"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Chimney1 wrote:

You asked me a simple question and I answered it. The fact that mere "schoolboy maths" was sufficient to answer the question you asked, which you claimed Newtonian mechanics could not answer at all, just shows your lack of basic knowledge.

Do you understand that the Newtonian gravity model fails to mathematically model the *observed* universe?

Chimney1 wrote:

The units of G are clearly demanded by the need to balance - account for - the units that make sense of the action at a distance portion of the equation (m1 x m2 /r^2), and resolve it into a force.

So you admit that the units of G are required solely because the equation needs to be balanced.
Your requirement for the units arises from the equation itself.

Now, is that equation falsifiable? Yes or no?

Chimney1 wrote:

Nope. You are the one insisting that your equations work, but never offering calculations to back your claims. I have showed you numerous calculations that fit the standard model and show that it works, answering your questions.
You are a conceited twat who cannot follow through on your claims, and continue to try and divert attention from that simple fact. As we can all see, nobody is fooled.

Why do you proclaim your opinions? This is not a faith-club.
I have given you the results of the model. You are free to test the model on your own.

I understand it is a lot of work as science usually is. If you're not mathematically capable of testing the new model then it is only your problem.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
That's funny. It does not matter who does what. There is now a new mathematical model for gravity that does not require the supernatural myths to model the universe.
<quoted text>
I've already done the calculations and presented the results. Now we just wait for others to test and do more calculations for verification.
Why are you so lazy and keep whining without doing a single calculation?:D
<quoted text>
Why do you keep whining then if you're not willing and able to test the model?

As you have not presented anything to work with we can't test it.

We can only assume form your unwillingness to post your calculations and your continual insults you have nothing.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Your position has become vague. So do you, or do you not believe in these supernatural unobservable dark-myths / X-galaxies?

Didn't I tell you some matter in the universe is hidden , shrouded and nearly impossible to detect because it is cold dark, emits no x-ray , gamma radiation , or reflect light nor emit radio waves?

The fact is we cannot even see our own galactic center because it is shrouded. BH's are extremely difficult to detect with the absence of stars around it. With a mass of thousands of stars it could be BH's alone that provide the extra mass we cannot observe.
But as far as believing in something you reject because it creates a conflict with your hyperbole.

But I'm not going to say I believe in anything that some sort of evidence doesn't exist for to collaborate it's existence.
But I do think that evidence shows us what does exist.
You do of course understand that this is exactly what led to the discovery of Uranus and Neptune. The effect it's gravity had Jupiter. Told us they were there.

So yes I think it is possible that they exist by the evidence at hand.

I can also tell you you have your science mixed up.
The first thing is not a model, that's preposterous .
There is no reason to model something you have not yet discovered or observed. With dark matter there were several observations
made that led to the hypothesis. So let me instruct the proper method.

1. Make a observation.

2. Ask a question.

3. Form a hypothesis.

4. Test it or perform an experiment.

5. Accept or reject hypothesis and or formulate a new hypothesis.

Also observation weighs heavier in science than modeling.
Without the observation there can be no hypothesis model or theory.
But then there is what is called a physical model, and theory
can be built on that. With a galaxy the model can be itself.
Especially in astronomy. So you should learn to differentiate between a physical model and theoretical models.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you babbling nonsense?
Have you done any calculations to test the new gravity model?

Until the units of measure on either side of the equality are the same you have no model.

It's just another of those trivially simple concepts you can not grasp.

Richardfs wrote:

As you have not presented anything to work with we can't test it.
We can only assume form your unwillingness to post your calculations and your continual insults you have nothing.

The gravity model is known. The observed data is known.

What's your problem? Don't know how to calculate so others have to do it for you?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
The gravity model is known. The observed data is known.
What's your problem? Don't know how to calculate so others have to do it for you?

You are making yourself look like the fool with every post. Your refusal to post your calculations shows beyond doubt that you have no faith in your model working.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

Until the units of measure on either side of the equality are the same you have no model.
It's just another of those trivially simple concepts you can not grasp.

The units are the same. This has been explained to you many times already. Go look at the units of the calculated masses I presented.

As an exercise for you:
What is the unit of mass in this new gravity model?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Until the units of measure on either side of the equality are the same you have no model.
It's just another of those trivially simple concepts you can not grasp.

He is probably still trying to grasp the concept of toilet paper.

Richardfs wrote:

You are making yourself look like the fool with every post. Your refusal to post your calculations shows beyond doubt that you have no faith in your model working.

Once more:
How do scientists test the models presented by others?

1. by whining to get to see the calculations without doing any work to test the model
or
2. doing the calculation work themselves so that verification can be done by multiple instances producing separate results for comparison

???

Do you know how testing works in science?

Aura Mytha wrote:

Didn't I tell you some matter in the universe is hidden , shrouded and nearly impossible to detect because it is cold dark, emits no x-ray , gamma radiation , or reflect light nor emit radio waves?
The fact is we cannot even see our own galactic center because it is shrouded. BH's are extremely difficult to detect with the absence of stars around it. With a mass of thousands of stars it could be BH's alone that provide the extra mass we cannot observe.
But as far as believing in something you reject because it creates a conflict with your hyperbole.
But I'm not going to say I believe in anything that some sort of evidence doesn't exist for to collaborate it's existence.
But I do think that evidence shows us what does exist.
You do of course understand that this is exactly what led to the discovery of Uranus and Neptune. The effect it's gravity had Jupiter. Told us they were there.
So yes I think it is possible that they exist by the evidence at hand.
I can also tell you you have your science mixed up.
The first thing is not a model, that's preposterous .
There is no reason to model something you have not yet discovered or observed. With dark matter there were several observations
made that led to the hypothesis. So let me instruct the proper method.
1. Make a observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test it or perform an experiment.
5. Accept or reject hypothesis and or formulate a new hypothesis.
Also observation weighs heavier in science than modeling.
Without the observation there can be no hypothesis model or theory.
But then there is what is called a physical model, and theory
can be built on that. With a galaxy the model can be itself.
Especially in astronomy. So you should learn to differentiate between a physical model and theoretical models.

