"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Haha. Your observation is the failure of the current hypothesis :)
Then you hypothesize that the cause of the failure of the model is dark matter :D
Science is made by observing natural phenomena and explaining/modeling them. What is your observed natural phenomenon?
<quoted text>
And you can not test your hypothesis :D
<quoted text>
Suppose two massive rogue planets are flying directly at each other fast in space. They have exactly the same mass and they pass each other and both are deviated 90 degrees from their paths to opposite directions.
What do you think happened to the energies?

Opposite directions is 180 degrees , and unless they impacted they wouldn't have to lose much momentum.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I do find it funny how religious you are even about G. Not realizing that it is a patched magic constant for which the units are just stuffed in to balance the equation.
Do you already understand that G is as falsifiable as the model itself?

So what? All you've done is calculated the orbital velocity of Charon and gone off on a tangent.

humble brother wrote:

So what actually did happen in 1967?
1. Physicists observe the gravity model fail miserably.
2. What do they falsify?
3. They falsify ALL observations of the universe and cling to the model.
The magic line:
"Little did Rubin know that her observations would trigger a rethinking of what the entire universe is made of."
Yes, lets rethink the entire universe and cling to the false model :D

This is an incorrect description of what happened. Previously, the gravitational model had been 'falsified' by the motions of Uranus. Yet the model was then used to predict the existence of another planet: Neptune. That planet was subsequently discovered, confirming the model.

In the case of dark matter, the motions of stars did not conform to the pattern of matter we can actually see. So there are two possibilities, just like there was when Uranus did not move as predicted: one was to change the law of gravity and the other is to use the model to predict new mass.

BOTH options were, in fact, tried. Modified gravity theories, like MOND, were explored, but their predictions do not agree with other observations like the patterns of gravitational lensing or the details of fluctuations in the background radiation. On the other hand, the hypothesis that there is additional unseen matter *has* stood up to further observations.

So, it was certainly *possible* that the motions of stars would falsify the gravitational theories, just like it was *possible* that the motion of Uranus would do so. But, in practice, using the model to predict the location and density of unseen matter has worked to explain further observations, from lensing, to the motion of galaxies in clusters, to the patterns of fluctuations in the background radiation.

Typically, the first response to data that appears to falsify a long-standing model is to see if a simple additional assumption will rescue the model. Of course, alternative models are also considered, but a working model that has survived centuries is not easily discarded.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you even read the posts that you respond to?
I gave you the link, you can now go look for the RESULTS of the CALCULATIONS by going to page 528 and clicking "prev page" some number of times until you find both Polymath's and my comments on the results.
Is that too difficult for you?

And my comments show that your model is silly.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
It is already clear that the new gravity model can be used to model gravity for the whole 100 % complete universe.
Even NASA admits that their model indicates that they can only model gravity for less than 5 % of the universe.

THis is wrong. We can *model* gravity for the whole 100%. It is the composition that we have troubles with. In fact, it is the gravity that is the only part that we *do* model well.

Do you understand that the cancellation of m from
ma = GMm/r²
means that your model can not compensate for different gravitational scenarios by changing the size of m.

No, I do not understand that because it is wrong. What it shows is that the acceleration of one of the masses does not depend on m. But the acceleration of the *other* mass does, so the subsequent motion of the complete system depends on both masses.

It is absolutely idiotic to think that the mass of the orbiter didn't affect the orbit.

The mass affects how much fuel is required to get it into orbit and to the correct velocity. Once that is achieved, the mass is irrelevant for anything much smaller than a planet.

Because of this idiocy your model can not account for the rotation curves of galaxies. How sad is that?

The sadness is how little of the whole thing you understand. The flat rotation curve shows the existence of matter we don't otherwise see. The gravitational lensing confirms the existence of that matter.

The new model handles all rotation curves beautifully because different orbital masses produce different rotation curves within the model, that's a fact.

And yet, you supply no details of the outlandish claim.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no second equation in the case of relative rotation of the orbiter around the star.

There is one equation for the motion of the orbiter and another for the motion of the planet it orbits. For small orbiters, the second shows very little change in the motion of the planet and so is tpyically ignored.

