Obviously you didn’t study carefully enough.
Which then begs the question what keeps Alessandra Ambrosio on the planet.
“No sir, I don’t like it!”
Yes, it says “I am an idiot because I believe the Earth is hollow and there are giant holes at the North and South poles.”
I think we can pretty much dismiss cites from Keelynet and Xenophilia out of hand. Perhaps you’d like to cite Fate magazine while you’re at it?
I thpought the dope was about fighting ignorance, not producing it. I was just hoping to have a discussion about his theory not listen to a bunch of sarcasm. It just seemed interesting to me that no one has jumped out to take on his theory and prove him wrong, but I guess that they all think like you guys. So for a lack of anything better to say I guess you can all go fuck yourselves!
[Moderator Note]That type of talk is not allowed on the SDMB-watch what you are saying and where you are saying it, please.[/Moderator Note]
That being said, unless he publishes a real study in a real scientific journal, how are any real scientists going to see his work to dispute it?
That kind of talk is not much different than the snark that I have for answers including yours, and you are a mod!
And after reading some of the responses it’s not the first time I wanted to post that type of reply. It’s not like I said “Oh look at this, this has to be true and I want you guys to listen to me.” I said I thought it was interesting and that maybe someone could explain why it’s not possible. I have seen a lot worse answered with a lot more respect than this on this board. I am not an idiot and I don’t really like to be treated like one, nor am I a physicist and I thought perhaps I may get some educated input to my question. So, with that being said, I will stick t my words, but I will try to watch it from now on, but I won’t put up with this crap without saying something.
From what I can tell he does not claim to be a scientist, he was just offering a theory that no one has tried to or has been able to disprove. Newtonian physics has many flaws but we accept them and go forward. If one guy offers a theory that has some homemade, but apparently sound experiments to back it up, do you not think it is at least worth looking at? Personally I could care less, I just thought I may be enlightened by asking here on the dope, which I thought was the whole idea behind this board. I was obviously wrong and will try not to offend anyones delicate sensibilities in the future by asking what I thought was a legitimate question.
ETA: Keep in mind this stuff is over 40 years old and there was no internet to communicate with, I think it says his communications were in the form of hand written letters.
Well what is his theory? There’s nothing on any of the pages which actually explains it, so how can anyone comment on it?
All I see are meaningless sentences about Rotary clubs believing it. If there is a real theory, then write it up and summit it to a journal.
There is no theory presented. There are a series of misstatements and misapprehensions about the tenets of the existing theory of gravitation and physical observations. I see claims that he has performed experiments, but no predictions or experimental data. I see diagrams of gravitational phenomena being purportedly explained by magnetic fields or radiant energy coming from the sun, but no equations or models which describe this behavior via Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics. (If Wright is going to challenge the Maxwell formulation of electrodynamics, he has an even harder row than overturning gravitation, insofar as we’ve validated electrodynamics with the inclusion of quantum field theory to the highest degree of precision of any physical theory.) The claims presented are extraordinary, not only in general form but also in exception, e.g. why does this theory of “PUSH gravity” apply only to celestial bodies but not to you and I?
Extraordinary claims–those that contradict our general conception of the world and the self-consistent set of physical laws and principles that describe the behavior to a high degree of measured precision–require definite, specific, and unique predictions and extraordinary experimental or observational evidence to back them up. The link you provide offers only a bunch of glurgage in mid-level marketing format without a single equation or even a clearly stated hypothesis that would favor this “PUSH gravity” over the accepted theory of gravitation.
It is clearly not true that you “could care less,” but it is obvious that you have not taken the time to understand the existing theory of gravitation on even the most basic high school physics level or invested the effort to consider Wright’s theory with any degree of skepticism, i.e. does he present a coherent and well-founded challenge? The gentle mocking your posts have received is due in large measure because you haven’t provided anything more substantial to discuss. If this hypothesis actually had some degree of merit your post might have generated some discussion about the topic of gravitation. Instead, you link to a site dedicated to crackpot gravitation/free energy/anti-gravity theories and clearly expected a non-critical and thoughtful response to an ill-described and essentially baseless claim that is in contradiction to nearly everything we understand about basic physics.
Stranger
Its easy.
Gravity is caused by vectons. Seriously, I read a book on it once (well, a part of that book actually).
