Zero-gravity surgery 'a success'

[muriel_volestrangler]

A team of French doctors say they have carried out a successful operation on a human under "weightless" conditions in an adapted aircraft.

The trial is being seen as a first step to performing surgery in space.

The doctors removed a benign tumour from the arm of a volunteer as their plane made a series of swoops to mimic a reduced-gravity environment.
...
The operation took no more than 11 minutes, with 31 zero gravity sequences lasting 22 seconds each.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5383764.stm

[mike_c]

1. oh man, that must have been pretty hair-raising....

Those short free-fall sequences are pretty hard on the inner ear and sense of equilibrium. They don't call NASA's version the "vomit comet" for nothing....

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I have come to believe that there is no such thing as

gravity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. What, as in

"the surgeons performed the operation while wearing red noses, rotating bow ties, and cracking a constant stream of poor-taste jokes"?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. No, as in there is no such thing as gravity. You'd have to

read the book.... but here is an excerpt.

www.thefinaltheory.com
Q: What is gravity?

A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories.
Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force
between all objects because that's the way things appear --
objects fall to the Earth or approach each other when floating
in outer space. So Newton understandably claimed that it
must be some type of attracting force emanating from objects,
but he gave no scientific explanation for this force. Why does
it attract and not repel? How does it cause falling objects and
orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source?

Einstein was so dissatisfied with our lack of understanding
about gravity even two centuries after Newton that he invented
an entirely new theory of gravity as a warping of "four-
dimensional space-time" known as General Relativity Theory.
But this theory is even more mysterious and unexplained, and
also suffers from the same problems as Newton's gravitational
force theory. What is "four-dimensional space-time" and why
would the mere presence of matter warp it? Can this explain
the weight of objects in our hands or the energy expended by
gravity as it drives the dynamics of the universe? Where is the
apparently unlimited power source for it all?

And, despite both Newton's and Einstein's attempts to explain
gravity, we are still mystified by it today. Scientists are
searching for "graviton particles" within the atom or "gravity
waves" rippling through deep space, hoping for some sort of
physical verification for one gravitational theory or another.
Meanwhile, they are inventing even further theories of gravity,
such as Quantum Gravity and String Theory. Gravity is a
complete mystery in our science even today, which our
scientists openly admit, as in this excerpt from a recent
Discover Magazine article (Oct, 2003):

For Michael Martin Nieto, a theoretical physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the mystery
involves much more than a few hunks of spacefaring
hardware; it reveals that there might be something wrong
with our understanding of gravity, the most pervasive
force in the universe. "We don't know anything," he says.
"Everything about gravity is mysterious."

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Popular joke in the 1960s

"There is no gravity. The earth sucks."

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Oh dear, this review doesn't sound promising.

Very interesting geometric theory of gravity presented here, where mass does still play a role but the specific amount of it is a somewhat secondary issue. This simple idea actually turns out to be quite powerful, turning many of our assumptions on their heads. I have long been intrigued by the concept of a space elevator to lift objects into orbit, and although lots of ideas on achieving this have been presented over the decades, this new theory shows that all of them would very likely be doomed to failure without this new understanding. Our purely mass-based 'gravitational force' concept of gravity will almost certainly fail us on projects of this nature. Without a singular, solid understanding and consensus among scientists of what gravity truly is and how it functions, which doesn't exist today, any groundbreaking new projects of a nature that has never been attempted before are potentially in great peril. There is even a discussion about how, according to this new theory, the overall size of our moon's orbit about the Earth is the main factor determining our planet's orbital distance from the Sun (contrary to what our purely mass-based gravitational theories say today) which may explain a whole range of things, such as the Earth's climate changes over millions of years as the moon slowly settled at its current distance from us.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1581126018

Since NASA, the Soviet Union, ESA and everyone uses the 'standard' theory of gravity to determine the paths of spacecraft, and they work, such a huge claim requires massive evidence, and review by scientists. Unfortunately, all the reviews I've seen just seem to say the book is pure conjecture, without any actual reference to real measurements, unlike, say, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which explained the anomalous precession of Mercury, and predicted the bending of starlight around the Sun, which was then experimentally confirmed). Are there any reviews of McCutcheon's ideas by scientists who do understand Einstein's theory? It's all very well non-scientists saying "thank goodness we don't have to do all that complicated mathematics to understand this", but scientists do know what the observations and Einstein's maths say, and they agree.

