Replies

All this scientist did was manipulate the basic formula from the Newtonian model to fit the data. Basically, he is fudging the numbers without understanding the physical mechanism is that underpins his equation. Maybe he will be the one to describe a new theory of Gravitational Motion, but he hasn't done it yet.

But there is nothing wrong with writing an equation to fit the data. The only problem is that you have show that many, many examples fit your equation. Then people will start looking for examples that don't work. After about 50 years of nobody being able to find an example that doesn't work, your equation becomes scientific fact.

Hope this isn't a repeat, first try was "good by'd" by AOL.

What I meant to comment on is the stonewall that gets thrown up when a 'new' or at least non-orthidox idea is put forward.

There is nothing to DIS-prove this change to the formula, it does seem to fit what can be observed. The next step shold be to attempt to repeat or to provide a theory to test over time, not to jump up and say - 'can't be', 'not in accordance with theory' etc.

YOU did not say those things, scholors too often DO say those things. Since those same scholors, or their cousins in another field, still can't prove Darwin - I'd say they might benefit from getting out more...looking past their graduate thesis for something new.