Posted on 02/16/2007 11:23:52 PM PST by neverdem
Well, it seems reasonable to me but then I'm not a physicist - probably a good thing.
No, he doesn't know that there are two theories of relativity about different things, both revolutionary.
Not true. Everything he said relates to general relativity except the date.
OK, I'll admit that's another way to look at it but I bet you're wrong.
Thanks for the ping!
I don't see how that can be true, that the discrepancy can be no larger. The masses can presumably be increased without limit and I bet that for a given r there's some large mass that the error would be larger. As the masses increase the error increases proportionally. The proportion of the error doesn't increase (excluding relativity effects).
But there are errors in kind too where Newton would predict zero effect but Einstein predicts non-zero and in such a case the error is infinite.
If I understand correctly, you are talking about a limit, which does not go to infinity.
For example, if a mass is rotating, it actually makes spacetime rotate too. A test mass falling toward the "equator" of the rotating one would appear to a distant observer to move laterally. Newton would have the test mass fall straight toward the other.
Your example is indicative of relativistic masses and speeds, spinning black holes, etc. At non relativistic speeds and masses, Newtons equations essentially agree with Einsteins.
First my statement that Newton was accurate to 1 part in 107 came from Penrose's, The Road to Reality, pg. 390. And second your estimation of accuracy is not very accurate, it would be more accurate (I am fudging a little) if you took into account all the revolutions that Mercury makes in 100 years (apx. 415) and used that to provide a percentage (43/1,494,000= .0000287), not 1 part in 107 but closer.
The problem with that particular example is that because of the mass and proximity of the Sun to Mercury relativistic forces are in play and it was one of the examples that Einstein used to support the Theory of Relativity : )
An interesting web site on the differences and problems with the two theories is, http://www.coolissues.com/gravitation/gmetric.htm
I basically agree with your conclusions above. What I have been having trouble finding out though is if an increase in normal clouds is positive or negative forcing for temperature. It may be that over water they decrease the temperature and over land they increase the temperature because of the relative albedo effects of the ocean compared to land.
It may be that increasing the size of the forests contributes to global warming : ) because the vegetation absorbs the radiation.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. (Next to last paragraph of section IV)
Folks at Rochester, don't bother asking which Rochester, appear to disagree with you.
No, it's very nearly right although I guess I should have expressed it as a fraction of the observed value of 5600 seconds of arc per century.
And anyway, you can tell yours is wrong because the value you compute is not dimensionless.
A scientific law, or empirical law, is a general principle that is very well supported by evidence such as experimental results and observational data. Typically scientific laws are limited sets of rules that have a well documented history for successfully predicting the outcomes of experiments and observations. The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. Typically scientific laws are more limited sets of rules for making predictions about the world than scientific theories.
Contrast this with
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
So you see the difference is fundamentally whether the phenomena are simply described (a law) or explained (a theory). Another way to view the relation is that theories use laws as their axioms.
OK, I see kind of what you mean although I think you miscalculated the number of arc seconds in 100 years worth of revolutions. I'll have to think about whether your description is more appropriate for the application at hand.
Good points but I'm speaking realistically about science in America.
Okay, the limits of knowns has lead to the "philosophical" string theory and gaia theory.
Since the 1970s, the best American minds have gone into business and law. This has lead the American business community to fund "science" to justify business interest. Currently, most of the best scientist in America are foreign born. The Indian Institute of Technology has surpassed MIT in many areas of science and the European Institute of Technology is set to start. With these trends, America can no longer use science objectively. We could not answer yes or no on Iraq WMDs (the science was ignored), we cannot answer yes or no on global warming, we cannot objectively implement sound environmental policies (asbestos/fiberglass--what's the difference), etc. It seems non-scientist will determine the future of science in America. A Republic..............if you can keep it.........
There's Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment
They found that now they have exceptions to Mendelian genetics.
Global variation in copy number in the human genome
Mendelian genetics works most of the time, just like Newtonian mechanics. Good night
You misunderstand what I'm saying to some degree - my fault. The major reason for the (almost :-) zero chance of a big US science effort has very little to do with the Washington, DC crowd. It is the science community itself that squashes such an idea! When I make such comments as, "The US has the ability to do this by ourselves..." to the very good scientists around here, they unfailingly look at me as if I must be drunk! Research scientists seem to lack any confidence in the United States' ability for accomplishment in the absence of major international support. (Three examples where I've seen this relatively recently: Missile defense, Fusion, Large Acclerators)
I really don't have an answer to that. One expects smart people not to be so stupid.
It wouldn't help to ask them how we were able to do the Apollo program before, almost by ourselves -- they're wearing emotional blinders and habitual straightjackets.
OK, Lysenko isn't directly related, but eugenics is. It's funny to think of Gore as being a modern day Sanger.
On "philosophical" string theory, have you read Smolin's The Trouble With Physics. Not great literature but interesting. On the whole I think he's too hard on the String Theorists. My view is that all this time they've been struggling to build a theory that connects with reality but just haven't managed.
Really, I think you're much too pessimistic.
BTW, I spoke too hastily about your source. It's not wrong, just off point. They're focusing on the similarities between theory and law, not the differences. So yes, both make predictions and can be invalidated by contrary findings.
if the liberals keep pushing this topic....it will crash the economy, and lead to world wide depression...
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.