If the size of the Moon's orbit determines the Earth's orbit around the Sun, what determines Venus' orbit?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Speed and it's increasing size... I as a non scientist would

guess.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Well, I've read an email exchange the author had with a reader

http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html

and have come to the conclusion McClutcheon doesn't know what he's talking about. He's not sure the inverse square law has been show to be valid? For God's sake, Newton proposed it precisely because the motion of the planets, as shown by Kepler before Newton, needs an inverse square law for them all to arise from the same force. The inverse square law is also integral to designing the orbits of all those satellites that are successfully remaining in orbit, or to getting a spacecraft to the Moon and back.

The simple truth is that mass does affect the paths that things travel in. The Earth is in orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system, which is inside the Sun, not around, say, Mars. McClutcheon's purely geometrical based theory just doesn't describe reality successfully. You can use Newton's theory, which works fine at low speeds (Mercury's speed is high enough for the discrepancy from Newtonian theory to have been noticed), or you can use Einstein's theory, which says space is curved, by mass. At best, McClutcheon's theory is Einstein's theory of curved space, but without, it seems, any numbers, which makes it useless as a theory - it can never be tested, falsified, or used to make predictions.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. I like the idea of expanding atoms, expanding along with the

expanding universe. I'm going to believe it for awhile cuz it makes more sense than some of the piffle that passes for science in certain areas. I'll stop believing it when the universe begins to collapse again.

[jayctravis]

5. I've always wondered....

since the universe is theoretically expanding...if "gravity" is larger masses expanding at a greater rate than smaller masses and thereby the masses push together.

Uch! Surgery in a camelbacking plane. I can't help picturing when they tried to give Steve-O on Jackass a tattoo in a dune buggy going over rocks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Imagine a universe in which every single atom is expanding

at one millionth its size every second.... then consider how much the diameter of the earth would be expanding, how it would be pushing upwards enough to provide what appears to be "gravity".

[Random_Australian]

13. Uh, what about that whole 'masses orbit due to the acceleration of

gravity' thing?

And sure, if everything were expanding, it would look like things were falling, but how on earth would things form into spheres in the first place? Currently, they do that because it is a low-energy configuration due to the force of gravity.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. I'm gonna have to do some thinkin on "how on earth would

things form into spheres in the first place?" issue. I'm thinking molds, but that's obviously a cheap pun. I may ask the author what his thoughts are at the forum that links from his site. Believe me, he gets his share of buckshot from people who should know better.

[Random_Australian]

15. Actually, now I think about it.... what about geostationary satellites?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. There is nothing stationary in this universe, everything is

relative to everything else.... but yes, I do see what you are saying there. He does address this in the book, but I'll have to read it again to get the gist of it.

[Random_Australian]

18. Of course geo-stationary satellites are not stationary.

But they DO stay above the same spot on earth, and they DO stay the same distance. It requires the FORCE of gravity to apply a centrifugal force.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. I have now come to the conclusion that gravity does not exist.

I have finished this book.... and I am apalled at the gymnastics "science" goes through in order to explain that which they fail to truly understand.

[Random_Australian]

21. Riiiiiiiight.

Except we never went through any 'gymnastics'.

The author did not even know what work was.

But my question still stands - how can a satellite stay above the one spot on earth in that model?

C'mon, how?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. I have returned the book to its rightful owner, but will attempt

to retrieve it again in order to take an excerpt to satisfy your curiosity. I was covered btw... in a most interesting and unusual way. Work sucks btw.... whereas gravity just keeps you down most of the time. :)

[Random_Australian]

23. Work sucks does it? Funny that several laws of physics are written in

terms of work.

Work for pay may suck, but work in terms of force-distance is something that the author in question got plain wrong in the "can't move the boulder" example.

That aside:

Plainly put, sattelites must accelerate toward the center of the circle they orbit with a magnitude of a = v^2/r , that is, they must experience a force to go in a circle.

No force, no circle. After all - when you swing a wieght on a piece of string, it goes in a circle when you apply a force (hold the string tight), but let it go and see how much of a circle it goes in.

But by all means, try to explain this behaviour without a force.

And gravity keeps your feet on the ground, in the real world where they belong!

:)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. Some work sucks....... I have worked such jobs, but the idea of a

universe that is expanding as well as all the matter in it is not too far fetched for me. I will try to get the book today and address your concerns. :)


P.S. His explanation of magnetism and electricity would simply shock you.

[Random_Australian]

25. Puh! I doubt that.

Here is where he falls down - the usual explanation actually predicts the expected values of things like orbital energies.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this did not appear to be something the author could repeat.

