Seven things that don't make sense about gravity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

SEVEN MYSTERIES OF GRAVITY
It's the force we all know about and think we understand. It keeps our feet firmly on the ground and our world circling the sun.

Yet look a little closer, and the certainties start to float away, revealing gravity as the most puzzling and least understood of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Michael Brooks investigates its mysterious ways

(Balance of article at URL above.)

[Animavore]

Well have you ever thought to actually listen?

[RPizzle]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong" (the true 'wrong' was a minor phylogeny error made by Darwin). This is not proper science journalism, as this technique is used more often in tabloids. Also, I have a hard time reading for fact something that is aimed at both lay people and scientists. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. However, the journal does make a claim, so it would be an ad hominem argument to throw out the point made due to the journal's lack of rigor.

The article here asks seven questions without providing any concrete evidence, citations, or information. The entire article is..."This stuff doesn't make sense." I don't understand how an argument can be put forth without any sort of elucidation on the topic. I'm sure these questions have been addressed by physicists, at least to some degree. Why would the current theory/hypothesis on these topics not be mentioned?

I am not a physicist, so I lack a necessary understanding to make a claim for or against this topic. Making things more understandable in science is a virtue which needs to be promoted in educating people. Making an article that attempts to 'dumb down' science to an overly simplistic level, in effect, destroying or warping the scientific methodology (evidence/scrutiny) is almost Woo-ish. The title itself seems to assert that these questions do not have an answer, this is bad science through and through.

Everything listed in the article could very well be true, but that's the rub. Everything mentioned is blind assertion.


Edit: On a bit of further digging, I'm unable to come up with the university in which the author Michael Brooks received his Ph.D in Quantum Physics. I'm sorry if I'm overly skeptical, but you'd think one would mention the university on their own website. Also, I can't seem to resolve a date on his obtaining the degree, a dissertation, or even an article in his subject field in a peer-reviewed journal. My intuition is saying this is bunk.

Other articles from the same author:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... -mysteries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-collider
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... sense.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

[charlou]

An excellent post, RPizzle.

I hope you stick around and keep us on our toes.

[RPizzle]

Thanks for the compliment. I do love science, though it tends to be slow work, even with researching a simple article such as this. I'd imagine my science essays will be more like sprinkles on my ice cream cone of 12 year old banal humor. Cheers!

[Hermit]

I'm unable to come up with the university in which the author Michael Brooks received his Ph.D in Quantum Physics. I'm sorry if I'm overly skeptical, but you'd think one would mention the university on their own website.

I have to join you there. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a program named The Science Show. It's weekly editions have been broadcast for about 30 years now, and its host since inception, Robyn Williams, always gives a quick background, qualifications, place of work, field of expertise, etc, of the people appearing in the show. On 30 May 2009 Michael Brooks featured in one segment. Nowhere was it even hinted at that Brooks has a doctorate. His current professional activity is given as "Feature writer New Scientist". His web site is listed, as well as the two books he has published, and that is all.

[Pappa]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong"

They don't actually claim Darwin was wrong... they just suggest they do on the front cover, the article says otherwise. It's something we expect nowadays, and it's how they sell to the 'floating voters'. It doesn't really bother me.

[RPizzle]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong"

They don't actually claim Darwin was wrong... they just suggest they do on the front cover, the article says otherwise. It's something we expect nowadays, and it's how they sell to the 'floating voters'. It doesn't really bother me.

I probably should have clarified that it was a title alone. Though I did mention that the error was simply a minor phylogeny mistake in Darwin's work.

However, I must disagree with you vehemently on the basis of using sensationalism to sell science. I will use the counter argument that the sensationalizing of the link between childhood Autism and vaccines, reinforced by the media and celebrities who are not qualified to make those claims, will cause untold numbers of deaths. The main issue is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is near impossible to put it back in. The causal link between vaccines and Autism have been debunked for sometime now, however, the majority of the public still believes there is a link. There is now a Non-vacc. crusade in parenting. I fear that within the next twenty years, we will have a resurgence of childhood diseases predicated on science being used to sell papers. It is both irresponsible and deadly.

[AshtonBlack]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong"

They don't actually claim Darwin was wrong... they just suggest they do on the front cover, the article says otherwise. It's something we expect nowadays, and it's how they sell to the 'floating voters'. It doesn't really bother me.

