Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Exactly where do I say that we should not look? I am specifically refering to your idea, which has been shown to be wrong. I (and others, as you have been shown) have no problem looking for variation if it is small enough to be within the measured limits. Trying to claim a variable g that is larger than the possible observed limits (as you have) is bad science.
|
And what if it is NOT within the measured limits? What then?
|
So now you claim our observations are wrong? Listen, none of the tests say the g can't be variable, just there is a limit on the variability...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Worse, what if my hypothesis of inertial mass cum deltaG = ~1 G per AU proves right?
|
...and that variablity is smaller than the variability in g in your idea. So your idea can't be right. Other variable g theories may be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
What then? I called it bad science because I keep hearing reasons why we should hunker down with the knowledge, GR etc., we have and continue to work with that,
|
Huh? Have you looked at any of the references given to you? None of them advocate not testing to smaller limits, many of them, in fact, advocate new tests. Not to mention we already know GR is not the end all be all. We know if fails when used at extremely small scales. That's why so much work is being done with Quantum Loop Gravity and Superstring Theory. You want us to use an idea that has yet to make any kind of prediction that matches our observations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
though it does not explain lots of anomalies, as discussed in these past 75 pages.
|
So your saying we should have thrown out QM in the 20s and 30s. After all, there were anomalies in the calculations due to missing energy. Oh, wait, the proposal for the missing energy was neutrinos. Not to mention, the people who wanted to get rid of Netownian gravity in the early 1800s because Uranus wasn't where it was supposed to be. Oh, wait, that dark matter was found too, it's called Neptune.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Good science should take an interest.
|
It does take an interest and is working on it. What good science is not is pushing an idea that has already been shown to be wrong.