Remember, before they were known they were predicted by the current theories and laws. And prediction is the best test.

And if you think that explanation of electricity and magnetism is shocking, you should see the photosynthetic magnetic flying invisible badgers explanation of how the world is flat.

It makes sense. All the data supports it. It's a great excercise in working out what evidence means.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. He simply eats Newton for lunch. Eintstein gets his share of

whipping as well... not to mention all the bright men looking for the "dark matter" that supposedly is causing this and that in the universe. Interesting take on the Pioneer anomaly he has... and it makes sense, most all of what he states makes perfect sense.

[Random_Australian]

27. HA! AHAHA! Oh yeah? I took a look at what 'eating Newton for lunch'

entailed and I found this particular gem:

"Yet, as we all know, it certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't
move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't moving. But in today's science, since the Work Function states that work = force x distance, no movement means zero distance and therefore zero work, apparently resolving the issue"

(From http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html )

Ahaha! Watch this for another stunning example - a buider carries bricks up a building. Afterwards he is tired and sore, as common sense dictates.

HOWEVER, the quiche on the table did not move. According to the 'scientists', work equals force times distance, and since it moved no distance, no work was done!

So, 4MoronicYears, please tell me how the builder got tired and yet no work was done?

(The answer is, of course, that while no work was done on the quiche, a lot of work was done on the muscles of the builder, on the bricks, and various other things. Some of the energy was expended in heat, some in noise, et cetera... similaraly, while no work is done on the boulder, a lot of work is done on your muscles when you try to move it)

Which of course means that that author's argument is completely fallacious.

But please, if you want to try and back up your claim that Newton gets et for lunch, by all means try to post something that indicates Newton is anything other than extremely excellent.

By all means, try.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. Newton described the world as he saw it.... nothing more...

and the way he saw it is woefully lacking. I have read the entire book, I understand exactly what they author is getting at. What you point out is imho shortsighted of the author, and you are correct to take him to task on this ONE issue. I don't recommend you try to read the entire book, you won't like being shaken from your comfort zone, no one does.

[Random_Australian]

29. Oh really? I went and looked at his other claims of science flaws,

and each one of them was as completely incorrect as the one above. You can look for yourself, and my challenge stands - post one flaw in science. Just one. Go on, I dare you.

And what on earth made you think "Newton described the world as he saw it" - because, fundamentally, he didn't just look around and make stuff up.

That book? Shake me from my 'comfort zone'? I doubt it, I don't have one. That is what science is all about - we don't need to cling to anything we've said. Anything can be wrong, and frankly, given we are after the truth above all else, we plain don't care if we are wrong.

So, are you going to post something that is wrong in science that the author pointed out? Just one thing, c'mon, do tell.

Because really, when I look at the first chapter of a book, and a list of the 'flaws in science' that are completely fallacious, then what reason do I have to believe the rest of the book is any different?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. If you understand the author, can you explain his theory of work?

After explaining the work function as W = F * d * cos(theta), he complains

This is how the Work Function is taught today, which now sets
the stage to explain why the previously mentioned violations of the laws
of physics by Newton’s gravitational force cause no particular concern
for most scientists. First, the issue of objects being held to the planet’s
surface by a force that has no known power source is easily dismissed by
noting that an object held down by the gravitational force does not move.
If the object doesn’t move, there is no work done according to the Work
Function, and therefore no energy is expended and no energy source is
required to explain how things are forcefully held down by gravity. The
serious law violation that results from gravity forcefully holding objects
to the planet’s surface with no known power source suddenly vanishes.
This is the same flawed logic used earlier, which left our worker
exhausted after trying unsuccessfully to move a heavy object despite
having apparently expended no energy. Yet, of course, both the worker
and gravity must expend energy in these examples.

He says a worker expends energy trying to unsuccessfully move a heavy object. But if the worker was replaced by a spring, pushing on the object, the force would still be there, and if the object didn't move, the effect would be exactly the same, and the spring could exert the force indefinitely, but it is not expending any energy. The worker expends energy only because the muscles need energy to drive the chemical reactions that keep muscles contracted. Stand with your knees locked, and it requires very little effort, because your posture takes nearly all your weight without muscles having to contract. Squat with your knees bent, and it's more tiring, because the muscles have to hold you like that. In both cases, the same weight is supported, and it doesn't move. You could also support the same weight with a table, and the table doesn't do any work, either.

