Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Classical mechanics

2016-09-14T16:49:25Z

Stevel: Math formatting

'''Classical mechanics''' refers to a branch of [[physics]] dealing with every-day laws of [[mechanics]] (as opposed to [[quantum mechanics]]). The term is sometimes interchangeable with "Newtonian physics", as it was [[Sir Isaac Newton]] who first proposed the first laws of motion. However, there are other formulations of classical mechanics that are not due to Newton, namely [[Lagrangian dynamics]] and [[Hamiltonian dynamics]]. Classical mechanics is sufficient for explaining most observable phenomena.

==Kinematics==
Kinematics is the subfield of mechanics that describes motion, without taking into account its cause. The relevant concepts in kinematics are position, velocity and acceleration.
The position of an object is usually described by a [[vector]], with respect to some reference point. That position is described as a vector means that we need several numbers to specify it. For example, we can say that object A is three meters to the right and four meters to the front from object B. Note that a single number is not enough to specify its position. We could say that object A is 5 meters from object B, but in this case we need to specify its direction, so, in any case, we need two numbers.
Velocity is measures how fast position changes. As such, it is the change in position with respect to time. Velocity is also a vector. Mathematically, it is the [[derivative]] of position with respect to [[time]]:
: <math>v=\frac{dx}{dt}</math>
If the velocity is constant, the distance traveled in a time t is:
:<math> x=vt</math>.
Similarly, [[acceleration]] measures how fast the velocity changes. It is then mathematically defined as the derivative of velocity with respect to time:
: <math>a=\frac{dv}{dt}</math>
If the acceleration is constant, the velocity at a time t is:
: <math>v=v_0+at</math>.
Where v0 is the velocity at time t = 0.
[[Integral|Integrating]] this equation gives the distance traveled by an object at constant acceleration:
: <math>\Delta x=v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2</math>.

Combining previous equations we can find a very useful relation between initial and final velocity and distance traveled, without making reference to time:
:<math>v_f^2-v_0^2 = 2a\Delta x</math>

==Dynamics==
Dynamics is the study of the origin, or causes, of motion. The fundamental concept of dynamics is that of [[force]]. Classical dynamics is basically formulated in terms of the three Newton’s laws of motion.
[[Issac Newton|Newton]]’s laws establish the mechanical world view that forms the basis for the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Newton’s three laws are:

'''1. An object subject to no net external force moves with constant velocity relative to an inertial reference frame.'''
An inertial reference frame is defined as one where Newton's laws are valid. Intuitively, an inertial reference frame is a frame that moves in a straight line at a constant velocity. Since the Earth is rotating, it is not a perfect reference frame; however, it is a very good approximation for everyday purposes.

'''2. In an inertial reference frame, the acceleration of an object is equal to the force applied on it, divided by the object mass.''' Mathematically:

<math>\Sigma \vec F = m \vec a</math> where

* <math>\Sigma \vec F</math> is the net [[force]] acting on the object
* <math>m</math> is the mass of the object
* <math>\vec a</math> is the acceleration of the object

This law also applies to a system of objects.

At first sight it seems that Newton’s first law is redundant, in the sense that it is a special case of the second law: If the force is zero, acceleration is zero, and hence the object moves at a constant velocity. However, the two laws are not redundant. The purpose of Newton’s first law is to define what an inertial reference frame is. Once defined, we can formulate Newton’s second law which is only valid on inertial reference frame.

Newton originally wrote this as
:<math>\Sigma \vec F = \frac{d \vec p}{dt}</math>
where <math>\vec p</math> is the [[momentum]] of the object. Momentum is defined as mass times velocity, <math> \vec p = m \vec{v}</math> This formulation is more general. It reduces to <math>\vec F = m \vec{a}</math> when the object has a constant mass.

'''3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.'''

If object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on object A. For example, if the earth pulls you down with a force of 1500 Newtons, you pull up on the earth with a force of 1500 Newtons. (Of course, since <math>\vec F = m \vec{a}</math>, and the earth's mass is much greater than yours, the earth accelerates much less than you do.)

== Angular Kinematics ==
These same basic laws are true with respect to angular motion, that is, for a particle moving in a circle. In this case, the position is described by an angle, and is measured in [[radian]]s. Its first derivative, ω (measured in radians/second), is called angular velocity; its second derivative α is called angular acceleration. The kinematic equations of rotational motion are analogous to those of linear motion:
:<math>\Delta \theta = \omega t</math>
:<math>\Delta \omega = \omega_0 + \alpha t</math>
:<math>\Delta \theta = \omega _0 t + \frac{1}{2} \alpha t^2</math>
:<math>\omega_f^2-\omega_0^2 = 2 \alpha \Delta \theta</math>

==Limitations==
Classical mechanics only breaks down in extreme conditions, such as traveling close to the [[speed of light]], being near extremely high [[gravity]], or dealing with [[subatomic particle]]s. For example, [[special relativity]] gives the correction factor at high speeds as
:γ=<math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}</math>
where v is the velocity of an object and c is the speed of light. At 1000 miles per hour, the correction is .999999999999991.

[[Category:Mechanics]]

Isaac Newton

2016-09-14T16:28:12Z

Stevel: Rephrasing to improve clarity and minor correction

[[Image:Newton.png|right|200px]]
'''Sir Isaac Newton''' (1642-1727) was an [[England|English]] [[physicist]], [[astronomer]], [[mathematician]], [[theologian]], [[alchemy|alchemist]] and government official. He is one of the most well known [[scientist]]s in world history for his [[Theory of Universal Gravitation]], his Laws of Motion, and his theories in optics, as well as invention of differential [[calculus]].<ref>Newton's discovery of calculus was independent of, and likely before, a similar discovery of calculus by the German scientist [[Gottfried Leibniz]]. (Each accused the other of plagiarism, but neither could prove it. [http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html Newton Biography]).</ref> In addition, Newton invented the reflecting [[telescope]], and made numerous other contributions to his fields of study. His [[Classical mechanics]] comprises the four main fields of modern physics (alongside the later fields of [[electricity]] and [[magnetism]], [[thermodynamics]], and quantum mechanics).

