That was quality.
1 Like
They got the Cassini mission to Saturn with just a one second error after 7 years…using Newton’s laws. Not bad for a theory that is ‘wrong’.
1 Like
It kinda depends.
If the topic at hand is something you can benefit from the view of others and get a better understanding then sure, you are actually right. It will be more beneficial to you and the discussion to be curious and try to understand the other side to enhance your own understanding on the topic.
However, in like 99% of internet discussions, and this is also true for the EVE forums, OP is an uninformed idiot with absolutely no clue what they are talking about and zero potential of actually telling you something of value.
In those cases you have to make sure they get put in their place and understand that their opinion is worthless garbage and a waste of space on the computer that has to host this post now for all eternity. It should be made absolutely clear to that OP that the world would actually be a better place if they did not write the post in the first place and tricked people into losing precious minutes of their life reading it before realizing that it is the same garbage thread about how ganking is bad we have seen twice already this week and for some inexplicable reason the arguments still get progressively dumber. And it doesn’t stop there, because it will inevitably spark the very same discussion we had a million times with the same people making the same arguments and it drains hours of lifetime this is absolute insanity and that OP should be banned forever and all his mining ships be deleted and omg this is making me angry as I type this how has it come to this again we are trapped in an unending loop of bad ganking is bad posts and there is no end in sight James help us!
1 Like
Discussions with this person will always just end in dumb arguments about semantics.
A theory being wrong does not mean all predictions are incorrect. Most theories are based on real life phenomenons so of course you use it because it matches your observations. Does not mean it’s right …
As I already said, most of the time we could not notice a difference… Unless we are using satellites.
You can make 99% accurate predictions and still be wrong. For example, if I claim 1+1=2 99% of the time and 1+1=3 the remaining 1% ^^
Wikipedia needs a quick edit from you:
By the way, you don’t know how to use the terms Scientific Theory nor Scientific Law correctly, which is exacerbating the conversation here.
Newtons Law is still a law. What changed is people believed it had no constraints and could completely describe the Theory of Gravity. Observations said „no“ and it was learned that Newtons Law has constraints and is insufficient to describe the Theory of Gravity in its entirety. Turns out the constraints still leave Newtons Law rather useful within those bounds though, depending on the engineering/astrophysicist‘s problem.
I expect you to bite off my head for this, so that’s all I am going to say.
2 Likes
Just for clarity, this new Andersen gaslighting fairy tale about satellites is not about a gravitational effect on the orbital mechanics of earth made satellites, but rather the general relativistic effect on the frequency of clocks on board the satellites (quite relevant for gps systems). If you want to save money on your experiments, stay on earth, go to a mountainous region with two synchronized caesium clocks, keep one in the valley, move one up the mountain for a while and then bring it back down to the valley for comparison with its ‘twin’…
Yes, good people, gravitation is a universal law of the universe. Don’t become lawless, not even if you live on a Lagrangian point, or float around outside of our solar system. Take an adapted Cavendish torsion balance with you, do the experiment away from social media, and use sir Isaac’s formula with confidence. Don’t settle for the outlaw’s propositions ! Petition NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, CNSA, JAXA, ISRO, etc to make it happen !!
lol
1 Like
done :
the law still continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.
I actually agree with most. The only disagreement is that when an existing scientific law is modified to take into account new knowledge, then the previous formulation is no more a (scientific) law. If it gives different results then it’s a different law. And the name law of X (here gravity) is then used for the new law, while the previous one is then forgotten or used as an approximation .
You can add “valid” before “law” if you want, as I used it just after, as the scientific knowledge only considers “valid” laws . If your law is no more valid, then it’s no more considered a scientific law. If your context is science, then it’s no more a law.
By the way, you don’t know how to discuss without personal attacks, which is exacerbating the conversation here.
No, it’s not. It is a phenomenon, for which many laws were inferred, each within their own context.
Here YOU are gaslighting. The same exact way you changed from “framework” to “frame of reference”, or from your claim that “laws can’t be debated” to another claim that “laws can’t be wrong” .
I did see it. I really liked all the costumes and sets and I think the actors did a good job too. Elizabeth Taylor was particularly exquisite in her role. Not bad at all for 1963. Although I prefer how Cleopatra was portrayed in the series Rome ( 2005 ).
1 Like
Newton’s theory is not ‘wrong’…it is incomplete. There is a perfectly good geometrical reason for the inverse square law relating to distance of gravitational masses, and nothing is ‘wrong’ about that. However Newton failed to take time into account…as the prevailing belief in his day was that time was a universal constant.
Einstein introduced time via the speed of light being the new universal constant that affected relative motion. Newton’s inverse square laws still apply, but on top of them we now have inertial reference frames and time dilation. It is changing time dilation over it’s eccentric orbit that finally explains the precession of Mercury.
So Newton was not so much wrong as just incomplete. And many scientists now think Einstein is also incomplete.
Indeed Newton did the best with the tools he had at his disposal. Does not mean his law was not proven wrong.
The law was formulated in a context where time is the same for everything (classical physics). If you take the same formulation but in a different context, then this is another law.
Otherwise the same law would predict two different values for the same case, which is absurd.
Incomplete means it misses the ability to make some predictions we expect from it. This is an usage term.
Wrong means it mismatches reality : there are experimental data that contradict the predictions. This is a synonym for invalid.
If you take a law that is invalid on some of its space, and consider it only on the space where its predictions are correct, you make an incomplete law. The issue with Newton’s law, is that… it’s never correct, it’s always an approximation : only if there was no mass and no speed would it be correct. But of course then the use cases would be severely limited.
General relativity is indeed incomplete as it does not work at the microscopic scope. Which indeed hints strongly that its formulation for gravitation is wrong .
Says the one who claimed laws can’t be debated and then tries to sidetrack the topic and gaslight people .
Ran out of ammo, did ya ? Nice. At least you’re slowly but steadily giving ground, while kicking up more dust to mask your retreat.