"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
No they will not take the *exact* same path. Because of the differences in the masses the overall gravitational force affecting these two momenta will be different.
<quoted text>
You specifically claimed that only speed matters and then went on to say that even Galileo has proven me wrong.
Do you still stand behind that statement?
<quoted text>
No.

Consider that Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion, which describe some of the aspects of the orbits of planets around the Sun, and do so accurately within amazing tolerances...make no mention of the mass of the planet whatsoever.

Polymath is right on this. Given

F=ma

and

F=GMm/d^2

Then the acceleration (a) on a planet is independent of the mass of the planet (m). It depends only on the mass of the Sun (M) and the distance from the Sun (d). G, the gravitational constant, is...well...constant.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

Consider that Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion, which describe some of the aspects of the orbits of planets around the Sun, and do so accurately within amazing tolerances...make no mention of the mass of the planet whatsoever.
Polymath is right on this.

Sorry to disappoint you but Polymath already stated that the courses will not be the exact same.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

Given

F=ma
and
F=GMm/d^2
Then the acceleration (a) on a planet is independent of the mass of the planet (m). It depends only on the mass of the Sun (M) and the distance from the Sun (d). G, the gravitational constant, is...well...constant.

And you've stepped on the same mine.

Are you saying that the Sun's gravity field pulls the planets but the planets themselves have no gravity fields pulling back?

Gravitational force results from the interaction between two gravity fields, both masses always affect. Increase either mass and the gravitational force between the two fields increases.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Consider that Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion, which describe some of the aspects of the orbits of planets around the Sun, and do so accurately within amazing tolerances...make no mention of the mass of the planet whatsoever.
Polymath is right on this. Given
F=ma
and
F=GMm/d^2
Then the acceleration (a) on a planet is independent of the mass of the planet (m). It depends only on the mass of the Sun (M) and the distance from the Sun (d). G, the gravitational constant, is...well...constant.

HB isn't very good with the concept of 'good approximation'. Unfortunately, this is a common problem.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry to disappoint you but Polymath already stated that the courses will not be the exact same.
<quoted text>
And you've stepped on the same mine.
Are you saying that the Sun's gravity field pulls the planets but the planets themselves have no gravity fields pulling back?
Gravitational force results from the interaction between two gravity fields, both masses always affect. Increase either mass and the gravitational force between the two fields increases.

Uh...

I believe I said "within tolerances", or do you not understand such?

Yes, planets do have a gravitational pull on the Sun, but that does NOT put a pull on the planet toward the Sun. The planets put a very tiny pull on the Sun, leading to the Sun making small movements. Those movements of the Sun have VIRTUALLY no effect on planetary orbits.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
HB isn't very good with the concept of 'good approximation'. Unfortunately, this is a common problem.

I'm beginning to see that. Is he one of those "it's either exactly the same or else completely different" theists?

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm beginning to see that. Is he one of those "it's either exactly the same or else completely different" theists?

Unless, of course, it suits his purpose to ignore differences.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh...
I believe I said "within tolerances", or do you not understand such?
Yes, planets do have a gravitational pull on the Sun, but that does NOT put a pull on the planet toward the Sun. The planets put a very tiny pull on the Sun, leading to the Sun making small movements. Those movements of the Sun have VIRTUALLY no effect on planetary orbits.

GR says it's not pulling , its falling toward. You know curved space and all.

polymath257 wrote:

HB isn't very good with the concept of 'good approximation'. Unfortunately, this is a common problem.

It's quite pathetic that people lower themselves to throw negative opinions about individuals in the debate. It shows poor character and childish need to just run their mouth.

You're the one who first claimed that the two paths would be the exact same regardless of the masses of the two objects. The fact is that because they are not the same we can use gravitational fields for measuring masses of objects, including photons.

Put blue and red lasers on a satellite, send it to orbit the moon and aim the lasers towards Earth extremely near the moon. You just might see a difference where they hit on Earth. I don't know how big the difference might be but perhaps it is measurable.

Aura Mytha wrote:

What I do find interesting is defending properties of something that cannot definitively proven to even exist. It's sort of like saying it's raining on alternate Earth today....full stop! But we cannot be sure alternate Earth exists let alone that it is raining there? I will listen but not commit myself entirely to the theoretical. Sometimes we find reality is much different than out best guess.
On another note a void has been found "supposedly"
in the universe. Now hb's job is easier all he has to do is show evidence everything is going around it. GL with that , my bet is it is a eclipse of something yet undiscovered.

I recall some Dutch guys making a model of the universe, bit like a rounded cube with one chimney that contained nothing.
I suppose is you would translate that it could maybe coincide with the huge hole in the darker CMBR.
Often science articles leave more to speculation then giving answers.
Sofar i am still getting to grips with the theoretical.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

Uh...
I believe I said "within tolerances", or do you not understand such?
Yes, planets do have a gravitational pull on the Sun, but that does NOT put a pull on the planet toward the Sun. The planets put a very tiny pull on the Sun, leading to the Sun making small movements. Those movements of the Sun have VIRTUALLY no effect on planetary orbits.

You said "amazing tolerances" and that is just nonsense

If you know that your calculation is NOT accurate, why would you use it in science when you also know how to accurately and simply calculate the same scenario?

Come on, answer the question "WHY would you knowingly use inaccurate calculation in science?"

Do you have an answer???

It was another smokin hot day. It's good to be able to work.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> nano likes to point at flaws , it's her job :P lol

I was just mirroring yours Hiding's and Catcher!'s recent behavior. Strange how you don't think it's immature when you and your compatriots do it.

Hypocrite.

Bluenose wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh noes! Poly made a couple of typos! The horror... the horror...
I myself am quite happy to comment on posters' spelling and grammar mistakes when it is apparent that the poster has nothing of value to add to the discussion, is an idiot and/or obviously knows nothing about the subject they are expounding on and especially when the error is repeated or it is apparent that s/he doesn't know the correct word or what the word in question means. However, when the mistakes are clearly typos and the post has meaningful comment, then commenting on the typos only shows the commenter to be petty and probably unable to make meaningful comment on the substance of the post.
It is apparent where your comment fits in.

Only losers constantly correct mistakes in grammar. We ALL know what the other poster meant, no matter what side of an argument the grammar "bungler" was on. It makes you look petty to only correct those you don't like.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
F8ck off you illiterate Creationist b*tch.

Make me, you pu**y!

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you so much for pointing out the effects of my poor typing and lack of proofreading.

I assumed you had probably been drinking. XD

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, I needed that.:)

Then you must be terribly insecure.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Then you must be terribly insecure.

Me too?

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Me too?

nano has been mirroring your behavior , how does it feel to have a fan club? he he heh

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You said "amazing tolerances" and that is just nonsense
If you know that your calculation is NOT accurate, why would you use it in science when you also know how to accurately and simply calculate the same scenario?
Come on, answer the question "WHY would you knowingly use inaccurate calculation in science?"
Do you have an answer???

Define "accurate".

Give me a decimal representation of Pi.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

Define "accurate".
Give me a decimal representation of Pi.

Ah, after long consideration you attempt to hide behind vagueness :)

In this case you were talking about orbits around Sun. Accuracy here means that you use the equations that have been found to be the most accurate in relation to the observations. Those that have been found not accurate have been falsified.

I'll make this a bit more black and white for you. You suggested using FALSE calculation because of its "amazing tolerance".

If you simulated the orbital paths of the whole solar system over a long period of time to see how things will look in the future, your "amazing tolerance" of the first few moments of motion then becomes "a total failure" very quickly.

Why would you knowingly use false calculation in science to model orbits of celestial bodies?

Do you have an answer???