Proving the value of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], Newton attributed his insights to his efforts in translating the [[Bible]]: "Amongst the Interpreters of the last age there is scarce one of note who hath not made some discovery worth knowing; and thence seem to gather that [[God]] is about opening these mysteries."<ref>http://www.pretribulation.com/isaac-newton.htm</ref>

Newton's view of science was that far more remained undiscovered. "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/100/195.1.html Bartlett's Quotations]</ref>

Newton rejected basing scientific theories on assumptions rather than observations. "Hypotheses non fingo," Newton famously declared, which is Latin for "I feign no hypotheses."
* [Newton] "... believed that ideas in science should be tested and only accepted if their usefulness could be demonstrated." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp]
This stands in contrast with the [[Theory of Relativity]] that is contrary to Newtonian physics.

Newton emphasized that conclusions are drawn from experiments, "But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=mlLAG5EUZqQC&pg=PA428&dq=I+have+not+been+able+to+discover+the+cause+of+those+properties+of+gravity+from+phenomena,+and+I+frame+no+hypotheses;+for+whatever+is+not+deduced+from+the+phenomena+is+to+be+called+a+hypothesis,+and+hypotheses,+whether+metaphysical+or+physical,+whether+of+occult+qualities+or+mechanical,+have+no+place+in+experimental+philosophy.&hl=en&ei=h_xmTdWUE4KCsQObj82mBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>

In 1705, in recognition of Isaac Newton's role as master of the [[Mint]], [[Queen Anne]] [[knighted]] him.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727): A Scientific Genius, by Ann Lamont]</ref> It was the first knighthood to be given for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield or work in government.<ref>[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html Isaac Newton and God's Law of Gravity]</ref>

Newton is often seen as one of the most influential men in all of history and perhaps the greatest scientist ever. His work was influential in shaping the philosophical outlook of the entire [[Enlightenment]], especially after writers such as [[Voltaire]] published simplified versions comprehensible to the non-scientist.

==Life==
Newton was born on [[Christmas]] day December 25, 1642<ref>He was born a little more that a year after Galileo died. [[Italy]] and England used different calendars, however, so there is a mistake to the effect they died in the same year. Galileo died in 1641 by the English calendar.</ref> in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire; his father, also Isaac, died before his birth. The senior Isaac Newton (1606–1642) was a wealthy but illiterate farmer who left extensive lands as well as goods worth £459, including a flock of 235 sheep and a herd of 46 cattle. The annual income was about £150, and Newton drew on that income to supplement his college fellowship while at Cambridge. The Newtons were a well-to-do, upwardly mobile family of farmers, but never had a prominent member. When he was a little more than two years old, his mother Hannah (1610–1679), remarried, and his upbringing was taken over by his maternal grandmother. He began his schooling in neighboring villages, and, at ten, was sent to the grammar school at Grantham, the nearest town of any size. He boarded during terms at the house of an apothecary from whom he may have derived his lifelong interest in chemistry. The young Newton seems to have been a quiet, not particularly bookish, lad, but very ready with his hands; he made sun dials, model windmills, a water clock, a mechanical carriage, and flew kites with lanterns attached to their tails. Throughout his life he built mechanical devices and fashioned his own tools for high-precision work.

In 1656, Newton's mother, on the death of her second husband, returned to Woolsthorpe and took her son out of school with the idea of making him a farmer. He hated farming. His mother, after considerable persuasion by his teacher at Grantham, who had recognized his intellectual gifts, allowed him to prepare for entrance to [[Cambridge University]]. In June 1661, he was admitted to prestigious Trinity College as a lowly "sub-sizar" (a student required to do work-study). The main curriculum was the study of Aristotle, but early in 1664, as Newton's notebooks indicate, he began an intensive self-study of geometry, Copernican astronomy and optics. On his own he read Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Galileo, Robert Boyle, Thomas Hobbes, Kenelm Digby, Joseph Glanville, and Henry More. He was a loner with only one friend, but he was stimulated by the distinguished mathematician and theologian Isaac Barrow, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, who recognized Newton's genius and did all he could to foster it.

Newton took his bachelor's degree in January 1665 and was selected for a scholarship in 1664 and a fellowship in 1667. Upon taking his MA he became one of Trinity college's sixty fellows, with an income of £60, part of which came in the form of room and board. He had no duties at Trinity over the next 28 years; he did no teaching apart from a few lectures (to nearly empty halls) and tutoring an occasional student. At the urging of Isaac Barrow in 1669 he wrote out some of his findings, which circulated in manuscript. He invented the reflecting telescope, which caused a sensation in London in 1671 and his election to the Royal Society. Newton became Lucasian professor of mathematics in 1669 at £100 per annum. Added to his fellowship and family estate, Newton was well off. He spent most of his time with experiments in alchemy and speculations in Arian theology, which had no influence whatever at the time or later. Newton made enemies easily, with an almost paranoid style of [[disputation]]. Many scientists in the era were repeatedly charging each other with plagiarism, and sometimes hid their discoveries in code so that in future years they could decode the message and claim priority. In 1704 he published his great book on ''Opticks'', which had been mostly written three decades before.

