Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Tensor, I suppose you mentioned this in passing to illustrate a non-ATM point, and not to open a new OT discussion on this?
If these springs were a dedicated test for inertial mass in the outer solar system, would you know who the authors were, and perhaps where I can find their discussion paper on this, and their test results? Much appreciated. Thanks.
|
The test is a dedicated test, although a by product of the method used to release the Huygens. Let's go through this shall we?
1 Fact: the inertal mass of the Huygens, on Earth, was known (equal to the gravitational mass on Earth).
2 Fact: the amount of force the springs gave was known
3 Fact: the Huygens landed within it's assigned landing zone
4 Fact: if the inertial mass, at Titan, was different from the inertial mass on Earth, the Huygens would not have received the proper push away from Cassini and would not have landed in it's assigned landing zone.
Since 4 did not happen, the inertial mass could not have changed. Oh, I suppose you could say the the mass of the springs changed, in that case, I would expect you to provide the equations showing the amound of mass change would produce an increase in force, enough to account for the proper delta v for Huygens. One other thought strikes me, there is a dedicated test every time Cassini fires it's thrusters. After all, those firings are based on the mass of Cassini, as it was assembled here on earth. Since it's where it's supposed to be, the mass can't have changed. I would expect a rebuttal to this would have the calculations showing exactly how the propellant's mass increase would produce an increase in thrust to exactly balance the Cassini's increase in mass.
Your the one who mentioned that there hasn't been a dedicated test of inertial mass. There has. All the above fit in quite nicely with Newton's F = ma. Which is a measure of inertial mass. I think what you mean and what you want is an Eotvos type test, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Would you have any examples, not to go OT here, that show how Strings are falsifiable theory? Does 'theory' mean the same as 'science' in your book?
|
No, theory means an explanation of a group of observations. I would put String Theory and the rest in the Hypothesis stage, right now. As far as strings being falsifiable, it's quite simple. So far, String Theory (I hate calling it that, as it really isn't) can be falsified quite simply by not matching current theories. So far, it has. Both String Theory and LQG can match GR when it comes to Black Hole theory. One of the interesting thing about String Theory (and one of the reasons people continue to work on it) is that it is not internally consistent unless the equations of GR are satisfied. This is a huge point. GR can be derived from the equations of String Theory. If String Theory wasn't internally consistent, nobody would be working on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
You could push theory all you want, but until it is verifiably falsifiable it merely proves my earlier point, that it is mere 'theory' or modeling, a very nice picture and math story, but not necessarily good science.
|
You are obviously not very cognizant of how theoretical physics works. Mathematical models can be falsified way before they even get to the actual experiments. Early attempts at String Theory (say the early 1970s) were thrown out, not because of the extra dimensions, but because they couldn't be made inernally consistent mathematically. Working on a hypothesis, and showing your work, is good science. Bad science is making it up while you go along and not provinding any kind of equations to support your hypothesis. And it doesn't even make a good story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Verify it with empirical facts, and then theory can be science, if it passes all the tests.
|
This from someone who wants us to throw out current theories on the flimsiest excuses that could simply be measurement errors. The big differece is that those in String Theory, LQG, TeVeS etc, are honest enough to publish their work for all to see and criticize. Something I haven't see from either you or Jerry. Now, which would you call good science?