Back when I first saw this, about ten years ago, the site had all of the experiments on the page or at least a link to them. When I posted the OP on Friday at 2:17 PM I had tp run out the door to get my kids at school, so I was rushing, they get out at 2:20. When I did return and post at around 4:00 it was at first to address the snark, then I posted a quick link that I found which gave a basic description of what he was talking about with some info to help understand it, not much mind you but something. The weekend was very busy for me, but I did look at some of the posts and trust me if I had time I would have responded then. Last night when I had some time I searched the net for about an hour to try and find the videos of the experiments but could not find them.
How is it clear that I care? I found it interesting. I don’t spend my days thinking about it, it was a memory from a long time ago that I thought might make for an good discussion on the dope. It’s not something that can usually be discussed around bikers and musicians, because if you think my grasp of physics is bad you obviously don’t know many of these types. Personally I like to think outside the box and ponder the possibilities. This comes from most of the work I have done in the past where off the cuff thinking was an inportant aspect and what made me good at what I did.
I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics as a whole, but as you said, “theory” of gravity. It is a theory, not a law, so if there is some other possibility I think it should at least be looked at, and I sometimes enjoy entertaining some out there ideas until proven wrong. I like to think that it is much healthier than being as closed minded as you are. That was kind of the purpose of the link with the little snippets of quotes, yes some of them were from obscure sources, but they raise some valid points.
Anyway as my wife just pointed out I have wasted half an hour explaining myself for something that is really not important and I have better things to do. Once again I did not post this to troll or be mocked, I did it for discussion purposes. Since that is obviously not going to happen, I will just let it go.
I think the second sentence pretty much disproves the first, if you do not understand what “theory” means when it comes to science.
Sorry, OP, but I think that Wright’s theory is unadulterated unscientific quackery. But at least it’s in good company (dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, cosmic inflation, many-worlds, and a litany of other desperately contrived “epicycles”). But, while Standard Cosmology is in utter shambles, the difference is that it is very cogently expressed, and very mathematically rigorous, even if it is largely wrong. If you want, I’d be happy to look at specific statements of Wright’s with you, in non-angry terms, because I have absolutely no desire to mock you or Wright. (I do like to mock the standard theorists sometimes, lol, but that’s a fair fight and they are brutal suppressionists). But the glaring errors and internal contradictions are rife all over that web page and, as a Physicist, I couldn’t imagine where to begin debunking it. It would take hours and pages. The only places on the page that these rather amazing errors and oversights don’t occur is where he is so fuzzy and ambiguous in his language that there is nothing concrete or meaningful enough presented to even be considered wrong.
The theory of gravitation, as it is currently accepted, is established by a very explicit mathematical model, detailed papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, thousands of observations from those that can be performed in your backyard for a few thousand dollars worth of equipment to billion dollar space observatories, computer models making predictions that have been verified to within the bounds of experimental error, and most importantly not a single observation or experiment that clearly contradicts or casts significant doubt on the Newton’s theory of gravitation as modified by general relativity. Certainly a competing theory that can provide for all of the essential observations and predictions of general relativity and provide unique, falsifiable predictions should be considered, but the detail and explanations provided in the link do not even begin to approach the standard of challenge, much less acceptance of an alternative. Indeed, the supposed physical “models” that are presented don’t even demonstrate the phenomena in question by the website author’s own words:
We also ask you to keep in mind that Walter NEVER claimed that gravity is magnetic in nature. He finds that magnetic fields exhibit the push/pull characteristics which most closely emulate the effects of the pushing energy known as gravity…Walter has about 27 videotapes clearly illustrating Push Gravity using magnetic fields.
A very simply search and perusal of Internet sources would have provided you with a wealth of detail about historical theories invoking some kind of imbalance of a fluid medium or aether that provides a “pushing” force on objects. Here is one that goes into extensive detail about the history of the Fatio-LeSage theory of gravitation invoking the shielding of “ultramundane corpuscles” to provide a mechanism for gravity. Although the author goes into great explanation about the history of the theory and why it fails to satisfy observations, there is a very simple argument that utterly debunks such theories, to wit, that gravity acts upon all masses with equal force, regardless of density or surface area. According to any theory invoking a surface force by a medium to “push” objects together, denser objects with smaller surface areas should experience less force, and irregularly-shaped objects should experience off-center forces. We don’t see anything like this in observation.
Stranger