After his death and burial, Newton was exhumed so he could be buried in a more prominent location in [[Westminster Abbey]]. During this exhumation process, it was discovered that Newton had large amounts of [[mercury (element)|mercury]] in his body, probably as a direct result of his [[alchemy|alchemical]] experiments. Exposure to large amounts of mercury may explain Newton’s eccentricity in his latter years, as well as his cause of death.<ref>[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html Newton Biography]</ref>

==National affairs==
Publication in 1687 of the ''Principia'', considered by many to be the most important scientific publication ever, made Newton one of the best known intellectual figures in Europe. At the same time Newton became a leader of the University against King [[James II]], who was promoting Catholicism there. When James was overthrown, Newton's political reputation soared. In 1694 he suffered an emotional breakdown and his intellectual productivity ended. In 1696 he left Cambridge for London, where he became Warden of the [[mint|Royal Mint]]. The appointment was intended as an honorary sinecure for England's most famous intellectual, but Newton characteristically threw himself into a successful effort to reform the nation's coinage and crack down on counterfeiters. He became Master of the Mint in 1699; in 27 years as Master he averaged an income of about £1650 a year, one of the highest salaries in London. He was president of the Royal Society from 1703 to his death, turning that honorific position into an operational one that upgraded the Society's usefulness. In 1705 he became the first scientist in European history to be knighted.

Newton never married, but he brought his niece to London as his hostess and lived in upper class style.

==Year of great discovery==
The year 1666 is known as Newton's ''annus mirabilis'' (miraculous year—more precisely the two years 1665-1666), about twenty-four years of age. He later recalled, "For in those days I was in the prime of my age for invention & minded Mathematicks & Philosophy more than at any time since." (By "philosophy" he meant physics.)

===Calculus===
Newton broke ground with his innovative work founding the field of [[calculus]]. He had been motivated by the need for alternate ways to compute [[pi]]. He isolated a formulation of pi as the area under an [[arc]] of the unit circle; thus to calculate pi he would only have to compute this area. Whereas [[Pierre de Fermat]] had already worked out how to compute the areas under [[polynomial]] curves, Newton faced a curve given by a formula involving a [[square root]]. To solve this problem, he re-expressed the square root in terms of an infinite sum of polynomials—this was the motivating idea for his generalized binomial theorem. The standard binomial theorem gave an expansion for ''(x+y)n'' for any nonnegative [[integer]] ''n''. The resulting expression involves binomial [[coefficient]]s. Newton's work extended this theorem to all [[real]] values of ''n'', by using [[convergent]] [[infinite series]] and generalized binomial coefficients. Therefore, to compute the area under the arc, he simply had to use Fermat's theorem to compute the area under each of the polynomial terms of the infinite series and then add them together (proving along the way that this sum converges).

Proceeding from this method, Newton formulated the idea of [[integration]]—a computation of the area under any curve by using infinite series of areas. He followed that with a method for [[differentiation]], and came upon the [[fundamental theorem of calculus]], which relates differentiation and integration. Having invented the calculus, he put aside mathematics for two years and turned to physics.

Although Newton had communicated his discoveries in the calculus privately, he did not publish anything formal about it until finally, in 1704, he published ''Opticks''. In the meantime the German mathematician [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] had developed his own very similar version of the calculus. Both mathematicians used similar ideas of infinitesimals to smooth out details of division by zero and other seeming mathematical obstacles.

Although Leibniz acknowledged that Newton was earlier, a nasty priority conflict broke out in the 1710s. Newton and his (mainly English) followers accused Leibniz of plagiarism, and the Germans retaliated in kind. The modern view is that both mathematicians discovered the calculus independently. The symbolism in modern use comes from Leibniz and 18th century French mathematicians.

===Optics===
While waiting out [[The Plague]] he began to investigate the nature of [[light]]. White light, according to the prevailing theories, was homogeneous. His first experiments with a [[prism]] provided the true explanation of color. Passing a beam of sunlight through a prism, he observed that the beam spread out into a colored band of light ([[spectrum]]) like a rainbow.<ref>[http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/bh.html Newton and the color spectrum]</ref> While others had undoubtedly performed similar experiments, it was Newton who showed that the differences in color were caused by differing degrees of refrangibility. A ray of violet light, for example, when passed through a refracting medium, was refracted through a greater angle than a ray of red light. His conclusions, checked by ingenious experiments, were that sunlight was a combination of all the colors and that the colors themselves were monochromatic (his term was "homogeneal"), and separated merely because they were of differing refrangibility.

== Gravity ==
[[Image:Isaac Newton apple.JPG|right|230px]]
Newton developed the [[Theory of Universal Gravitation]], more commonly known as gravity, when, according to Newton himself, he was thinking about the moon and saw an apple fall one day. It fell straight down, and why was that? Then he had one of the most astonishing and brilliant thoughts in human history: the moon and the apple were just alike and both were being drawn straight toward the earth. What then kept the moon up there, or the four moons of Jupiter in their orbits? His theory stated that all matter is attracted to matter by a force, whose strength increases proportionally to the mass of the objects involved, and inversely proportional to the squared distance between them. The moons stayed in place because they had a momentum that offset gravity and forced them into elliptical orbits.

Newton's theory is based on action-at-a-distance which has always been opposed by some scientists, and now most physicists endorse the very different [[theory of relativity]]. Both theories predict identical results at small scales, similar results at the scale of the [[solar system]] and very different results at [[Cosmology|cosmological]] scales beyond the [[solar system]].

Newton had already made great progress in his devising "method of fluxions" (the infinitesimal calculus). During the plague years he recorded his first thoughts on gravitation, inspired by watching an apple fall. It fell straight down—why was that? He was trying at that time to determine what type of force could hold the moon in its path. The fall of the apple led him to think that it might be the same gravitational force, suitably diminished by distance, that had acted on the apple. Thereby he discovered the law of [[gravitation]] (attraction is proportional with inverse distance squared). He verified his conjecture approximately by a numerical calculation. He did not, at the time, pursue the matter, because the problem of calculating the combined attraction of the whole earth on a small body near its surface was obviously one of great difficulty.<ref>The problem was enormously simplified when he later used his calculus to prove that, for purposes of gravity, a uniform sphere of any size can be considered as a single mass located at one point, the center.</ref>

Newton struggled with how to conceptualize gravity. He had early rejected Descartes's vortex account of the cause of the motion of the planets. Descartes had argued that forces were transmitted through contact and that this required that matter be continuous and that hence there could be no vacuums. As early as 1665 Newton attempted to find a physical explanation of the cause of gravity but never found a suitable answer. As Newton said later in his ''Principia,'' "I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy". Thus Newton offers no explanation of gravity but shows through his mathematics that it "acts" in accordance to the mathematical laws he offers us in the ''Principia''. This was a difficult approach for his contemporaries to accept. [[Robert Hooke]], in particular, saw experimentation as the heart of science and disapproved of Newton's focus on theory and mathematics.

