Another Theory Bites the Dust

[Hae-Yu]

It's always good when science questions itself.

According to this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?ex=1305432000&en=2778e99d7eab85a6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss), lactic acid is a muscle fuel, produced by muscles, not the cause of soreness.

Dr. George Brooks, a researcher at UC Berkeley, has been fighting his myth for 30 years Finally his colleagues, after years of corroborating studies, largely accept his findings. The original fallacious theory was created by a Nobel laureate while other researchers never bothered to follow-up, merely repeating, and worse, adding more cards atop this shaky foundation.

The conversation on digg.com (http://digg.com/science/Biggest_Science_Myth_Unveiled_-_Lactic_Acid_Is_Actually_A_Muscle_Fuel_) has some interesting links. I'm not a medical professional so I can't confirm or deny it, but the links to webmd and phsyorg provide some extra weight.

[Maull]

the same thing is evident with physics. did you know that when newton published his "principa mathematica" (a book detailing and explaining all motion in the universe, at least the known universe in the 1700's) it was widely thought to be the greatest single contribution to science. when some of his colleagues questioned his findings newton threatened to withdraw from the (then) science foundation.

mark my words. the law of conservation of energy is only consistent with bodies in kinetic motion but it does not explain the "invisible" energy that can be created with magnets. sure, newton was a brilliant physicist. he was probably the single most intelligent person that ever walked the earth. he was however still just a human.

the thing that bothers me is that people my whole life have laughed at my ideas for free energy based on one single piece of information. my ideas were ludicrous because the law of conservation of energy says that it cannot be done.

galileo hypothesized that the sun was the center of the universe and not the earth. for this he was burned for heresy. copernicus took galileo's hypothesis and proved it to the world nearly 100 years later.

science "fact" is only considered fact because it has not been disproven yet. once an idea has been disproven without a shadow of a doubt it simply becomes "one of those ideas."



i find it disturbing that teachers and professors assume that the knowledge they received in highschool and college, with regards to experimental science (ie physics, quantum mechanics, astro physics ect), holds true today even when there is an abundance of contrary information available to students. my highschool physics teacher, even my professor from this last semester, outright laughed at me when i showed them my idea. both were completely steadfast in their beleif of the validity of the law of conservation of energy.

so in closing my question is this: when is it safe to completly surrender to an idea as "fact" when in reality it just hasnt been disproven yet? how can we mold young minds in a classroom and open them to new ideas if our own teachers dont have a clue?

[McTucket]

God i wish i was still in the school-picking up knowledge and using it-non killing people army mentality... therefore i could have contributed to this.

[Sammie]

personally I think the only way to true knowledge is to continue to questions the questions.

I dont think anything can be taken for granted.

I guess when your working on something you have to use a certain group of premises in order to build a case, but I dont think that necessitates that your premises will always hold true. If they are proven false, its back to the drawing board.

[Hae-Yu]

I think the only thing that can safely be relied upon is when several independent researchers arrive at the same conclusion.

I'm not up on my physics enough to dispute or support you, least of all dispute Newton. But it's always good to poke a finger in the establishment's eye, so I wish you well.

FYI
Copernicus came first. Galileo wasn't burned: he was sentenced to house arrest in the Bishop's mansion and later house arrest in his villa until his death. He died very comfortably because the Pope was sympathetic but couldn't politically support him. It wasn't heliocentrism that condemned him as a heretic necessarily, but his mouth. This story and the story of Columbus' detractors supposedly advocating a flat earth are silly things we are taught in high school. The real stories are much better.

However Galileo is generic to the conversation in that Aristotle's crap was taken as the next best thing to Gospel for centuries. Calm Copernicus may have laid the groundwork and mystical Kepler followed up with much research, but Galileo was the loudmouth jerk who shook everything up.

[Maull]

touche. you just proved my point.