Proving Newton Wrong

Sometime in 1686 Sir Isaac Newton published his great work, Principia, which explained the motion of bodies in the universe and established what we know now as his theory of motion and gravity. It was widely viewed as the most significant work of it's time and was expected to change the disciplines of physics and astronomy for all time. It has certainly had a huge impact on physics and made for a wonderful, if inaccurate, fable of the apple falling on his head. Regardless of how he came to have his understanding of the universe, he has arguably become the father of modern physics and his theories and work remained the foremost explanation of the universe for hundreds of years.

That is, until a young upstart from Europe decided to challenge hundreds of years of accepted science. He took Newton's theories apart and found that Newton was wrong on several very important points. This man, who had no formal education and was not considered an intellectual to those who knew him nor to those he tried to impress his new theories upon. It took a young man, working as a patent clerk, to stand science on it's head. That young man was Albert Einstein and he knew that tackling Newton's theories was a sacrilege in the scientific community and would be met with derision and disbelief. He took them on nonetheless because he knew something that all the most respected scholars of the day did not know. He knew that Newton was wrong. Newton's theory of the effects of gravity on light were wrong and it would take this young German wunderkind to prove it.

He would ultimately see his theory become the standard by which all other members of the scientific community would measure brilliance, from that time to this. In 1919, The Times Of London had a banner headline that read, “Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.”

I recount that story to point to a larger idea. That no science is ever settled and that "consensus" has no place among scientists. All of the scientific disciplines are just that, disciplines with no room for consensus. Any theory stands as fact until it is disproved or improved upon. Einstein's first theory of relativity was based on an incorrect variable that Einstein himself knew would be exposed as false so he set about proving his Special Theory of General Relativity in 1907. It would take 12 years and several failed experiments in astronomy to prove it correct. Even with the foundation of his theory having been accepted as fact, there were still quite a few holes in it due largely to the fact that he hadn't thought of how to complete them. It would take physicists many years later to fill in those holes and give us a unified theory of relativity. Even now, there is still room to expand and improve Einstein's many theories.

Fast forward to modern times and we see a group of scientists declare that the debate on global warming being caused by man is over and that a "consensus of scientists" have now discovered the undeniable, unshakable truth of the matter. While these are no doubt very smart men, they can be no smarter than Einstein can they? Remember him? The man who set about to disprove his own theory? Einstein himself knew that any theory could never honestly be considered fact because of the ever evolving nature of human intelligence and understanding. He even joked mildly once to a friend during a visit to Cambridge, "Who knows, one day someone will view my work the same way that I viewed Newton's...close but not quite correct."

The only absolute in science is that it is ever changing and evolving to incorporate the new ideas and expressions of those who build on the work of others. With the recent revelations of sloppy record keeping and outright falsehoods going on in the global warming community. we see that not even science is above reproach as it used to be. With the admission of Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University that there has been in fact, no global warming in the last 15 years and that the medieval period may actually have been warmer than it is today, it is obvious that while consensus may have existed between a large segment of the scientific community, that consensus was wrong. When science is exposed to the harsh light of fact and study, there is no consensus. This is because what may be considered fact by a few may be filled with incorrect variables and open to interpretation by many others.

The glaciers aren't melting as fast as we were told, nor are the seas rising as quickly. The mean temperature across the globe is actually cooling, not warming. Bearing all this in mind, can we now accept any one explanation of the ever changing temperature of the Earth? Do we bury our heads in the scientific sands and treat science as religion? Based on faith and belief and not on strict adherence to scientific method?