Science. It’s the basis of Scienceray, it gives us understanding, it powers our cars, lights, and of course, our computers. We have reached a day and age where there is little with no science behind it. For the most part it works, but there are all sorts of unexpected twists when figuring these things out, unprecedented flaws in the system and inabilities to explain things that trace all the way down to the base.

Image via Wikipedia

Arguably the man who invented physics, Sir Isaac Newton “discovered” gravity, invented calculus, and wrote three laws regarding motion that most people use for all physics experiments. The first- objects stay put and keep moving, common sense. But then there are the next two laws:

Newton’s second Law of Motion

It states that a force is needed to produce a change in velocity. Again, that seems all fine and well, but when you put an object on a table, it stops. Supporters of the law (a.k.a. nearly everyone, as I said) claim that the table is exerting a force on the object. Since a force is defined as a push or a pull, this presents a bit of a problem: what is the source of this supposed push or pull? This was addressed in an even more nonsensical law:

Newton’s Third Law of Motion

I’m sure you’ve heard the whole “Oh my gosh the floor is pushing me” argument. It does sound sort of silly. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Hence the floor may be pushing on them, but they don’t go anywhere. When they lean on the wall they don’t go anywhere. When they wave their arm it doesn’t go anywhere. Heck, the chemicals in your arm muscles can’t react and propel your arm to begin with.

That doesn’t stop good scientists from going with it though. They supposedly have evidence that atoms in separate surfaces move toward each other just instants before they touch. Before they touch. Meaning that at the time, there hasn’t been a collision, so there shouldn’t be a reaction of any sort. It’s the gravity/polar attraction of the atoms pulling, not pushing, at the other surface. So it supports my case.

Also, the kick of a gun is due to the explosion, not the bullet, as it pushes outward in all directions. Because there is nothing in front of it, the net force comes only from the explosion’s backward push. In terms of air weapons and balloons the very pressure of the air is like an ongoing explosion, so when you allow a single point of escape it ends up pushing the other way.

The polar attraction between atoms and the orbiting of electrons with gravity of their own causes objects to keep their shape. When you put an object down on another object the force of placing the object and of Earth’s gravity are applied to the second object. The atoms are pushed down and then pulled back into place by surrounding atoms, and thus the downward force is converted into an oscillating force, a.k.a. thermal energy. Therefore there is a force acting against downward motion, and the Second Law is safe, yet harder to explain.

Ultimately this doesn’t matter though, because either way you wind up with the same results, and the same thing is happening.

Newton thought of one more thing, gravity. Gravity obviously exists but here’s what I have to say on the matter:

Image via Wikipedia

Gravity

My previous thoughts on the subject of gravity were pretty much silly speculation. Now my opinion on the subject can almost be summed up in  “Gravity, the flawed current theory” by Harry Richardson, who left a comment on this article. If gravity works this way, it would explain the gravitational delay described by Albert Einstein, and would also make a nice “unifying theory”if applied correctly, which Einstein wasn’t able to do.

In a previous version of this article, I mentioned a theory of my own, that gravity might eventually amount to a reverse effect on a particle if it travelled too far from other matter, causing a buildup of dark matter while preventing the universe from spreading out as an impossibly vast cloud of photons. This theory supports that possibility, as it would mean that very deep space would have as much push as a black hole’s “pull”.

Now here’s something you thought was going to stay in Star Trek:

Antimatter

Believe it or not, we have antimatter in real life. How much sense does that make? I’ll tell you. All we have is matter and space- according to the particle/wave theory of light (or my twist on it) radiation is waves of tiny particles and thus everything that exists must have some mass and therefore be matter. So how on earth are you supposed to get anti-matter?

Well it turns out that the really high-class scientists don’t define matter as anything that has mass. Because that somehow makes sense. No, they define it as anything that has atom(s). So antimatter is matter in layman’s terms. It has mass. The scientists essentially took the oh so very tiny particles that make up the particles that make up atoms and rearranged them (by knocking them into each other) so that when they touch regular atoms they both fall apart, much like a positron and an electron colliding. That is, exactly like it, because antimatter has positrons orbiting it and a negatively charged nucleus (although nobody seems to want to say so).

So why is antimatter so popular in sci-fi? Antimatter reactions are more than 10 times as powerful as fusion reactions. In a fusion reaction a bunch of those little sub-sub atomic particles I mentioned are knocked off the resulting atom, shooting in all directions, which from our perspective is radiation. In an antimatter/matter reaction both the anti-atom and the atom come much closer to completely falling apart, so there is a lot more radiation produced.

Good thing this stuff doesn’t blow up much… Or does it? Antimatter is hard to store because you can’t use normal matter. They have to use grid-draining electromagnets. And because it’s so hard to create, one atom at a time, the world’s leading producer, CERN, has about 100 atoms of it. Enough to “light a lightbulb”. They sometimes do blow the atoms up to observe the effects.

For more information on antimatter, see this page, created by CERN.

