs, although Alfvén later developed the theory of quasi-neutral equilibria, relevant to such fields. All this underscores the essential role of in situ observations: one can only speculate how much of this might be paralleled in astrophysics."
With all the mistakes about the magnetosphere from all sides of the question, how many mistakes are being made about the galactic structure and dynamics of the Universe?
The "big bang, black hole" assumptions and all the corollary theories hang in a precarious postion.
If Man's track record of predicting space is any indication there are more surprises ahead.
How can Kepler not believe in gravity, and yet offer an explanation for the cause?
He kept referring to Magnets, possibly referring to some kind of magnetic field. An EM field?
Magnets have properties that somewhat "explains" the concept of gravity. Magnets "pull" or attract different metals, so I can see how this comparison can explain how gravity works.
*sigh* I don't know I'm just throwing stuff out there. You guys know more about this stuff than I do.
So-called gravity is an alleged force that acts on mass, the alleged cause of which (ignoring Newton's own words who seemed to suggest electricity in the General Scholium) is the occult graviton which has never been observed (i.e. scientific method in the trash). Gravitons are not alleged to exert magnetic field/force.
@ OilIsMastery:
You're confusing Raptor Lewis because he doesn't appreciate that you are being cynical.
Rapor Lewis, of course, there is gravity holding you to your chair as you read this comment.
The question is not whether there is gravity, the question is what is gravity?
Is gravity what Einstein thought it was, a function of the relationships of space, time, and matter?
Or is gravity a property intrinsic to matter without respect to time and space?
A hypothesis that is held within the Plasma Cosmology 'community' is that gravity is a product of electromagnetism. That is what OilIsMastery is talking about.
Raptor Lewis, please see, Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, August 22, 2008(holoscience).
This article explains the electromagnetic hypothesis and provides a good history that reviews how the present situation developed.
Others refrain from speculating or don't mind offering hypothesis, but don't go around tweaking peoples noses by calling gravity a 'myth'.
So remember, there is gravity, the question is what causes it?
Sorry. Thanks for clarifying...=)
Gravity is the force which acts on matter to cause "mass".
We need to be clear on this folks.
Louis,
Forgive me. Gravity is such an occult force, it's hard for someone untrained in the magical arts, alchemy, and witchcraft to speak properly on the subject.
Questions:
So if gravity causes mass, do objects in zero g have zero mass?
Do objects lose mass when they aren't in the presence of a gravitational field?
When gravity acts on a photon, e.g. a gravitational lens, does gravity impart mass to the photon?
Since there is no quantum gravity on the subatomic scale, does that mean all subatomic particles have no mass?
Ooh, okay. Thanks for clarifying Anaconda.
OiM- Remember that I am 16 and still in High School. Try to stick to layman's terms when explaining stuff to me. And, just because I find this stuff fascinating doesn't mean I understand it.
Lewis,
Sorry. I will try to do better in the future. And don't feel bad if you don't understand gravity because no one does.
@ OilIsMastery:
You're right, it can be confusing because each perspective emphasizes something different.
I emphasize that gravity is "intrinsic" to matter. You emphasize that gravity is shrouded in mystery. Hissink emphasizes that mass is the result of gravity, and that matter and mass are not the same.
All are right.
Although, it seems to me that the biggest distinction between an electromagnetic view of gravity and the Einsteinian view of gravity, is that gravity is "intrinsic" to matter in the electromagnetic view, but that gravity is "relative" to matter, space, and time (listed in order of importance) in the Einsteinian view of gravity.
Geometry (spatial relationships) is the dominate construct or idea in the Einsteinian view of gravity.
This relieves science from the burden of understanding the "intrinsic" properties of gravity. But to relieve science of the "burden" is also to block science from truly understanding gravity.
Why did Einstein take the "burden" away from science?
What is the prime utility of describing gravity by geometry?
It can be described by mathematical equations.
But didn't Newton already describe gravity in terms of spatial relations, i.e., calculus?
Yes, Newton did.
So, to a very large degree Einstein by semantics (word definitions) appeared to explain gravity one step further than Newton, but in reality Einstein didn't "move the ball" of understanding at all.
But because Einstein appeared to "move the ball" to a higher level of understanding, science stopped inquiring about the "intrinsic" properties of matter that gave it mass and the force of gravity.
In conclusion, Einstein, rather than enlightening science, actually "pulled the wool" over the eyes of science because he gave the appearance of increasing science's understanding of gravity, when in fact, he simply described gravity in geometical terms, which Newton had already done.
Deference to Special Relativity & General Relativity are to scientfic understanding what deference to Aristotle was to scientific understanding in the 16th century:
A roadblock.
But while Aristotle advanced human understanding in his day and many centuries later, Einstein never advanced human understanding.
Why?
Because Newton had already described gravity in terms of geometry. And in reality that's all Einstein did as well, but with the serious retrograde element of the space-time continuum, which has no basis in reality.
The Einsteinian Revolution?
No, the Einsteinian retrograde is the sad truth.
But mathematicians loved Einsteinian gravity because it relieved advanced physics of scientific experiments with physical objects.
Mathematical calculations became supreme to the detriment of scientific understanding.
Anaconda,
Just did a little more reading and it seems you were correct in saying that gravity is not a myth. There is a distinction between gravity and gravitation. Gravity is what caused the apple to fall on Newton's head and make him retarded. Gravitation is the myth.
And I would hardly call Aristotle a roadblock. He knew a lot more than I do...=)
@ OilIsMastery:
You are right that Aristotle was not a "roadblock" in his day and many centuries afterward, principally because he taught Man how to look at the world and how to frame questions about the world.