==Three laws==
See [[Classical mechanics]]

Later in life, as a holder of the Cambridge Lucasian chair of mathematics, Newton worked out his initial ideas into a set of mechanical laws, with his second and most important law: Force is the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. This can often be simplified, in the case of constant mass to the well known <math>\scriptstyle F = m a</math>. Newton was the first to understand the concept of inertial forces, notably the centrifugal force, although Christian Huyghens was close to understanding this effect. In 1684 Newton proved that [[Johannes Kepler|Kepler's laws]] follow from his own second law in conjunction with his gravitational law. This proof completed the astronomical revolution initiated by [[Nicolaus Copernicus]].

==Principia Mathematica==
Newton avoided publishing his results, preferring to communicate them to close colleagues. It took [[Edmond Halley]] great efforts to convince Newton to write his opus magnum ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" written in Latin, it was called the ''Principia'') that appeared in 1687. A second expanded edition appeared in 1713. It was a work on [[Classical mechanics|mechanics]] that used Newton's new principle of universal gravitation to explain falling bodies on the earth and the motions of planets and comets in the heavens. The first part covers dynamics and includes Newton’s three famous laws of motion. The second part concerns fluid motion; the third part deals with "the system of the world" ("De mundi systemate"), that is, the unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics under the principle of gravitation and the explanation of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. The material was very advanced and difficult, especially since the underlying calculus was deliberately hidden from view. Scientists across Europe immediately recognized its importance and tried to read it.

==Newtonianism==
Feingold (2004) explains the rapid dissemination of Newton's science came first via the members of the Royal Society, both British and Continental. The scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers of Germany, Holland, France, and Italy read the editions of the ''Principia'' and the ''Opticks'' and taught the ideas to their students. Newton's work was widely accepted, except in Italy, where the Catholic Church, having silenced Galileo, tried as well to suppress Newton's ideas. Despite the importance of Descartes to the French, Newton carried the day in France. [[Voltaire]] in particular made Newton the great hero of the modern world of ideas. Voltaire's ''Elemens de la philosophie de Neuton,'' (1737), was a success that rendered Newton intelligible and his work accessible, to the nonspecialists and amateurs who flourished in the [[Enlightenment]]. In Germany [[Leibniz]] praised Newton's ''Principia'', but was uncomfortable with Newton's position regarding gravity. It was philosophically untenable to merely dismiss the problem of its cause. French scientists, especially [[Pierre Simon Laplace]] (1749-1827) developed and systemized Newton's ideas into modern [[Classical mechanics]] in the late 18th century.<ref>Roger Hahn, ''Pierre Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: A Determined Scientist.'' (2005). 310 pp.</ref>

Newton's science dominated science and educated thought throughout the 18th century, being seen as the highest achievement of pure reason and classical culture.<ref>Feingold, ''The Newtonian Moment'' (2004); Larry Stewart, ''The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technology, and Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain, 1660-1750.'' (1992)</ref> In the 19th century, however, Romantic scientists went in entirely new directions, exploring non-Newtonian topics in electricity, magnetism and thermodynamics, and in mathematics turning to topics unrelated to calculus, like group theory. The leading German poet, [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]] - who was also a renowned Natural philosopher - even tried to challenge Newton's optics.

== Religious Beliefs ==
Newton was an [[Arian]] (Illegalized in Europe since the First Council of Nicaea) who rejected the Trinity and was ambiguous about the divinity of Christ. As his leading biographer concludes, "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term." That is, he emphasized the powers of God the father and deemphasized Jesus.<ref>Westfall, ''Never at Rest'' p. 103. Westfall notes, p. 350, "No evidence at all indicates that Newton ceased to be an Arian."</ref> He considered himself a [[Christian]] who accepted the [[Bible]] as the Word of [[God]],<ref>"I have a fundamental belief in the [[Bible]] as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref> after the age of 25 he devoted much—perhaps most—of his thinking to religion. His unorthodox views violated the rules at Cambridge University, but his colleagues protected him. Newton wrote the book ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]'' and removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

And in [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

Newton was a sincere religious believer, who said his discoveries were inspired by [[God]]. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science. Newton wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God."

Newton believed that God's creation of the universe was self-evident given its grandeur.<ref>Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. “The emergence of Rational Dissent.” Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.</ref> He also warned against using his laws to replace the creator. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."<ref>Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref>

Newton wrote over a million words on religion—nearly all in unpublished hand-written manuscripts and unavailable for research until the 20th century. Although older scholars did not have access to his writings, "Among contemporary scholars, the consensus is that Newton was an Arian," concludes Pfizenmaier (1997).<ref>Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 57-80 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988 in JSTOR]</ref> Arians were Christians but the Arian theology died out as an organized force a thousand years before; Newton read the old texts and identified himself with Arius and his beliefs.

