Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I am aware that the last two disprove the formula of gravitation given by Newton. However, my thinking is that while such a view of gravitation may fit better with relativity, that such has not been proven yet. It probably does fit better with other things we have learned since, but better fit is again an assumption. My question was more regarding experimental evidence and how such an experiment could be accomplished.
Absolutely. Remember, a theory will always be a theory no matter how much evidence in accumulated. I know there is still much to discover. My original post was that even though it's called a Law of gravitation, it does not fit all of the observed phenomena.
You deny heliocentrism? On what basis? What is the alternative? Geocentrism has certainly been proven false.
Actually scientists DO "think stuff up". There would be no point in doing the experiments or making the observations otherwise. Those are tests.
You are agreeing with me while saying you disagree. Scientists do think up stuff but then they have to back it up. Everyone thinks up stuff. Heck if thinking up stuff was what science was about perhaps the Enquirer or the Star should be our greatest source of scientific information. I do not believe that's the case.
That may be so in astronomy where tests and experiments are really hard to make, however, I do not think that is the case in other scientific fields where tests and experiments do indeed give proof of how things work.
That is not quite the case. You can use the Earth as your frame of reference. In fact, one of my orbit classes at NASA did exactly that. We used the Earth as a frame of reference instead of the sun when we described the celestial sphere. (It described the Sun orbiting the Earth in that reference frame.)
Indeed, the bar for "proof" is high beyond reach. Even in relativity and quantum mechanics, reference is made to accuracy within certain limits and the word "proof" does not appear.
The most reliable fundamental physical constants are also shown to certain limits: NIST
However, to most people, the distinction probably doesn't make much difference since they can and do rely on the most current thinking in various matters.
I disagree. Even what "stuff" is made of and how it behaves is a theory. It all falls down to the four fundamental forces and the theories that describe them.
Oh, of course not. I defined my terms very carefully. I said that it's not a "scientific fact," which I defined in turn as being a "well confirmed observation." We do not directly observe heliocentrism, we infer it from a multitude of individual facts. Or, rather, more formally, as Popper would put it, we hypothesise heliocentrism and find that it passes the test of the facts.
Popper wasn't a skeptic, he was a philosophical realist. And we indeed cannot have certainty (in the straightforward sense of the term) in ANY claim about the natural world because our information is ALWAYS incomplete and there is ALWAYS the possiblity that new facts or knowledge will undermine our previous claims.
This is NOT skepticism. It does NOT mean that our knowledge of the natural world is not good, or valid, or useful, or anything of the like. All it means is that our knowledge is always subject to improvement or revision.
And it looks like the birthday puzzle has been thoroughly analyzed. I came up with the same formula that the paper presented by RA had. My calculator blows up at about 69!, and I didn't want to figure things out usings logs, so I cheated and used Excel.
2 364 365 0.997260274 3 363 365 0.994520548 4 362 365 0.991780822 5 361 365 0.989041096 6 360 365 0.98630137 7 359 365 0.983561644 8 358 365 0.980821918 9 357 365 0.978082192 10 356 365 0.975342466 11 355 365 0.97260274 12 354 365 0.969863014 13 353 365 0.967123288 14 352 365 0.964383562 15 351 365 0.961643836 16 350 365 0.95890411 17 349 365 0.956164384 18 348 365 0.953424658 19 347 365 0.950684932 20 346 365 0.947945205 21 345 365 0.945205479 22 344 365 0.942465753 23 343 365 0.939726027 24 342 365 0.936986301 25 341 365 0.934246575 26 340 365 0.931506849 27 339 365 0.928767123 28 338 365 0.926027397 29 337 365 0.923287671 30 336 365 0.920547945 0.293683757 0.706316243
P.S. No stinking leap years.
Just be glad (as I'm sure you are) that we're not living in a Muslim society.
Read the first paragraph or so of Dobzhansky's classsic essay (actually, it would do you good to read and understand all of it) Nothing makes sense in Biology except in the Light of Evolution.
The heliocentric *theory* is supported by observation, but according to Martin Luther it's not in agreement with Scripture:
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon . . . This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but sacred Scripture tells us (Joshua l0:l3) that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth..
Seems to me that our trips to the Moon, and probes to other planets prove the theory quite well
Isn't this exactly the same way in which dna analysis 'proves' the truth of evolution? The theory makes predictions, eg. 'any dna that is common to people and orangutangs will also be found in chimps and gorillas', and these predictions are found to be true.
How is that different from any other sort of science?
Agreed and never said there was. Just trying to balance the perspective for everyone else who may be reading these threads but not participating as closely in the negotiations and following every detail.
This could have been added after the 30 day review, if necessary. That's why I recommended the freeze of the agreement while we had 99.9% agreement from everyone, including you, along with the 30 day review.
Same can always be said..."If you want to look at it your way, that's up to you." Fair and balanced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.