But, by the 16th century, roughly 2000 years after Aristotle's time, science had developed to a point where to be limited to Aristole's world view was to limit scientific understanding.
Aristotle was a great man, but everlasting deference even to great men will eventually stultify the human quest for greater understanding of the world and the Comos.
"But, by the 16th century, roughly 2000 years after Aristotle's time, science had developed to a point where to be limited to Aristole's world view was to limit scientific understanding."
How did Aristotle limit the worldview of the 16th century?
What 16th century thinker was Aristotle holding back?
In my view, Aristotle would necessarily broaden the worldview of anyone who reads him in the 21st century let alone the 16th century.
We're going to have to disagree on Ol' Ari because to me there are few that even come close to his league -- The Big Leagues -- with Kepler, Leibniz, Kant, Faraday, and Maxwell.
My vote for limiting human understanding would go to Newton.
OiM,
1. So if gravity causes mass, do objects in zero g have zero mass?
Gravity is supposed to be matter attracting matter - zero mass implies no matter, therefore objects cannot exist either since zero gravity means absence of matter per se. So we cannot have a state of zero gravity by definition.
2. Gravity exists (according to theory) by virtue of the presence of matter and as a photon is also matter, it too should have mass, or that a force is acting on it, due to the presence of other matter.
3. No Quantum gravity means no quantum mass, because gravity is caused by the presence of matter, whether quantum or not, acting on other objects of matter.
Confusion arises by using mass (which is a force) with matter, which is an object. When analysis is restricted to rhetoricism, such as here using thought experiments, anything can and does become possible. This is the problem, that you have identified, with the concept of gravity.
Remember Newton only pointed out that he could describe the motion of the bodies, but had no idea what caused that motion.
Whoops - I got a bit imprecise:
Confusion arises by using mass (which is a force) as matter, which is an object.
The problem with gravity is that if a body is moving, or accelerating, and we see nothing else except other objects of matter, or in the case of a 2-body problem, one other object of matter, then "it is obvious" the other body of matter is attracting the first body. As we see nothing else, and have no knowledge of electricity, Newton had to come up with his explanations.
It only needs a short viewing of this graphical display of the 3-body problem to realise that the theory of gravitation has "problems"
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html
As we don't see electricity (because it's in dark current mode) usually, Newton could hardly be blamed for missing it.
This is science - using the known to explain the novel, which Newton did, until we discover new forces, which then forces us to reveiw what we thought we knew to be right.
It's when a scientific idea refies into dogma that problems arise.
Try this url -
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest
/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html
"Gravity is supposed to be matter attracting matter"
I just learned that gravity is when a body falls to the Earth (Lucretius, Benedetti, etc.) whereas gravitation is mass attracting mass (Newton, Einstein, etc.)
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states F= G x m1m2/r^2 which is totally erroneous.
"zero mass implies no matter, therefore objects cannot exist either since zero gravity means absence of matter per se."
So when an astronaut goes into zero g does that mean his matter disappears?
"So we cannot have a state of zero gravity by definition."
Then the definition is flawed because pilots experience weightlessness in zero g.
"Gravity exists (according to theory) by virtue of the presence of matter."
So what about places where there is matter and zero g?
"and as a photon is also matter, it too should have mass, or that a force is acting on it, due to the presence of other matter."
The Einsteinians claim photons have no mass.
"No Quantum gravity means no quantum mass, because gravity is caused by the presence of matter, whether quantum or not, acting on other objects of matter."
Well an electron has mass but it is uneffected by gravity.
"Confusion arises by using mass (which is a force) with matter, which is an object."
I'm confused either way...=)
"When analysis is restricted to rhetoricism, such as here using thought experiments, anything can and does become possible. This is the problem, that you have identified, with the concept of gravity."
I think I have my book title now: The Myth of Gravitation.
"Remember Newton only pointed out that he could describe the motion of the bodies, but had no idea what caused that motion."
I don't think his geometry describes anything in motion.
Thanks for the link. Those orbits are fantastic -- literally.
=)
@ OilIsMastery:
"Scholasticism was the dominant form of theology and philosophy in the Latin West in the Middle Ages, particularly in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. It was both a method and a system which aimed to reconcile the Christian theology of the Church Fathers with the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and his commentators."
Aristotle was held up as approved scientfic thought by those that controlled education. To go beyond Atristotle, however, was not approved.
Aristotle was thought to encompass all knowledge beyond scripture that could be taught.
It was the reverence for Aristole because his thought was considered all-encompassing that encouraged the scholastics from teaching anything else.
Just so, today, reverence for Einstein prevents other ideas from being even discussed, let alone taught in the mainstream.
Say what you will about Newton, but his description of gravity got Man to the Moon and back, alive!
Well I see your point, people shouldn't be worshipped as infallible gods, although I'm not sure what dogma of Aristotle you have a problem with.
Newton's description of gravity has nothing to do with the moon.
"The moon does not 'fall,' attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the 'falling effect' in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation." -- Immmanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946
Newton's so-called "universal" theory of gravitation is totally erroneous and fell flat on it's face the moment Joe Walker experienced weightlessness in so-called "space." That was 1963, so universal gravitation was empirically falsified before man went anywhere near the moon.
OiM
Zero gravity? Hmmm, you are right - an astronaut in space is in a zero G environment - so why is he not attracted to the earth?
More things to ponder about but my colleague Wal Thornhill can deal with it. I have too much on my plate and Demolishing Charles Lyell's legacy is uppermost at present.
Glad you liked the 3-body problem url.
Post a Comment