In an effort to debunk widespread claims of his time that the world would be ending soon, Newton wrote a private manuscript estimating that the world would not end prior to the year A.D. 2060.<ref>http://www.isaac-newton.org/newton_2060.htm</ref>

== Quotes ==

* "Opposition to godliness is [[Atheism]] in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir Isaac Newton<ref>Newton, Isaac. ''A Short Scheme of the True Religion''. Unpublished writing quoted in Brewster, David (1855).</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Bibliography==
* Bardi, Jason Socrates. ''The Calculus Wars: Newton, Leibniz, and the Greatest Mathematical Clash of All Time.'' (2006). 277 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Wars-Leibniz-Greatest-Mathematical/dp/1560259922/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345258&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Bechler, Zev. ''Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution.'' (1991). 588 pp.
* Berlinski, David. ''Newton's Gift: How Sir Isaac Newton Unlocked the System of the World.'' (2000). 256 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Gift-Newton-Unlocked-System/dp/0743217764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345336&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Buchwald, Jed Z. and Cohen, I. Bernard, eds. ''Isaac Newton's Natural Philosophy.'' MIT Press, 2001. 354 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Natural-Philosophy-Institute-Technology/dp/0262524252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345369&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Casini, P. "Newton's Principia and the Philosophers of the Enlightenment." ''Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London'' 1988 42(1): 35-52. Issn: 0035-9149 Fulltext: [http://www.jstor.org/pss/531368 Jstor]
* Christianson, Gale E. ''Isaac Newton and the Scientific Revolution.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 160 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Newton-Lives-Legacies-Christianson/dp/019530070X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337095&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Christianson, Gale E. ''In the Presence of the Creator: Isaac Newton and His Times.'' (1984). 608 pp.
* Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George E., ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Newton.'' (2002). 500 pp. focuses on philosophical issues only; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Newton-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521656966/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337095&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/105054986 complete edition online]
* Cohen, I. Bernard. ''The Newtonian Revolution with Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 404 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtonian-Revolution-I-Bernard-Cohen/dp/0521273803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345406&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* DeGandt, François. ''Force and Geometry in Newton's Principia.'' Princeton U. Press, 1995. 296 pp.
* Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. ''The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1991. 359 pp.
* Fara, Patricia. ''Newton: The Making of a Genius.'' Columbia U. Press, 2003. 347 pp [http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Making-Genius-Patricia-Fara/dp/023112807X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345174&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fauvel, John et al., ed. ''Let Newton Be!'' Oxford U. Press, (1989). 272 pp.
* Feingold, Mordechai. ''The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture.'' (2004) 218 pp. catalog of exhibit at New York Public Library, 2004-5
* Force, James E. and Hutton, Sarah, ed. ''Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies.'' (2004). 246 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Newtonianism-International-internationales-dhistoire/dp/1402019696/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345450&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
* Gjertsen, Derek. ''The Newton Handbook.'' (1987). 665 pp.
* Gleick, James. ''Isaac Newton.''(2003). 272 pp.
* Hall, A. Rupert. ''All Was Light: An Introduction to Newton's Opticks.'' Oxford U. Press, 1993. 252 pp.
* Hall, A. Rupert. ''Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought.'' (1992). 468 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Newton-Adventurer-Cambridge-Biographies/dp/052156669X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196336989&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hofmann, Joseph Ehrenfried. ''Classical Mathematics: A Concise History of the Classical Era in Mathematics.'' (1959) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/classical-mathematics-a-concise-history-of-the-classical-era-in-mathematics-by-joseph-ehrenfried-hofmann.jsp online edition]
* Hoskin, Michael. "Newton and Newtonianism" pp 130–67 in Hoskin, ed. ''The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Concise-History-Astronomy/dp/0521576008/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product excerpt and text search]
* Kline, Morris. ''Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times''. Volume: 1. (1972).
* Mandelbrote, Scott. ''Footprints of the Lion: Isaac Newton at Work.'' Cambridge U. Press, (2001). 142 pp
* Olby, R.c. et al. ''Companion to the History of Modern Science.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106933088 online edition], on the history of Newtonianism
* Park, Katharine, and Lorraine Daston, eds. ''The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 3: Early Modern Science'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521572444/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Rankin, William. ''Introducing Newton'' (3rd ed. 2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Newton-Introducing-William-Rankin/dp/1840468424/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345513&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Sepper, Dennis L. ''Newton's Optical Writings: A Guided Study.'' Rutgers U. Press, 1994. 224 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Optical-Writings-Masterworks-Discovery/dp/081352038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337057&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shapiro, Alan E. ''Fits, Passions, and Paroxysms: Physics, Method, and Chemistry and Newton's Theories of Colored Bodies and Fits of Easy Reflection.'' Cambridge U. Press, (1993). 400 pp.
* Thrower, Norman J. W., ed. ''Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of Newton and Halley: Essays Commemorating the Tercentenary of Newton's Principia and the 1985-1986 Return of Comet Halley.'' U. of California Press, 1990. 429 pp.
* Westfall, Richard S. ''Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton.'' 2 vol. Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 895 pp. the major scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Rest-Biography-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521274354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337354&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** Westfall, Richard S. ''The Life of Isaac Newton.'' Cambridge U. Press, (1993). 328 pp., short version [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Isaac-Newton-Canto-original/dp/0521477379/ref=sip_rech_dp_10 excerpt and text search]
* Westfall, Richard S. "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642–1727)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'' (2004); online edition
* White, Michael. ''Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer.'' (1998). 416 pp. Newton as alchemist [http://www.questia.com/read/9931462 online edition]
===Newton and religion===
* Dobbs, Betty Jo Tetter. ''The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought.'' (1991), links the alchemy to Arianism
* Force, James E., and Richard H. Popkin, eds. ''Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence.'' (1999), 342pp . Pp. xvii + 325. 13 papers by scholars using newly opened manuscripts
* Ramati, Ayval. "The Hidden Truth of Creation: Newton's Method of Fluxions" ''British Journal for the History of Science'' 34: 417-438. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4028372 in JSTOR], argues that his calculus had a theological basis
* Snobelen, Stephen D. "'God of Gods, and Lord of Lords': The Theology of Isaac Newton's General Scholium to the Principia," ''Osiris,'' 2nd Series, Vol. 16, (2001), pp. 169–208 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/301985 in JSTOR]
* Snobelen, Stephen D. "Isaac Newton, Heretic: The Strategies of a Nicodemite," ''British Journal for the History of Science'' 32: 381-419. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027945 in JSTOR]
* Pfizenmaier, Thomas C. "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 57–80 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988 in JSTOR]
* Westfall, Richard S. ''Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton.'' 2 vol. Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 895 pp. the major scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Rest-Biography-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521274354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337354&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wiles, Maurice. ''Archetypal Heresy. Arianism through the Centuries.'' (1996) 214pp, with chapter 4 on 18th century England; pp 77–93 on Newton [http://www.amazon.com/Archetypal-Heresy-Arianism-through-Centuries/dp/0199245916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221655973&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search],

