Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tassel
Really? The ESA is going to be testing for changes in inertial mass now? Do you have a reference for this experiment, or are you just making things up? Again.
|
They will test for whatever they need to test to see if gravity behaves the same as we had assumed, a universal constant, or not. Inertial mass plays into that too, by testing for spin with an independent probe launched from the main probe. I do not believe all this had been finalized yet, so premature to jump to conclusions,
again. Bad science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tassel
What you can't seem to separate is the concept of testing gravity versus the concept that your "hypothesis" may be correct. The two are not the same thing. We already know enough to know that your "hypothesis" is wrong. Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean anyone is arguing that we stop testing. Your flawed "hypothesis" does not somehow represent all continued research towards understanding gravity.
|
My hypothesis is only that a "hypothesis", a novel way to look at gravity-radiant energy interactions, whether or not you agree with it or not. It is not yet a theory, as others have pointed out, so more a spec at this time. Whether or not it is "wrong" will be discovered in due time, with tests
in situ, as mentioned. For you to insist that my hypothesis is already theory, untestable, or wrong up front to me is "pseudo-science".
Before I begin to revise my "hypothesis", how about if we get some data first? I used stock equations to come up with a planet orbit Energy curve, the consequent proton mass converted into Newton's G, which plots on a line. Do I have to worry? Not so much. I want data first before I start tampering with this idea. Tests will show whether or not it is good science. Not tests on Earth at 1 AU, but tests
out there. Insistance that it is somehow "wrong"
a priori because GR has the answers is "pseudo-science", and bad science.