[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[cj at mb-soft.com]

I have no problem with references to "I think" and "assume" and such things.  Fine, science is supposed to do that.  However, actual scientific value is only based on "solid logic" and "experimental evidence".  I think that several of you are frustrated that modern Physics seems to overlook logic and experimental evidence.  

Immediately after saying "I think" then it is very important to follow up by explaining WHY the thought is considered logical.  Without that, aome of you seem to believe in "anti-gravity" and many other jdeas which are just speculations.  Sure, fifity years ago, I was intrigued by the possibility of "anti-gravity" and "time travel", but after months of trying to find scientific basis for such things, I eventually concluded that there is no actual evicence or logic for such thing.  Does that mean that somebody smarter than us might figure out better logic and provide possible evidence for such things?  Sure.  It does not seem that we are there yet.  At least, not me.

A common problem isi that "incomplete logic" is often considered, where poor conclusions then occur.  You guys interest in gravitation inspired me to realize that Newton's VECTOR gravitation formula for us on Earth is not as "constant" as we might expect itt to me.  Every day, when the Moon is rising, there is a pretty significant gravitational vector force due to the Moon that is horizontal, where the Earth's gravitational Vector is then vertical.  Six hours later, the gravitational Vectors due to the Earth and Moon are in the same direction (but opposite) and so "your body weight" has slightly changed.  Then at Moonset, and then when the Moon is at the Nadir, more changes in the actual Newtowian gravitational (Vector) force, so the accurate values of that are constantly changing.  Fairly simple Integral Calculus math.  Yeah, the effects are minimal, but certainly not zero.  I point this out as showing the importsance of being really thorough in your math, and in always explaining WHY your conclusions may have validity.  To just say "I think" does not cut it in true science.

Carl Johnson


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20171010/569ebe6a/attachment.html>