===Primary sources===
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.'' U. of California Press, (1999). 974 pp.
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Optical Papers of Isaac Newton. Vol. 1: The Optical Lectures, 1670-1672.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1984. 627 pp.
* Newton, Isaac. ''Opticks'' (4th ed. 1730) [http://books.google.com/books?id=GnAFAAAAQAAJ&dq=newton+opticks&pg=PP1&ots=Nnl345oqo_&sig=0mBTaXUI_K6w-JDEu_RvVq5TNqc&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=newton+opticks&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLJ&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail online edition]
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton,'' 8 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1967–81).
* Newton, Isaac. ''The correspondence of Isaac Newton,'' ed. H. W. Turnbull and others, 7 vols. (1959–77).
* Brackenridge, J. Bruce. ''The Key to Newton's Dynamics: The Kepler Problem and the Principia: Containing an English Translation of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Book One from the First (1687) Edition of Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.'' U. of California Press, 1996. 299 pp.
* ''Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings'' edited by H. S. Thayer, (1953), [http://www.questia.com/read/5876270 online edition]
* Newton, Isaac. ''Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm The Project Gutenberg EBook]

==External links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Axioms.shtml Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion]
*[http://www.college-optometrists.org/index.aspx/pcms/site.college.What_We_Do.museyeum.online_exhibitions.observatory.newton/ Newton & the Colour of Light]

====Notes====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Newton, Isaac}}
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:Calculus]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Isaac Newton|*]]
[[Category:Deists]]
[[Category:Scientific Pioneers]]

Compton Scattering

2016-09-13T19:52:27Z

Stevel: Bit more explanation

'''Compton Scattering''' is the collision process between a [[X-ray]] or a [[gamma ray]] and a bound atomic electron where only part of the energy of the electromagnetic ray is transferred to the electron.

The effect was at first observed by [[Arthur Holly Compton]] in 1923 at Washington University in St. Louis and explained in his article ''"A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-ray by Light Elements"''.<ref>Arthur H. Compton: ''A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-ray by Light Elements'', The Physical Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, May, 1923</ref> Compton was rewarded the 1927 [[Nobel Prize]] in Physics for this discovery.

[[File:Compton Scattering Diagram.png|thumb|246px|right]]Arthur H. Compton ''treated the x-ray photons as particles and applied conservation of energy and conservation of momentum to the collision of a photon with a stationary electron.''.<ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/compeq.html#c1 Compton Scattering Equation], ''Hyperphysics'', C. R. Nave, Georgia State University</ref> He used the [[Planck]] relationship and the [[E=mc²|relativistic energy expression]] to derive the ''standard Compton formula'':

<math>\Delta \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c} (1-\cos \theta)</math>

Here, Δλ denotes the difference between the wavelengths of the incoming and the scattered ray, while θ is the angle of scattering.

== The Compton Experiment ==
A collimated beam of high-energy photons, e.g. emitted from a radioactive 137Cs source or an X-ray emitter hits a target, e.g. a rod of graphite. A [[scintillation counter]] is used to measure the number and the energy of the deflected photons at various angles.

== Classical Expectation ==
The number of photons should vary with the angle of the deflection, while the energy (i.e., the wavelength) of the photons should remain unchanged.

== Observation ==
While indeed many of the scattered photons have an unchanged wavelength, there are some which lost energy, i.e., their wavelength lengthened. This lengthening depends on the angle of the deflection only.

==Explanation==
The lengthening of the wavelength happens when a photon interacts with a free electron in the material. The effect can be calculated along the following lines. The derivation requires [[relativity]].

1) '''Conservation of energy''': We assume that before the collision, the electron is nearly at rest, so its kinetic energy is zero: <math>E_e=0</math>. The photon has an energy of <math>E_{\gamma}= h f</math>, where <math>h</math> is Planck's constant, and <math>f</math> is its initial frequency. After the interaction, the photon's frequency changed to <math>f'</math>, so its energy is now <math>E'_{\gamma} = h f'</math>. The kinetic energy of the electron after the collision is <math>E'_e = \sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} - m^2_e c^2</math>. This is the relativistic energy of the [[electron]] minus its rest mass energy, given by [[e=mc^2|E=m2]]. (Here, <math>m_e</math> is the mass of the electron.) We get the equation;

<center><math> h f = h f' +\sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} - m_e c^2</math></center>

(here, <math>\vec{p_e}</math> is the momentum of the electron after the event)

2) '''Conversation of momentum''': As we assume that the electron is nearly at rest at first, its initial momentum is zero. The momentum of the photon is at first <math>\vec{p_p}</math> and then <math>\vec{p'_p}</math>. The momentum of a photon can be calculated via <math>p = E/c = {h f}/c</math>.

Looking at the picture, we see that

<math>p^2_e = (\vec{p_p}-\vec{p'_p})\cdot (\vec{p_p}-\vec{p'_p}) = </math>
<math>p^2 + p'^2 - 2 p p' \cos \theta</math>, thus

'''I''': <math>(p_e c)^2 = (h f)^2 + (h f')^2 - 2 h^2 f f' \cos \theta</math>

Squaring <math> h (f-f') + m_e c^2 = \sqrt{p^2_e c^2 + m^2_e c^4} </math> and rearranging leads to:

'''II''': <math>(p_e c)^2 = (h f)^2 + (h f')^2-2 h^2 f f' + 2m_e c^2 (h f - h f')</math>

We equate our '''I''' and '''II''' and get:

<math>-2 h^2 f f' \cos \theta = -2 h^2 f f' + 2 m_e c^2(h f - h f')</math>

This we rearrange to:

<math> \frac{1}{h f'} - \frac{1}{h f'} = \frac{1}{m_e c^2} (1 - \cos \theta)</math>

As for a photon <math>f \lambda = c</math>, we can bring this into Compton's form:

<math>\lambda' - \lambda = \Delta \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c} (1 - \cos \theta)</math>

This describes exactly the effect observed by Compton! Compton himself used a similar derivation, also including the relativistic energy expression.