Ok. Lets take this:
"1. Make a observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test it or perform an experiment.
5. Accept or reject hypothesis and or formulate a new hypothesis."

In 1967 it was observed that the rotational curves of galaxies falsify the gravitational models.
Why were the gravity models falsified when the observations contradicted them?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
The units are the same. This has been explained to you many times already. Go look at the units of the calculated masses I presented.
As an exercise for you:
What is the unit of mass in this new gravity model?

You can't pull units of measure out of your butt. You're just no good at science, my humble brothe. Even macramé may be beyond your ability. Have you considered paint-by-number?

Peace on you.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Once more:
How do scientists test the models presented by others?
1. by whining to get to see the calculations without doing any work to test the model
or
2. doing the calculation work themselves so that verification can be done by multiple instances producing separate results for comparison
???
Do you know how testing works in science?

Any honest scientist will publish their model, data, calculations and results without been asked. But as you are are neither honest or a scientist you will not post your calculations.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't pull units of measure out of your butt. You're just no good at science, my humble brothe. Even macramé may be beyond your ability. Have you considered paint-by-number?
Peace on you.

Finger painting?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you understand that the Newtonian gravity model fails to mathematically model the *observed* universe?

Exactly. So, exactly as I said, there is either more matter that currently observable, or there is a need for a new model.

You like to restate the obvious and pretend its original? Apparently.

So you admit that the units of G are required solely because the equation needs to be balanced.

Nope. G is required because there is observably an attraction between lumps of matter in the real world, and this attraction has a field strength based on the amount of matter and the distance between the lumps.

Your requirement for the units arises from the equation itself.
Now, is that equation falsifiable? Yes or no?

Well, that is a typical inversion. No. The requirement for the units arise from the fact that there is an attraction between lumps of matter. Given that the force is a function of the masses and distance, you simply need to express the discovered, real, attractive field strength in units compatible with linking one to the other. Its not magic, its simple logic.

Falsifiable? Yes, if it fails to match observations, and there is no possible explanation consistent with it. In that case we would need either to add matter that cannot be observed, or change the equations of gravity at galactic scales.

But in any case, the equations are well verified on scales of solar systems etc, so the model works very well at certain scales.

That is the problem. I would admit that some alteration in gravitational models may give a better result, but it certainly wont be your absurd little attempt. You cannot even get the solar system or local satellites right. You just aren't even close.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you proclaim your opinions? This is not a faith-club.
I have given you the results of the model. You are free to test the model on your own.
I understand it is a lot of work as science usually is. If you're not mathematically capable of testing the new model then it is only your problem.

Bullshit, again.

You are not capable of presenting a single workable calculation based on your model. I showed you how easily the newtonian model predicts the respective velocities of two masses in orbit around their centre of mass, showed you how it could predict the actual year (full revolution) of these two objects, etc. Calculations that can be verified by observation, even used to model rocket flights.

You cannot give us squat, because you are incapable. "Cannot retrieve it from a spreadsheet" as you claimed to RichardFS - calling your bluff, you idiot. Of course you can, if your gibberish means anything.

Now, weeks later, you are just as incapable as ever and you still have not demonstrated that G is "magic" or that you can derive actual real masses from your silly equations. It does not matter than you create a new unit called "mass effect", because you would STILL have to relate your equations back to real, measurable, MASS for them to be more than meaningless garbage.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

You can't pull units of measure out of your butt. You're just no good at science, my humble brothe. Even macramé may be beyond your ability. Have you considered paint-by-number?
Peace on you.

The units are a necessary consequence of the model.

Where do you think the units of gravitational constant G came?:D
Did the dark-myth-god reveal them to Newton?

Richardfs wrote:

Any honest scientist will publish their model, data, calculations and results without been asked. But as you are are neither honest or a scientist you will not post your calculations.

Where are all of NASA's calculations published?:D

A lot of people seem to think that NASA is hiding a lot of stuff because they will not publish. They only give vague statements to the press.

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
Finger painting?

The numbers are a concern.

Chimney1 wrote:

Exactly. So, exactly as I said, there is either more matter that currently observable, or there is a need for a new model.

There is no observation the support "more matter". Do you understand?
Do you understand that science is based on observations and not the lack of them?

Chimney1 wrote:

Nope. G is required because there is observably an attraction between lumps of matter in the real world, and this attraction has a field strength based on the amount of matter and the distance between the lumps.

So tell me how you derive the units from Cavendish's experiment and nature without using the falsifiable equation.

Chimney1 wrote:

Well, that is a typical inversion. No. The requirement for the units arise from the fact that there is an attraction between lumps of matter. Given that the force is a function of the masses and distance, you simply need to express the discovered, real, attractive field strength in units compatible with linking one to the other. Its not magic, its simple logic.
Falsifiable? Yes, if it fails to match observations, and there is no possible explanation consistent with it. In that case we would need either to add matter that cannot be observed, or change the equations of gravity at galactic scales.
But in any case, the equations are well verified on scales of solar systems etc, so the model works very well at certain scales.

Do you measure G from nature or calculate from a falsifiable equation?

Chimney1 wrote:

That is the problem. I would admit that some alteration in gravitational models may give a better result, but it certainly wont be your absurd little attempt. You cannot even get the solar system or local satellites right. You just aren't even close.

The new model works very well for modeling the whole solar system. I've just presented the calculated data of the object masses in our solar system.