Previous in Forum: New Environmental Engines...for Aircraft!   Next in Forum: US escapes Spring tornado fatalities
Close
Close
Close
2 comments
Rate Comments: Nested
Anonymous Poster

Modern Old Physics

07/06/2005 9:06 AM

Anonymous Coward writes:
Serious Proposition of (New) Physics Studies
--------------------------------------------

Yesterday
=========

* - First, some French scientist said, with true reason, that nature does not like a vacuum;
* - Second, space was, and still is, assumed to be empty;
* - And, maybe Sir Isaac Newton asked himself: since nature does not like vacuum, and, since space is empty, why does not the Earth, logically, explode?

The Laws Of Universal Attraction, and, following, those of Electricity And Magnetism, were established;
the summum were Maxwell's Four (4) Equations.

Today
=====

* - What if we assume that space cannot be Empty; and that it does contain both visible corpuses and invisible (even to high resolution telescopes) dense particles?
Can someone build a fantastic new theory Of Assembled Mechanics, Electricity And Magnetism, based on this? (just like I did) or more?

Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#1

Not Very Convincing

07/06/2005 9:43 AM

Yesterday: I think you left out the thousands of years of celestial observations that created a mass of data that allowed several scientists to develop theories of orbital motion, which inevitably led to a brilliant man realizing it could be explained by a force called gravity. The French man's comment may have been a catalyst, but it wasn't the cause. Today: So what observations have led you to believe that space is filled with particles? Isn't it premature, and a bit self-indulgent to name a theory "fantastic" till it's been thoroughly through the rigors of peer review? You don't even offer a link to examine your "theory".

Reply
Power-User
United States - Member - New Member Fans of Old Computers - PDP 11 - New Member Hobbies - HAM Radio - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 381
Good Answers: 8
#2

Theory is a much misused word

07/06/2005 10:43 AM

The proper term for what you are proposing is a "hypothesis." That is, a proposed explanation for observed natural phenomenon. In order to recieve any consideration by the scientific community, your hypothesis must explain some aspect of the natural phenomenon that is not already adequately explained by existing theories.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has survived many validation tests by independent researchers.

So, in short, tell the world what is new about your hypothesis. Share your results. Let others independently verify them. Then you'll have a theory.

Reply
Reply to Forum Thread 2 comments

Previous in Forum: New Environmental Engines...for Aircraft!   Next in Forum: US escapes Spring tornado fatalities

Advertisement