== Probability of Compton Scattering ==

The probability for Compton scattering is approximately proportional to the [[atomic number]] Z, and for energies greater than 500 [[keV]] approximately proportional to <math>\frac{1}{E^\gamma}</math>,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ie.lbl.gov/education/glossary/glossaryf.htm|title=Glossary of Nuclear Science Terms|accessdate=January 10, 2013}}</ref> the energy of the [[gamma ray]] [[photon]].

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physics experiments]]

Quantum entanglement

2016-09-13T19:01:49Z

Stevel: Added section about LHV theories

'''Quantum entanglement''' is when two (or more) [[quantum]] [[particles]] relate to each other, as in taking spins opposite to each other. When they are separated they retain the same opposite spins, and the observation of the spin of one of the states determines the opposite spin for the other state, even though the particles may have been separated by many miles from each other.

The implications of this phenomenon are enormous, and form the basis for the new field of [[quantum computing]]. For example, there seems to be an instantaneous communication between the particles at the moment of observation of one of them.

On the other hand, some [[physicist]]s resist that notion and claim that no information is actually communicated. This is compatible with the [[relativity|theory of relativity]], since it is not possible for someone to transmit [[information]] faster than the [[speed of light]] by somehow encoding it with entangled particles.

== Local hidden variable theories ==

[[Quantum mechanics]] says that there is a fundamental uncertainty in nature due to the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]]. It is not just that we are only able to measure a particle's position, for example, to a limited accuracy, but the particle itself does not have a precise position. Local hidden variable theories propose that particles do in fact have precise position, but observers have a limited precision available to them.

At first sight, it appears that these two theories are indistinguishable from each other, but this is not true. In 1964, John Bell published his famous Bell's theorem, which showed that it local hidden variable theories and [[quantum mechanics]] do make different predictions. Hence it is in fact possible to perform am experiment to distinguish which theory is correct. Experiments have shown that [[quantum mechanics]] is in fact correct, and that the entangled particles do "communicate" faster than [[speed of light]]. However, non-local hidden variable theories are still possible. These theories do not have the requirement of locality, which prevents faster than light communication.

== See also ==

* [[Action at a distance]]

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Pseudoscience

2016-09-13T18:17:52Z

Stevel: Removed part about Stephen Hawking, see talk page

'''Pseudoscience''' is [[theory]] or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and is presented as science, but does not follow the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically not [[falsifiable]], and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, see in particular sections 2 and 3]</ref> A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven Science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrology|astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of [[God]] is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label ''pseudoscientist'' is commonly given to cranks and [[charlatan]]s, who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vGGf-ZIkc Uri Geller debunked by James Randi and Johnny Carson</ref> Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances revealed that they were really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
[[Spiritual]], [[metaphysical]], [[philosophical]], and [[religious belief]]s are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multibillion-dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific [[illiteracy]] among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

There is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", so it is also sometimes used as a pejorative term. Pseudoscientists consider their work to be real science rather than pseudoscience. In addition to this, oftentimes theories which conflict with their theories are considered by them to be pseudoscience. Theories which are considered to be pseudoscience by the public may transition into being considered science if substantial evidence is found to support the theory. For example, before the theory of plate tectonics was fully developed, it was considered pseudoscience, whilst its predecessors, theories which involved an expanding Earth, are now considered pseudoscience.<ref>R. G. A. Dolby, ''Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World'', Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521892627, 9780521892629, 380 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xd3ylT3WTLEC&pg=PA191&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 191]</ref><ref>Brian Stableford, ''Science Fact and Science Fiction'', Published by CRC Press, 2006, ISBN 0415974607, 9780415974608, 729 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uefwmdROKTAC&pg=PA410&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 410]</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> For more information, please see: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] ]]
* [[Animal magnetism]]
* [[Astrology]]
* [[Big Bang]] astronomy
* Much of the work of [[Richard Dawkins]]<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> (see: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]])
* [[Biodynamic agriculture]]
* [[Darwinism]]
* [[Dianetics]]
* [[Dominionism]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
* [[Free Energy]]
* [[Graphology]]
* [[Global warming]]
* [[Homeopathy]]
* [[Iridology]]
* [[Lysenkoism]]
* [[Mesmerism]]
*Much of the work of [[PZ Myers]]<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-pseudoscienceblogscom</ref>
* [[Old earth]] geology
* [[Orgone therapy]]
* [[Parapsychology]]
* [[Phrenology]]
* [[Population control]]
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Psychoanalysis]]
* [[Reflexology]]
* [[Self-projection as God]] (also known as [[vicarious autotheism]])
* Much of the work of [[Carl Sagan]]
* [[Transgenderism]]
* [[Ufology]]

== See also ==
* [[Scientism]]
* [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]

Humor:
* [[Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works|You obviously don't understand how science works]] - Humor/[[Satire]]

=== Refutations of Pseudoscience ===
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
* [[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
* [[Counterexamples to an Ice Age]]
* [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
* [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
* [[Counterexamples to String Theory]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Talk:Pseudoscience

2016-09-13T18:16:35Z

Stevel: /* Stephen Hawking */ new section

[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Ufology]]