When you calculate the planets radius of rotation relative to the star your model cancels out the planets mass. For that reason you're unable to model the rotation curves of the galaxies and therefore you believe that supernatural unobservable dark-myth-didit with magic.

Nothing at all supernatural about it. In fact, weakly interacting matter that does not interact via E&M is almost unavoidable in our theories of particle physics.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
It is my computer that does the calculations for me.
My calculations are in a spread sheet. I can not post the spread sheet.

No, but you can and should post the way you programmed the spreadsheet and how it uses the data you put in to get the results.

Why do you not do a few simple calculations yourself?
It would take you less than 10 minutes to calculate a few planets.
Why do you keep whining for days while you could have already calculated all planets?

And the calculations clearly show your model to be useless.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you like to me go over with you how to calculate with the data for e.g. Earth and Mars?

Yes, please. That should be fun.

humble brother wrote:

Calculated data coming in...
Calculated masses as per;
Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity
m = M²/(v²r - M)
Center of Milky Way =~2.0E+23 m³/s²
Our Sun =~3.45E+15 m³/s²
Earth =~8.95E+10 m³/s²
Moon =~1.99E+7 m³/s²
All Mars' moons each =~1.88E+8 m³/s²
All Jupiter's moons each =~6.38E+4 m³/s²
All Saturn's moons each =~2.07E+5 m³/s²
All Uranus' moons each =~1.36E+6 m³/s²
All Neptune's moons each =~1.13E+6 m³/s²
Pluto's moon Charon =~1.3E+10 m³/s²
All planets in the solar system have the same mass as Earth within our ability to measure distances and speeds.
The new model has spoken.

Show us the details of one calculation, including the evaluation of the first mass in your model.

humble brother wrote:

Did:
m = M²/(v²r - M)

Only works if you know M. How do you find M?

There are so many calculations that you wouldn't comprehend. That's why scientist who actually understand can test other models by doing necessary calculations themselves.

Show us the details of *one* particular. I would like to know how you find M in your equation.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Your schoolboy math made me laugh. You completely misunderstood the point.
Galaxies have flat rotation curves. That means that star systems that are orbiting the center of the galaxy have the same orbital speed while their radius of orbit around the galaxy center is significantly different.

And what, exactly, does your model say about this?

Observations show that in this case is true:
- a star system with distance R from the galactic center has orbital speed V
- another star system in the same galaxy with distance 5*R from the galactic center has the same orbital speed v
According to your pathetic gravity model that is not possible.

Yes, actually, it *is* possible if both are inside a sphere of almost uniform density. That is the dark matter hypothesis.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You call it a "visible anomaly" :D :D :D :D :D :D
How is it observed in the universe?

Through its gravitational effects, like gravitational lensing. Not all observation has to be with light.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
There are so many calculations that I wouldn't even consider trying to post them on this forum.
Do you by the way ask NASA to post all of their calculations somewhere, or just the results?

Actually, the techniques for the calculations are part of several courses. The details are easy once you have the general theory.

If you want to test the new model, please do, by using any and all possible scientific means you can.
But you're not capable of testing the model, are you?
The only thing you know to do is to whine like a little baby.

In m=M^2/(v^2*r-M), how do you find M?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So argument from authority is the best you can do?:D
<quoted text>
They are still in the same complex spread sheet that has taken me quite some time to generate with all the data.
The bigger question is:
Where are YOUR calculations?

Check out any book on classical mechanics.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the techniques for the calculations are part of several courses. The details are easy once you have the general theory.
<quoted text>
In m=M^2/(v^2*r-M), how do you find M?

That was my question. How can you model a force without a base to build it on?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I do find it funny how religious you are even about G. Not realizing that it is a patched magic constant for which the units are just stuffed in to balance the equation.
Do you already understand that G is as falsifiable as the model itself?

G is a characteristic of mass. Mass is not a religious concept. Its an observable quality of the universe. Gravitational attraction is also an observable property of mass in this universe. That attraction has a particular strength per unit of matter - another observable phenomenon of this universe. The one you live in.

Hence, mass having a property of attraction and that attraction having a discoverable field strength based on mass and distance, we have G, the label we put on this discovered quantity. Its purely a phenomenon of this universe.

