Posted on 10/09/2005 2:43:18 PM PDT by Southack
C#58
I'll agree that the Mars Rover is very impressive.
Deep Impact was cool too, but I helped with that one.
Call me in 15 months.
NASA is doing a good job with the manned program too despite being held back...
It'll be interesting to see if the experiment proves Heaviside's speculative 1893 paper, "A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy".
How so? My opinion is they've been stuck with flawed systems. It's not been a lack of money. A $100 billion each for the Shuttle and ISS. The Shuttle was brought down by a piece of rubber and a piece of foam, both known problems at the time. After a two year break and hundreds of millions of dollars they still can't keep the foam on the tank. Now they want to go with another expensive, time consuming system that is likely to bore the public to tears.
I should spend my money so you pesky little Saganites can take pretty pictures and smash probes into rocks... Again space is not about science.. It is about EXPLORATION and it TAKES HUMANS TO EXPLORE!!!!!
Sorry, but this is absurd. The earth itself is far from perfectly round. The earth is a LUMPY sphere (not even counting mountains and surface features), so that the earth's gravitational field is not prefectly uniform.
If the experimental telescope drifts away from the guidestar all it will prove is that the NON-uniform gravitational field of the LUMPY earth has caused it to drift off axis.
This experiment will not prove anything.
In other words, this experiment is as sloppy as the one that originally "proved" Einstein's theory: Three telescopes were used to observe a star almost behind the sun during an eclipse. One DISPROVED Einstein, one agreed with Einstein, and one was shut out by clouds. Result? World-wide news coverage that Einstein was proven correct. Anyone want to defend that as "science?" One out of three experiements ONE TIME seem to indicate something. Is that what "science" has degenerated into these days? We are entering a new dark ages, if so.
Anyone read the scientific method lately? Have we completely abandonded the scientific method. A single experiment run ONE time, tells us NOTHING. It must be repeated by independent investigators to even begin to qualify as "science." That NASA would call one telescope run one time "science" is an appalling disgrace to science.
The Smartest thing about Einstein was his ability to
manipulate gullible journalists.
What? Wasting taxpayer dollars? Of course there's no private company, organization, or otherwise that could do this. Nope, we need the government to do it for us
You should be proud. NASA gets an incredible amount of web hits from around the world when these unmanned missions are in full swing.
Not necessarily; it depends on your reference frame. For example, imagine that you are in a room with another observer who is standing in place, but spinning around in a circle. From your point of view, he is spinning, but from his point of view, you are travelling in a circular path with a radius equal to the distance separating the two of you. His point of view and yours are equally valid. What force is acting on you that makes you start moving in a circular path?
Explore this!
Nothing. That's why the two perceptions are not equally valid. Velocity may be relative, but acceleration (and this includes change in the direction of velocity) is absolute.
I'm going to hazard a guess that they've corrected for that.
Damn my memory. When I read that the first time around, I thought it was essentially saying that Einstein was the father of Differential Geometry. Not so, he was just the first person to apply it to physics.
How does the old, lame joke go? "All things are relative, all relatives are things, all my relatives took all my things"...
I'm not sure what prompted this outburst ... but it's misdirected. Heaviside developed a post-Newtonian theory of gravity based on Maxwell's equations. It's a solid speculation and, imho, leads to the concept of a general vector wave theory. Since Heaviside's gravity theory is basically a weak field/linear version of GR, I wonder if it would be profitable to develop a GR-like expression for electromagnetics (where Maxwell's Equations are the weak field/linear approximation). I've always thought that the nice linear Maxwell equations are "small signal analysis" version of some unknown, higher-order em equations.
If anything, your rage should be directed at the Cult of Quantum Mechanics(TM).
If that was accurate, then he could push you farther away by making himself spin faster.
bread crumbs-->............
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.