I wonder if his whole problem with Newton stems from this - he's confusing what a human body does, in certain situations, with some fundamental truth about mechanics. If so, his junior high school science teachers didn't do a very good job. The definition of mechanical work as W = F * d * cos(theta) is so fundamental to mechanics that no engineer or physicist could do anything without it. It's not a 'fudge'.

McClutcheon also seems unaware that his "Geometric Orbit Equation" is a restating of Kepler's Third Law. What's more, the inverse square law is very easily derived from it:

v^2 * R = k (now divide both sides by R)

v^2 = k / R (now subtract k/R from both sides)

v^2 - k / R = 0 (now multiply both sides by m/2)

m * v^2 / 2 - m * k / ( R * 2) = 0

m * v^2 / 2 is the kinetic energy of the planet; so the other term in the above equation is the potential energy (ie the energy due to its position relative to the centre of the orbit), and it is proportional to (m / R). From the equation for the work function, the radial force on an object in an orbit is obtained by differentiating with respect to the radius:

d/DR (m * k / (R * 2)) = -(m * k / 2) / R^2

ie it's an inverse square force (and it's also proportional to the mass of the object in orbit; consideration of Newton's Third Law of equal and opposite reactions will get the more familiar -GMm/R^2 form of the force, where G is another constant).

See? The inverse square law follows from the "Geometric Orbit Equation" - which is actually a restatement of Kepler's Third Law (I can show that for you, if you want). To say the author is 'shortsighted' on the one issue or work is to ignore his objection to Newton's theory. His objection is wrong, so his criticism of Newton is wrong.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

31. I am a lay person, and I do not have an engineering degree,

but, I am a rather bright individual, and if you were to actually dig into what he is proposing, (Expansion of matter) on all levels, you would see just how easily and more rationally it "fits" the bigger picture. And yes, I do believe he is stretching things a bit on the work function, still, he is a very DEEP thinker who has reasoned this out to the nth degree, again not the work function, but the rationale for expanding matter on all levels, in all places. Consider what Einstein might have arrived at had he considered this one simple possibility. Not only is it possible that space is expanding, but every single molecule that exists in this space as well.

What I have a problem with is the absolute speed of light in a vacuum regardless of your reference point, be it stationary or moving at nearly the speed of light. Now that's something I cannot fathom at all. In other words, if you are travelling at some ridiculous speed in space, light will still pass you by as if you are standing still?? Funny that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. It may be 'funny', but it's what the experimental results show

(the absolute speed of light, that is) such as the Michelson and Morley experiment (where the high speed in space was that of the Earth). Any theory has to explain this observational fact. Newton's calculations are the correct approximations of Einstein's at low relative speeds, and any theory will have to show the same thing. McCutcheon is wrong about the basics of high school mechanics, so I have no trust he will be able to produce a revolutionary theory about the universe. He cannot be 'rational' while ignoring realities that have been tested literally millions of times (probably billions, in fact).

[HysteryDiagnosis]

36. I didn't want to believe in some such theory... but I am

hooked... it explains way too many anomalies in our present models of what's up out there. Sorry I can't let it go, I wish you had read the meat of it, his understanding of many other facets of science are respectable enough.

[Random_Australian]

38. What anomalies in our present models?

Post an anomaly! Go on, I dare you!

You've posted that this author 'ate Newton for lunch' - and you keep claiming that it fits everything all wonderfully.

But you've not posted a single one of these 'flaws' that the author resolved. Not one.

Post one. Just one.

[Random_Australian]

37. Huh?

1) You don't need an engineering degree to understand that.

Write it out on paper, the computer notation would have been the confusing thing.

2) Expansion of matter on all levels, huh? You do realise, don't you, that this has been proposed and dismissed many times before?

3) "Now that's something I cannot fathom at all. In other words, if you are travelling at some ridiculous speed in space, light will still pass you by as if you are standing still?? Funny that"

Not funny at all - I think the words you meant where "completely experimentally verifiable and observed"

And you've still not posted even one flaw in scienctific thinking. Not one.

[PansophicOne]

7. It's 'cause the Earth is flat...

If that doesn't make sense to you, then too bad. Just accept it as fact and move along.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. The tumor weighed exactly.........

nothing. Interesting, then it should not have been all that dangerous... or at least it would seem.

[Random_Australian]

19. What on earth would weight have to do with it?

Mass is far more important.

[conscious evolution]

33. Zero-gravity surgery 'a success'

even though the patient died.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Huh? (n/t)

[conscious evolution]

35. old joke