It you who is being religious, pretending that physical phenomena can be explained by purely abstract equations that have no tangible link to reality. At some point HB, scientists have to go OUT THERE into the real world, like Cavendish did, and actually perform experiments to provide linking quantities that can turn useless equations into useful predictors of physical systems.

Newton knew that the gravitational attraction had to have SOME particular strength based on mass and distance, but this strength could not be derived from maths, only from empirical measurement. Cavendish duly finished the job.

humble brother wrote:

And you can not test your hypothesis :D

Actually it is being tested. So are the alternatives (different gravity models). However, the point is, until it can be tested, it simply remains a hypothesis. No problem.

Suppose two massive rogue planets are flying directly at each other fast in space. They have exactly the same mass and they pass each other and both are deviated 90 degrees from their paths to opposite directions.
What do you think happened to the energies?

As they approach, GpE (gravitational potential energy), which already exists between the two objects by virtue of their initial separation, will be converted to Ek as they accelerate towards each other.

After they pass by, they will slow down as they depart, and Ek will be converted back into GpE.

polymath257 wrote:

This is an incorrect description of what happened. Previously, the gravitational model had been 'falsified' by the motions of Uranus. Yet the model was then used to predict the existence of another planet: Neptune. That planet was subsequently discovered, confirming the model.
In the case of dark matter, the motions of stars did not conform to the pattern of matter we can actually see. So there are two possibilities, just like there was when Uranus did not move as predicted: one was to change the law of gravity and the other is to use the model to predict new mass.
BOTH options were, in fact, tried. Modified gravity theories, like MOND, were explored, but their predictions do not agree with other observations like the patterns of gravitational lensing or the details of fluctuations in the background radiation. On the other hand, the hypothesis that there is additional unseen matter *has* stood up to further observations.
So, it was certainly *possible* that the motions of stars would falsify the gravitational theories, just like it was *possible* that the motion of Uranus would do so. But, in practice, using the model to predict the location and density of unseen matter has worked to explain further observations, from lensing, to the motion of galaxies in clusters, to the patterns of fluctuations in the background radiation.
Typically, the first response to data that appears to falsify a long-standing model is to see if a simple additional assumption will rescue the model. Of course, alternative models are also considered, but a working model that has survived centuries is not easily discarded.

It is possible that the dark-myth-god didit with supernatural magic and logic is an illusion.

In science the situation is however that:
FOR NOW THE GRAVITY MODELS ARE FALSE AND CONTRADICT OBSERVATIONS

Currently the models are dead, they may be resurrected if the supernatural magic is observed. While the magic is not observed the model remains dead.

polymath257 wrote:

And my comments show that your model is silly.

Unfortunately your opinion does not really have any value.

The fact is that the new model can be used to model the universe.

polymath257 wrote:

THis is wrong. We can *model* gravity for the whole 100%. It is the composition that we have troubles with. In fact, it is the gravity that is the only part that we *do* model well.

No, you can not model gravity for the whole 100 % of the universe.
The model fails and there supposedly is supernatural stuff around.

Here's where you will fail miserably:
Suppose the solar system had a flat rotation curve. Your model can not model that in any way. No matter where you want to add supernatural matter, your model can not model the flat rotation curve.

Do you understand that your model simply just can not model flat rotation curves of orbital systems of multiple orbiting satellites?

polymath257 wrote:

No, I do not understand that because it is wrong. What it shows is that the acceleration of one of the masses does not depend on m. But the acceleration of the *other* mass does, so the subsequent motion of the complete system depends on both masses.

And so the mass m makes any mass accelerate at the same rate and not have any resistance to that acceleration. That's a big joke.

polymath257 wrote:

The mass affects how much fuel is required to get it into orbit and to the correct velocity. Once that is achieved, the mass is irrelevant for anything much smaller than a planet.

So where does the line of irrelevancy go?:D

polymath257 wrote:

The sadness is how little of the whole thing you understand. The flat rotation curve shows the existence of matter we don't otherwise see. The gravitational lensing confirms the existence of that matter.

No, the rotation curve shows that your model is false.