Dark Matter

Image via Wikipedia

Dark matter’s name means that they don’t know what it is. Astronomers don’t even see it, they just know it’s there because they notice “gravitational lensing”, meaning gravity is redirecting the light like a lens. The point aside of what they’re comparing it to in order to see that effect, their idea is to make detectors of Germanium at near-absolute zero. They think the dark matter will hit the Germanium, it will vibrate, and then they will somehow figure out what caused it.

Whoa, go back a little. There’s gravity in space and you’re trying to detect it with confined crystals? No way. This is a problem for either space probes or good old logic. As I mentioned in the antimatter section, radiation is made up of waves of particles. Stars radiate a LOT. Now if the light that is being lensed is travelling so far it takes years to reach us, who is to say it won’t get near any other light? Even photons should exert some gravity. The possibility of interstellar hydrogen atoms just floating around and pulling on photons that get too close has apparently been taken into account.

In my section on gravity I brought up my theory that photons cannot escape a radius around other matter. Since photons must be able to exert gravity, billions of years of photons must be pulling on the photons we see, causing lensing.

But that brings me back to the question of how we, with our fixed viewpoint, can see gravitational lensing in any circumstance other than a solar eclipse.

Cosmic Background Radiation

Image via Wikipedia

When your radio is between channels you hear static. Scientists say this is the “smoking gun” from the Big Bang.  Any radiation given off at that time would have travelled at the speed of light. The Earth cannot possibly move as fast. So it would be impossible for such a smoking gun to still be smoking.

I personally think this is dark mater hitting us.

Special Relativity

Einstein’s famous theory, that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This came about when the speed of light was measured at multiple points on Earth, and it was the same in each location (this was known as the Michelson-Morley experiment). The idea was that there was a “luminiferous aether” or fabric of the universe, which the Earth was moving across, and light would drag against it, so that the Earth’s movement would disrupt the light’s velocity. If there is no such aether, why would it be different? The photons in each instance are inheriting momentum from the Earth, hence they go at the speed of light (the energy of whatever reactions create light)+Earth’s velocity. Like if you were to fire a bullet while riding a train, it won’t travel the same as if you had been standing on the ground. So that was not, in fact, grounds for creating Special Relativity.

Just a few things that have been pointed to as evidence of this, as with Newton’s Third Law: Clocks being out of sync. Well nobody can (or would bother to) manufacture all their clocks atomically the same. If they did it wouldn’t even stay that way. Relativity of simultaneity can’t be proven either, because ultimately we only have our perception to rely on, so if they happen simultaneously we may be alerted to this out of order, So experiments on the matter mean nothing.

In the Train-and-Platform thought experiment a flash of light appears at the exact moment a train passes a person at the platform. For light to travel at its specific speed from all viewpoints, for a person on the train it would have to hit both sides of the train car at once, but for the person on the platform it would have to hit the back first (as the train is moving). That means that the photons are in two places at once, travelling at two speeds at once. We all know that’s a complete and total violation of… caveman physics. Given the time and reason I could probably figure out how this violates of almost any given scientific law.

Think that’s wrong? Well you and I both know that you can’t prove otherwise. Just try. I’m serious.

Massless Photons

I just saw this while researching this article. Now, assuming that a photon had literally no mass, does that rule out gravity’s effect on it? No, they fall into black holes. So gravity does affect them despite their lack of mass. Kinetic energy is equal to one-half mass times velocity squared, giving this photon absolutely NO kinetic energy. So kinetic energy due to gravity would be infinite on any massless photon, meaning there wouldn’t be any light reflecting off of things and hitting our eyes so we could see.

Superfluidity

Image via Wikipedia

Quantum physics includes a number of anomalies, supposedly objects smaller than a certain size behave differently. Superfluidity is part of quantum hydrodynamics stating that at a specific temperature, liquid forms of isotopes like Helium-3 and -4 will “overcome friction” and their viscosity “becomes zero”. However, if its viscosity became zero it would be a gas by definition, it wouldn’t have reason to stick to the walls of the container or itself (as it does above).

If you want to clean a fish tank without removing the fish, you may use a siphon tube. Once the tube is full of water, you hold one end lower than the tank with your finger over it, and dig the other end into the gravel. When you move your finger the water in the lower end will fall, and its self-attraction will pull the rest of the water after it, or else a vacuum would be created. If gravity ends up having more effect on the other end of the tube, the water would flow back in.

Since the only thing that has to be colder before liquefying than Helium is Hydrogen, it seems safe to assume that when superfluidity occurs it is in a vacuum. It also seems likely that an atomically thin layer of Helium could have been spread over the involved surfaces due to disturbances in it, thus creating the conditions of the siphon (compare the two images above). Hence superfluid is not a state of matter. I doubt there is much merit to much of the rest of quantum physics, either.

Do not claim this work as your own. Furthermore, I want to point out that I am ignoring rude comments that simply say I’m dumb without saying why. By all means, if you can find a mistake please point it out, but otherwise it doesn’t help. I have also revised this article more than once, so please take this into account.