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:*I may be jumping in 2 years late, but 5% of scientists reject evolution, and that's not an extreme minority. That's enough to say that the theory is disputed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
:If Evolutionary Biology is on the list of pseudosciences, then Intelligent Design/Creation Science should be right there with it. Regardless of your perception, there is ostensibly strong evidence on both sides, and avid, close-minded supporters on both sides. Neither side is falsifiable or has truly conclusive evidence in their favor. True, they have nice little piles of evidence, but the strongest points in these piles were usually created by the respective side via careful manipulation of the facts at hand. Truth be told, many people on both sides just defend their position because it's all they've known all their lives; their families brought them up with their minds closed and controlled, believing whichever side the parent took, and to a fully ideologically decided adult, the idea that he or she might be wrong is daunting. What I'm saying is, most arguments on both sides of this debate are made out of fear, hatred, and human emotion rather than calm intelligence and scientific yearning. It's a neverending war, and I experience this war everyday in what I see in others, and within myself. This applies to both evolution and creationism, making them both "pseudosciences" by the definition on this page. [[User:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]] 21:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)

::I was reading through [[evolution]], and according to Popper, who was a real authority on this stuff, evolution isn't scientific. [[User:ReneeStJ|ReneeStJ]] 20:40, 12 February 2009 (EST)

:::The [[Theory of Evolution]] is accepted by mainstream scientists, hence it lacks one aspect of being considered pseudoscience: rejection by the scientific community. Note that a theory may be valid despite having been dismissed by the mainstream. Infection by an "invisible substance" (see [[Semmelweis]]) and [[continental drift]] were both rejected by the mainstream for years.

:::Sometimes we know that there is a cause and effect relationship, even when we don't know the details. People have always known that "[[sunburn]]" comes from exposing your skin to sunlight too long, but the existence of [[ultraviolet]] rays is a comparatively recent discovery. Should scientists have slapped ''pseudoscience'' on the theory that sunlight causes tanning and burning, simply because they didn't know '''why''' it happened?

:::Anyway, evolution can be considered pseudoscientific if its proponents refuse to agree to any kind of test which could conceivably disprove their theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Psychoanalysis ==

Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)
: Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (tripartite separation of the psyche, Oedipal complexes, etc.) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:[edit: agree with Rod] Have you found any proof of psychoanalysis? Or is it just the sex-obsessed maunderings of Freud and his cultist followers? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST) (EST)

::I think there needs to be a distinction between the state of a scientific field at the time of its origins, and the current level state of the art. Early medicine involved techniques like bloodletting and the use of leeches that would be considered bad or pseudoscience today, but we don't regard contemporary medicine by those early practices. In the same light, I would not evaluate the validity of modern-day psychoanalysis by the methods of its first practicioners like Freud, who were taking baby steps by comparison. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Psychoanalysis is, almost by definition, based upon an acceptance of Freudian theory. You can't separate 'then' from 'now' in this field. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Mike is right. There's a reason why the term psychology is used rather than psychoanalysis. There is no psychoanalytic "science." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Climate change==
'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' - the greatest con perpetrated by pseudoscientists in recent decades - surely this should have a place. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Chiropractic is a mixed bag just like allopathic medicine and..... ==

I think it is fair to say that chriropractic is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience just like allopathic medicine (medicine practice by MDs) is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience.

I cite the following:

http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/Cost_Effectiveness.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9272472

Also:

In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."[http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm]
Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]

Also:

"Another example is Intermountain Healthcare, a nonprofit health-care system in Utah, where 80 percent of the care is based on evidence. Treatment data is collected by electronic medical records. The data is analyzed by researchers, and the best practices are then incorporated into the clinical process, resulting in far better quality care at a cost that is one-third less than the national average. (Disclosure: Intermountain Healthcare is a member of Mr. Gingrich’s organization.)"[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24beane.html?ref=opinion] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Rather than dump the entirety of the quackwatch medical database on chiropractic here, I will instead provide a link [http://www.chirobase.org/]. The main reason to list chiropractic in the page on pseudoscience is because its main tenant, that of spinal subluxation, is demonstrable false. The process of cracking the lower back of a person is effective for removing lower back pain, but chiropractic can actually be dangerous when applied to the neck area. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::::Where is the comparison to risks of chiro vs. allopathic medicine when it comes to necks? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== String Theory ==

I added string theory to the list since it fails the 'falsifiability' test, as referenced in the ST main article; though I would also point out that the same argument is frequently used by liberals to discredit intelligent design theory. Perhaps there should be some debate as to whether or not positivism is integral to a rational, conservative understanding of science.[[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 11:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:For that matter, many parts of theoretical physics are pure speculation at this point in time. It's not true of the entire discipline, but perhaps we should create a new category for fields that are rife with pseudoscience? [[User:JoshN|JoshN]] 12:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)

= Vaccination =

I don't understand why vaccination is on the list. I linked it to the very good article "vaccine" instead of the ridiculous article "vaccination" but I think it should be remove from the list.

== osteopathy ==

Why has this been excluded? American osteopathy aside (in the States we've made our Doctors of Osteopathy much like our MD's), this field is almost irredeemably rife with medical quackery; osteopaths believe all disease is bone related. Typical holistic claptrap--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:01, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

== Karl Popper and Falsifiability ==

I reverted a change made by Ed Poor on this page about whether we should credit Popper with establishing the doctrine. I wanted to explain on his talk page but it is protected. Anyway I provided a source, but the main reason I think we can credit him is because I remember that his work on falsifiability stemmed primarily from his dissatisfaction with Marxian and Freudian "scientific" approaches to history and psychoanalysis. He was not the first person to 'mention' falsifiability but he was the first person to systemize the concept and apply it to show the folly of systems which explain everything and yet nothing. I think we can fairly give it to him. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:15, 13 February 2012 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking ==

I removed the part about Stephen Hawking as it was not clear what exactly the article is talking about (it just said much of the work of). Also what work of his is not pseudoscience? [[User:Stevel|Stevel]] ([[User talk:Stevel|talk]]) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (EDT)