I probably should have clarified that it was a title alone. Though I did mention that the error was simply a minor phylogeny mistake in Darwin's work.

However, I must disagree with you vehemently on the basis of using sensationalism to sell science. I will use the counter argument that the sensationalizing of the link between childhood Autism and vaccines, reinforced by the media and celebrities who are not qualified to make those claims, will cause untold numbers of deaths. The main issue is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is near impossible to put it back in. The causal link between vaccines and Autism have been debunked for sometime now, however, the majority of the public still believes there is a link. There is now a Non-vacc. crusade in parenting. I fear that within the next twenty years, we will have a resurgence of childhood diseases predicated on science being used to sell papers. It is both irresponsible and deadly.

Less than 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm

[RPizzle]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong"

They don't actually claim Darwin was wrong... they just suggest they do on the front cover, the article says otherwise. It's something we expect nowadays, and it's how they sell to the 'floating voters'. It doesn't really bother me.

I probably should have clarified that it was a title alone. Though I did mention that the error was simply a minor phylogeny mistake in Darwin's work.

However, I must disagree with you vehemently on the basis of using sensationalism to sell science. I will use the counter argument that the sensationalizing of the link between childhood Autism and vaccines, reinforced by the media and celebrities who are not qualified to make those claims, will cause untold numbers of deaths. The main issue is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is near impossible to put it back in. The causal link between vaccines and Autism have been debunked for sometime now, however, the majority of the public still believes there is a link. There is now a Non-vacc. crusade in parenting. I fear that within the next twenty years, we will have a resurgence of childhood diseases predicated on science being used to sell papers. It is both irresponsible and deadly.

Less than 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm

Hopefully this information can be used to turn the tide against the non-vaccine crowd. I'm actually somewhat glad that the rise in cases happened in such a short time based on social utility. If it did take longer then it would be much more difficult to link causally. A situation such as this is only a symptom though of the growing distrust of Western medicine. I greatly fear that some attempts at popularlizing science will make it appear, on the surface, as something that is indistinguishable from the woo such as Reiki healing, energy crystals, homeopathy, and the majority of chiropractic medical claims.

What do you call alternative medicine that actually works? Medicine. I love that one.

[Pappa]

I personally have never held a particularly high opinion of New Scientist. It has made several controversial claims in the past such as "Darwin was wrong"

They don't actually claim Darwin was wrong... they just suggest they do on the front cover, the article says otherwise. It's something we expect nowadays, and it's how they sell to the 'floating voters'. It doesn't really bother me.

I probably should have clarified that it was a title alone. Though I did mention that the error was simply a minor phylogeny mistake in Darwin's work.

However, I must disagree with you vehemently on the basis of using sensationalism to sell science. I will use the counter argument that the sensationalizing of the link between childhood Autism and vaccines, reinforced by the media and celebrities who are not qualified to make those claims, will cause untold numbers of deaths. The main issue is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is near impossible to put it back in. The causal link between vaccines and Autism have been debunked for sometime now, however, the majority of the public still believes there is a link. There is now a Non-vacc. crusade in parenting. I fear that within the next twenty years, we will have a resurgence of childhood diseases predicated on science being used to sell papers. It is both irresponsible and deadly.

That wasn't caused my irresponsible headline writing though, but irresponsible reporting by journalists who had no understanding of science and editors who wanted to sell newspapers at any and all costs. The New Scientist manipulates it's cover titles knowingly, it's almost a joke, as you just know the article inside will actually say the opposite. Only very very rarely have they actually peddled bad science, and never for the intention of just selling issues.

[Hermit]

The New Scientist manipulates it's cover titles knowingly

Bullshit. The New Scientist was fair dinkum when it created the headline about the list of seven things that don't make sense about gravity. It also neatly underpins my conviction that there is no such thing as gravity; The earth sucks.

[Pappa]

The New Scientist manipulates it's cover titles knowingly

Bullshit. The New Scientist was fair dinkum when it created the headline about the list of seven things that don't make sense about gravity. It also neatly underpins my conviction that there is no such thing as gravity; The earth sucks.

It's actually because the earth is gay... or a bender.