"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
How about the observation of a big celestial object entering the solar system and traveling close past some planets and creating a path that falsifies the whole Newtonian model?
If the model is falsified so is G.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
That's funny. You are the one who confused units with variables of the equations.
Would you like me to quote your post and provide the link to that failure of yours?

humble brother wrote:

As Polymath put it the total acceleration of things falling to Earth when observed and measured by an observer on Earth is:
A + a = G(M + m)/ r²
All can probably now agree that objects falling to Earth do not fall at the exact same rate when observed from Earth.
The myth of all masses falling at the exact same acceleration rate on Earth can be put to rest now. There is difference in the acceleration rates but it is not measurable unless the falling objects are HUGE.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
How about the observation of a big celestial object entering the solar system and traveling close past some planets and creating a path that falsifies the whole Newtonian model?
If the model is falsified so is G.

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:

As Polymath put it the total acceleration of things falling to Earth when observed and measured by an observer on Earth is:
A + a = G(M + m)/ r²
All can probably now agree that objects falling to Earth do not fall at the exact same rate when observed from Earth.
The myth of all masses falling at the exact same acceleration rate on Earth can be put to rest now. There is difference in the acceleration rates but it is not measurable unless the falling objects are HUGE.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Chimney tried to explain why G is there but then failed miserably.
Do you understand that G is as falsifiable as the model?

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Earth mass = 6 * 10^24 kg
Hammer mass = 6 kg
How can doubling either mass double the gravitational force but only doubling the bigger mass doubles the *relative* acceleration between them?

Chimney1 wrote:

Previously, you asserted falsely that in G Mm/r^2, that m stood for meters.
So now you have just lied again.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

That doesn't falsify anything. Newtonian n-body problem are solved by integrating a set of three dimensional vector functions. The accuracy of the solution is limited by the accuracy and precision with which the initial positions, velocities and masses can be determined and the computational power applied to the problem.

polymath257 wrote:

And I think most physicists would be happy with that. The point is that, to within our ability to measure, the accelerations are the same. In Galileo's time, the expectation was that the acceleration would be proportional to the mass. This is clearly NOT the case. Equal accelerations is a much better approximation.

polymath257 wrote:

You make it sound like that is a deficiency. It is, in fact, what makes it science. On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath for such a huge celestial object to appear.

Chimney1 wrote:

As we pointed out to you weeks ago.
However, the difference for smaller falling masses say 1 kg or 1000 kg or 1,000,000 kg, is so tiny that while its calculable, its empirically indetectible.
That was one of the earliest lessons we tried to deliver to you, which yu rejected at the time, insisting that a 1 versus 2 kg object would have "totally different" velocities and paths.
You really are too funny. Who do you think your lies are kidding? Only yourself.

Chimney1 wrote:

No, as usual, you merely failed to understand the explanation.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, that is true. And we are totally unable to measure the tiny differences.
Still, I would rather tell people the mathematically correct story than tell them the myth that things on Earth fall at the *exact* same acceleration rate.
Now we have even Mythbusters declaring on TV that this is not a myth but actually true. They probably didn't look into the mathematics at all. This kind of myths can cause people to form wrong mathematical solutions just because they believe the myth is true and don't see past it.

Chimney1 wrote:

So, back to lesson one, from weeks ago, where this was explained.
Add the total mass.
Doubling the 6 kg increases total mass by
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000
Doubling the earth's mass increases the total mass by
1.999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999
In other words, practically speaking, not at all, in the first case, double in the second. As was explained to you by me six weeks ago.

Aerobatty wrote:

Kinda like religion.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You failed to understand the point.
Suppose a big celestial object is observed to pass very near Jupiter and Mars. This object passes the centers of both planets at the exact same distance. Now suppose both planets cause the exact same deviation to the path of the big celestial object.
This would falsify all current gravity models and also the gravitational constant G.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. People should not stop to believe what someone says to be true.
People should find out for themselves and seek to understand.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not a deficiency. It does however show that people claiming G to be a "natural constant" are wrong.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

Polymath gives you a lot more credit than you deserve. Personally, I don't think you've got the brains to solve a one-body problem in three dimensions, much less a three-body problem.
Give it a try if you think you're up to it.
Given an arbitrary mass in an arbitrary three dimensional rectilinear coordinate system,(x,y,z), with initial position at time zero of (px0,py0,pz0) and initial velocity of (vx0,vy0,vz0), what are the position and velocity of the arbitrary mass at t = 1 ?