Laws Of Nature - Part Two Before written history, people were using fire, making metal objects, planting grain, weaving, building, seafaring, and studying the night sky. Early written history furnishes the clue as to how people thought before writing began. No doubt the philosophers of 500 BC had received a legacy of ideas from previous generations. Among the oldest records are words that translate into English as element, atom, star, planet, and the square of the hypotenuse. Nobody comes fresh to nature and examines it with an open mind, or an empty mind. Modern science is the product of the evolution of human thought. One of the ancient ideas is that there are laws of nature. An early form of the law of inertia was stated as follows: all bodies tend toward rest; a body moves only when influenced by a mover. It was the late sixteenth century when this law of nature was converted into: a body at rest remains at rest unless disturbed by an outside force; a body in motion continues in motion in the same straight line until disturbed by an outside force. There is a convincing ring to the latter statement of the law of inertia. Certainly, it is consistent with all of experience. Oddly enough, the same Galileo who stated the law of inertia maintained that the earth moves. If the earth moves, where is the laboratory in which a body is at rest? If the earth rotates and revolves, where is the straight line along which a body moves? If we make the assumption that space is stationary, all of the motions of the earth can be described relative to a fixed point in space. This works so well that, in conjunction with gravitational theory, it is used for the guidance of space vehicles. A law that says that a body continues in its state of motion until acted on by a force, is a description of the observed behavior of bodies. It is not an explanation of what makes the motion happen. If a body at rest continues at rest, until a force disturbs it, the force is the cause of motion. Newton's law says that the acceleration is proportional to the force. It does not say what force is, and it doesn't say how a force can make a body move. If the law of inertia is a law of nature, a law of nature is not required to explain what makes something happen, or how something happens. A law of nature doesn't explain how a body becomes law-abiding. The body doesn't know the law. The law is not located inside the body. In fact, the law is not located anywhere except in the imagination. Imagine empty space in which there are no bodies. Certainly, there is no law of motion in empty space. It is assumed that mass is constant. If mass is constant, Newton's law of acceleration doesn't work for bodies accelerated to very high velocities, with speeds nearly the speed of light. Einstein's relativity sacrifices the constancy of mass, and saves the law of acceleration. At high velocities, the body has extra mass, and the acceleration falls short accordingly. How does the body gain mass? Time slows down for the moving body. Relative to the slow time, the mass is unchanged. Relative to the laboratory time, the mass is greater, as evidenced by the way the body resists acceleration. This reasoning implies that time and space are primary, and gravitational and inertial mass are manifestations of time and space. All is well if we know what time and space, or space-time, are. Einstein neglected to enlighten us. He defined time as that which is measured by a clock, and space as that which is measured by a meter stick. I offer neg-pos theory as an alternative. The growth of mass with acceleration is explained as an increase of neg-pos of the body. What is neg-pos? Neg-pos is charge. What is charge? I don't know. At least I do not claim to have discovered a law of nature. I have not explained what makes the law of inertia work. Nothing would please me more than to explain what makes the universe work. What I have accomplished is that I have satisfied myself with the feeling that I am not taken in by notions of learning "truth" from science. Neither neg-pos theory, nor any other theory, can be proved or disproved. If we learn that F=ma needs adjustment for high speeds, we adjust it. We don't disprove F=ma. We amend it. The fact that the data of all experiments are in mathematical agreement with the scientific laws, is often cited as proof of the laws. I know exactly why the mathematics agrees with the laws. I tailored my neg-pos theory to agree with the same mathematical results that one gets when one applies the other theories. Where relativity predicts an inctrease of 6.1 x 10-28 g of mass, neg-pos also predicts an increase of 6.1 x 10-28 g of mass. When Newton worked out his F=ma, he used Kepler's formula for the orbits of the planets and Galileo's data for pendula and falling bodies. He had the figures first, and he made the formula fit the figures. I am very pleased to have been able to attribute everything to charge. Charge accounts for all of the forces, including the force of gravity. Charge accounts for time, space, energy, force, frequency, mass, and anything else that can be found in the universe. Charge can do all this and be a figment at the same time. I certainly do not want anybody to be gulled into believing that this theory, or any other theory, is true. I would like to see somebody conceive of a theory in terms that get away from all of the existing concepts. Perhaps this can't be done. As much as I substitute charge for everything else, I still have to talk about force and energy, when I discuss science. Scientific thought remains a historic process. I would like to see some notions eradicated, like the idea that entropy makes things happen. Entropy is only a concept. It can't cause anything. Even if it can be shown mathematically that entropy increases in every interaction, there are no consequences. If you find it hard to comprehend what entropy means, it is no fault of yours. Nobody can describe entropy. It was originally conceived of when it appeared in an equation. It is a mathematical term with no physical manifestation. Another notion that should be dispelled is the idea that something happens because it is statistically probable. If something is found to be statistically probable, it is after the fact. The event does not happen because it is probable. It happens because it is caused to happen. Discover the cause. As the event happens, it is observed, and the data are organized. Analysis of the data can be given statistical treatment. It is all in the mind. As much as I disparage science as a source of "truth", I admire science for its practical applications in medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, comforts, and entertainment. The scientific acheivement I admire most is the description of the structure and function of DNA, the molecule of the chromosome. I hope that the reader will be encouraged to study science, whether it is out of curiosity, or for practical use. I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that some other pursuit will lead to the truth. If science doesn't lead to the truth, nothing does. There is no substitute for science.