Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I think that's right, that theory actually works. The difference between MS and ATM is that MS is satisfied with theory as it is, while ATM claims there may be more at work here than what appears to be true.
|
This is so far off the mark that it is almost laughable. If this is the case, then why are so many mainstreamers working on physics that is beyond the current models? String Theory, LQG, TeVeS, etc are all attemps at finding and extending (or replacing) current theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Does it matter if flybys show anomalies, or Pioneer et al show anomalous accelerations, or spin up and spin downs of onboard gyroscopes do weird things, or planet probes come in hard or soft into atmospheres, etc.? Does it matter? For some of us, the answer is most definitely "yes!"
|
For the mainstreamers it matters also, the big difference that I can see is that the mainstreamers actually try to work out models using the math and the ATM types here go round and round using words that don't seem to add up to much of anything.
Jerry's been asked what, seven or eight times to provide the calculations for his 14% claim? I've yet to see his equations. All he does is take off on another tanget. Why won't he present them? Is it because he can't, because there really isn't any equations, just his word salad with his guesses inserted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
That's what 'open-minds' want to know, objectively,and the call for testing inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbital region is the 'effort' I call for. Sorry if my earlier comments offended.
|
So how exactly are the springs on the Cassini spacecraft that launched Huygens not a test of inertial mass? Those springs were calibrated here on earth to give Huygens a specified push. Too much or too little and the craft would have missed Titan or landed completly out of the projected landing area. None of which happened.
I think a quote is the best example I can give to offset your misguided picture of mainstreamers. Although he's a particle physicist, his attitude permeates much of science. From John Ellis, who is working on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN searching for the Higg's particle "Many of us theorists would find failure much more interesting than if we just find another boring old particle that some theorists predicted 45 years ago." Sure sounds like a close-minded mainstreamer, doesn't it?