2 Likes
Newtonian gravity and mechanics got men to the Moon. It would be more accurate to say Newton does not deal with exceptional circumstances. I’m not really into all this ‘wrong’ business, as really every scientific theory is ‘wrong’ ultimately. Most scientists now consider that even Einstein does not give the complete picture. There will probably never be any ultimate ‘correct’ testable theory, because the deeper one goes the less testable theories become. A machine to test for the existence of gravitons would, for example, need to be larger than the Earth’s orbit.
It is better to see scientific theories as ‘useful’ rather than ‘correct’.
1 Like
But this is precisely my point. Every law and every theory is debatable.
yes, that is what I wrote before :
The word “wrong” is the point of contention here. Use “incomplete” or “unsatisfactory” for certain cases and you’ll still encompass gravitation itself and allow general relativity to encompass Newton’s universal law of gravitation (which it does).
The word “debatable” is the point of contention.
Wrong is a synonym for “invalid” . A (scientific) law is invalidated by definition when there is an experiment that contradicts its predictions. A law can not be proven right ; it can however be proven wrong.
To debate a law is to discuss if some experiments DO invalidate that law. It already happened before Mercury’s problem, with the neptun orbit problem. However the subsequent discovery of uranus settled this case as “non invalidating” ; there was nevertheless a debate.
Note that to debate a law is not a goal in itself. The goal is, to debate the impact of the results of an experimentation (assuming the experimentation itself has already been validated). If some result prove the law wrong, then the law is de facto debated.
Claiming that scientific laws can’t be debated is a complete misconception of what science is.
You can call the usual check on applicability of any scientific theory a “debate” if that is what you like. That usual check was never in question. What I and Altara have tried to make you understand is that the word “wrong” is the point of contention. The point of contention is NOT that scientific theories are under constant review to determine their range of applicability, which is self-evident for anyone familiar with how science works, and which you call “debating”. Once you accept that, you will see there really is no fundamental disagreement here. At least, that is how I see it.
Yes it is.
You affirmed they can’t be debated by science :
THAT is the reason I told you that laws are still debated.
Because that discourse is the one of a zealot masquerading science as a validation for his opinions.
I have nothing against religions, but I hate liars who pretend to do science when they solely preach their dogma.
Give to Newton what belongs to Newton and to God what belongs to God.
It’s been established in this thread that disagreeing isn’t ignorance… or stupid. 
I take it you’re not scientist then.
Here, I’ll help you out of your fanatic’s misery, killing your strawman argument many posts ago.
Which part are you not able to grasp ? The English part ?
If you knew half of what you think you know, you’d know that even that half is flawed. And that is mainly due to the cursory reading you do. But since you’re not willing to consider context, neither in text nor in scientific theory, that is not a surprise. Do you even see your own zealotry ?
Stop disagreeing with me! It’s so stupid and ignorant!
Geesh.
1 Like
1 Like
More personal attacks, useless generalities.
The point of contention was what I posted.
You could have just said “I was wrong, my bad” but then went on a rage of stupid arguments to prove Newton’s law was right.
Having claimed something different later does not change what the point of contention was.
You claimed laws can’t be debated. That was stupid, and zealotry. Anyone can make mistakes, but erare humanum, perseverare diabolicum.
Did you know that when Newton was just three years old, his mother, Hannah Ayscough, left him in the care of his maternal grandmother in order to live with her new husband? 
1 Like
Hahahahahahaha.
Not from my perspective, lol.
Newton’s universal law of gravitation gives the right numerical output, when used appropriately i.e, within its framework, That that framework doesn’t include the minutiae of Mercury only means that at least one new factor comes into play. Then it’s up to scientists to figure out how and why and adjust theory. The basis is still valid, the framework has been established clearer. Science knows when to use it, and when to apply extra corrections.
Yes. I said that debating established laws was a waste of precious time. You can call that zealotry. Now you can be Geten nasty about it. But it will still get people to the moon and back, however wrong you may think that law is.
Useless generalities ? Well, instead of keeping your jaws closed on where the numericals are not accurate enough and growling “wrong”, it would pay off to see the larger, general picture, and broaden your mindset that wants everything to be ideal and perfect.
Finished that book on Cleo, have you ?
1 Like
Sure, you can claim you did not write what I disagreed with. But it’s child play.
It does not.
At least show some intellectual honesty and do the full quote:
Lol, I literally repeated what I said so many posts ago:
Look 
. It’s there !!!
If the point of contention is me having that viewpoint, well, it’s not going to change. I tried explaining why, I tried explaining how, I tried explaining when, I tried explaining the basis for the viewpoint. You sweep everything aside, which is your right, of course. Yet you still have to come up with an alternative, tens of posts later, let alone a precise basis for all that "wrong"ness. Odd, isn’t it. Just pointing that out.
I can’t help but wonder if that opinion of yours is the one that makes people distrust science and its achievements over the last 200+ years. Fashionable, contemporary, but counterproductive.
typed under 10% TiDi in Cloud Ring… 
It still does not. You can claim whatever you want, Newton’s law did not predict correctly the correct number, when applied correctly.
The predictions made by this law did not match the observations. Then when it was proven the observation were not missing data (eg an unknown planet), the law was therefore was proven wrong : it was no more a law. And this impact our everyday, including positioning using space-based satellites.
You are making up a specific framework which does not exist. This is inane blabbering and a posteriori justification of what was, in reality, an invalidation of the law.
No. You tried to make up an explanation of why scientific laws can’t be debated, which is by essence wrong.
You can try to claim that 1+1=3, then make up an explanation. Any explanation you will come up with will be a nonsense. Because by definition 1+1!=3
The contention point, is that people can, and as a matter of fact do, debate the laws of gravitation.
Not at all. I’m savoring this one. 
And for people to conduct important experiments up there, including testing certain theories:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html
I think that’s neat what he did.
1 Like
Only … I didn’t, and I wouldn’t even try. You make that up, like the rest of the regurgitated stuff, lol. Honesty indeed, ha.
Btw, just out of curiosity… Any thoughts on the ideal gas law ? Shouldn’t be a law ?
It ended doubts that certain people had, doubts that led to certain debates 
Maybe they had those debates under heavy TiDi for 5 hrs straight.
P.S. Seen the '63 Cleo movie ? Yes, they ran out of money in the end, nearly brought the studio to its knees too, and was (in)famous for the amorous escapades of its two main actors. Still worth a view, as well as the 2 hr documentary on its making. It is of course a holywood narration.
1 Like
That was quality.
1 Like