Dummy ask yourself why mankind's formula does not work and then come back.

Amusing yes, but get up off your soft butt and help out either trash the formula or back it.

Sorry,
I have to retire
Grant out

Please show how it doesn't!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

It has been thoroughly trashed!

Next!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Humankind's formulaes worked well enough to get us to the Moon. Or are you also claiming that was faked? This is really the final cop-out for you, Grant. You are walking into a room gloating "I got a better theory then you do....but I won't let you see it!"

My, how convenient! =D>

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

You can't even back the formula yourself, but you insist that we do it for you. Amusing indeed.

Like in the "low moon" thread you refuse to provide data to back up your claims. You have failed here as well to address the errors in your theory when they have already been made very clear, multiple times. You have also refused to answer the same questions over and over agian despite the fact that they have been clearly stated, multiple times. My questions asked to you on the other thread still stand, and are just as relevant here.

1) How is this behavior considered science?

2) How does this behavior help you prove your case?

3) What evidence would lead you to believe that your theory is in error?

If you were able to address the questions being put to you (by everyone. not just by me) it would force us to reconsider our stance on the issues. You have as of yet given us no reason to do so. I will finish off this post with my usual signature line:

__________________
"On this ship you will refer to me as idiot not "you captian".....I mean....you know what I mean."

Spiritual development?

Great Screaming Gnu, what proof is it? That would explain much....

:roll:

Hey, I work out. I'll have you know that my butt is trim taunt and terrific.

Haven't you already trashed your own formula by not providing details of the constant k that Dummy has asked you many times to provide? [-X

What exactly makes a formula describing gravity and repulsion a 'live bomb'? If it's so dangerous why have you written a paper and released it publically?

Mankind's formula works just fine. Many people have used it before (just look at projects such as Apollo, Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, etc) and even I've used it extensively in software to simulate the trajectories of all our planets (inner and outter).

It is more likely to be your formula that doesn't work. You provide me with the Repulsion Constant and an explanation of the value of k for the Earth and I'll replace the total_force calculation in my program with yours. Then we'll see whos formula more accurately renders the movement of the solar system shall we?

Another night, another batch of unanswered questions.

I vote we lock down this thread. Keep Grant in one place and he might have the time and concentration to provide more detailed answers.

Not likely.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

you're missing (or avoiding) the point.

Kepler's third law is derived from observational data. It is possible to determine from observations the relative orbital radii and periods (even based on data available to Kepler).

It turns out that his statement is valid, even when applied to observational data he did not have at his disposal.

I'll ask again:

for your theory to be correct, you must do one of the following:

a) refute the observational data
b) square your theory of gravitation with that data

which do you propose?

I have been asking this question right from the start of this thread, and I note that you still decline to answer. Why is that?

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

I have two very simple questions for you, Grant.

1. WHY did you wait until NOW (not earlier, or in the 'paper' itself) to bring up the 'it's too dangerous for mankind to know' thing? (Would it not have been prudent and honest to mention it up front, given that it makes the entire paper WORTHLESS? And of course NOW, it is blatantly obvious why you have done this - you CAN'T supply a value, as the formula self-destructs and doesn't work. If you claim otherwise, prove me wrong.

2. You keep referring to a frame of reference, in which the Moon doesn't rotate. Indeed there is one*, but I'm blowed if I can see your point. Can you be precise and tell us where you would be standing to actually have that frame of reference? The conversation that follows this simple fact should be mighty interesting.

Go on, have a go - enlighten us... Your avoidance of every question posted here to date is amusing but hardly enlightening, which is why I have tried to keep my two questions simple, and to the point..



* apart from that one, there is also a frame of reference where the Sun, Moon, and Earth are all gyrating crazily, almost inexplicably... but I just swatted that fly so he is no longer bragging about it, and his science was flawed anyway, biased as it was towards sustenance and reproduction... hmmm - I think I'll grab a snack and.. :P

Indeed, you do.

As is my usual take when polite but essentially error-prone pseudoscientists come on this board, I have given Grant ample opportunities to actually engage in a conversation, to defend his claims, and to answer the rebuttals against them.

He has not done any of this. He has evaded questions, "answered" a handful of them with obfuscation or simple pleas to read his page (which does not answer the questions), or just ignored them. When asked to give an actual value for his force, he says we are not ready for it. When asked why Kepler's laws work, he obfuscates again (for those keeping track at home, Kepler's laws were derived through observation-- he was the one who figured out that orbits must be elliptical, and not circular, just through his amazingly meticulous tracking of the planets over time-- and it was Newton who later showed why Kepler's laws were correct... and they are correct).

I have given Grant so many chances, more than I normally would for your average person, because I wanted people to know that ideas are not suppressed here, despite the claims made by a few. But in the end, people like Grant cannot obey the simple rules of this board, and there is a reason for it: their ideas and claims are not based in reality.

It's that simple. People like Grant, Wio, Vianova and others don't use logic, reason, and critical thinking in their claims, but when they come here they are forced to use those methods. They can't, and they wind up making outrageous claims, not defending their claims, avoiding direct questions, and in many cases resorting to insult or statements of "I'm right and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise". I give them a lot of rope here, and they almost always wind up using it.

That is what happens when pseudoscience is illuminated by the methods of real science. It withers and dies. We need to keep that light lit.

Grant is banned. This thread, and the other one, are locked.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com