And you start with this:???
I'm sorry. This is not just unfalsifiable. It's meaningless.

Now, as with the other thread, you must show us results, experiments, or observations (which must be repeatable). Otherwise you may not falsify the 'standard model' which you hate so much. Random verbiage will not hack it.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

good evening Grant.

ok, much of this mirrors what we discussed a long time ago, and I've stated before what I think is incorrect in your logic. What I'd like you to explain is your asserted formulation for gravity:

in relation to Kepler's third law (the one which forced him to abandon his belief in a repusion component to gravity). Kepler's third law states:

Can you either:

a) refute the observational data that led Kepler to that conclusion or
b) explain how his result can be squared with yours

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

Meanless
Lets translate those words, you do not understand or refuse to. There is no way you could have went thru those calculations that fast. On the other post I gave you an experiment, but you already know the result.

How are tonight Krill,
I have to say you are elevating your responses. Now back to business. First you have to explain the equation this is not about Kepler.

By the way the 2 major points brought up as a major rebuttal by you on GLP and I want to thank you have been eliminated.

I disagree. If your theory fits with observations, either it must fit with Kepler's observations, or Kepler's observations must be wrong. I am asking you which you believe it to be.

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

Hello? Earth calling Grant? You have not provided any calculations for anyone to go through. And no experiment has been described. If you have experiments and calculations, why do you not make them public?

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

if you remember last time we discussed this, we spent many days (weeks?) to get to the point. I thought I'd just jump right to it to save us both the time

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

Observation once led mankind to believe we were the center of the universe and everything revolved around us. Ancients saw this and believed it, now with education and new ideas we have alternate theories. You cannot explain how the Sun holds its mass together under the present theories; the math, which we are using, does not work. You know if the math does not verify the theory, it is null and void. Counter my math.

I did just counter your math. From observational data, we know the following is true to as least as great a precision as either of us is able to measure:

this is consistent with Newton's theory of gravitation. In fact, it's kind of how he arrived at it in the first place.

Tell me how your theory can fit this observational data, or refute the observational data.

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

Quit dodging the question: you have the burden of proof, not us. Either your theory agrees with Kepler's or Kepler's is wrong. Which is it?

Hello? Earth calling Grant? You have not provided any calculations for anyone to go through. And no experiment has been described. If you have experiments and calculations, why do you not make them public?

This is a joke right? You are having a lapse, you read words but they don't sink in? I gave pages of math, but you have chosen not to verify the figures. Please tell the forum why? If you hade found one error you would have shouted it from the highest mountaintop. Now you want to get some attention get to work and find a flaw.

Krill,
You are crafty today why? Your first task is to explain why the math does not work for your models and why it does for mind?
I am not interested in discussing ancient theories. Now Newton and Kepler were great men they provided a foundation for the field of astrophysics, but there comes a time where we must move ahead.

Grant,
the burden is on you to show how your theory fits observational data. You have presented a theory, and I have provided observational data.

You must either refute the observational data or square your theory with it

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

Excellent!

I made popcorn just on time.

Grant, Krill has a fantastic point about observational data that support Keppler and not you.

What have you seen that shows Keppler to be wrong? Please provide this data to us for analysis.

MolBasser

__________________
Molecular Basser
"The Science of Fishing"

Hold on, I need to make mine. Any bets on how many pages will be spent in Grant not answering this very simple question?

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

back in half an hour....

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

Krill,
You will not skate around this, no dodge ball or ignore the data. The basis of a theory is its math. I HAVE THE MATH. You don't, now your spin on observation is valid, but you do not know how gravity works, in fact mankind does not even know what it is, so you are guessing. You are for details and now you are confused why does the data destroy mankind’s most cherished theory and what am I going to do about. Answer nothing just sit back and learn.

You have seen this drill too many times, either you dig further and turn this or ask how I got this or that.

LOL!!!!

CLASSIC Grant reply!!!

No Grant, the math is on the side of Keppler at this point, as his law holds with the known data. This means:

A: Data is missing, and you have the missing stuff that refute Keppler and your going to show it and prove it.
B: Your gonna drag this for another 20 pages claiming your right with out showing why.

My guess is B.

MolBasser

__________________
Molecular Basser
"The Science of Fishing"

Moss,
Good to see you. You need to leave that bottom fishing alone. Just imagine a Fin Nor loaded with tournament 50 lb. test as A Blue fin rips off 400 yards in the first run in 30 seconds? Now that’s fishing.
Now back to business Moss examine the equations and look for a flaw please.

From the webpage...
The decay of satellite orbits is a pretty well understood phenomena. There are tables available for you to estimate the orbit lifetimes (have a look at Space Mission Analysis and Design by Wurtz, there is a table in the back). It is also known that when the earth's atmosphere expands (e.g. around solar max, every 11 years), satellites in LEO decay faster.

Indeed that is fishing. I only recently began salt water fishing due to longstanding seasickness (phenergan is the answer). My biggest salt water fish so far has been a 20# yellowtail...pretty strong fish, but not a tuna.

But back to business (as you would say). The issue is this, as I see it, you are introducing variables (the repulsive force) to situations that have been extremely well modeled with equations that do not use nor need this variable.

If you have data that show your model to be correct and Kepplers to be wrong, we would love to see it. Untill that point, Keppler looks pretty good.

MolBasser

__________________
Molecular Basser
"The Science of Fishing"

This discussion is on the gravity page, which I posted and not one of you have touched it why?

Kepler knows nothing about a repulsion particle, so please return to the subject matter or those in the background reading and watching will grow tired of your weak responses.

You have my paper in front you, I am calling you out to find the flaws. Now find it.

One moment. That's Kepler with one 'P'. Everyone.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

LOL!!

My spelling is not hot, and I am a molecular biologist. I will have to deffer to my more knowledgable friends here and just stick to the logical stuff...

Plus, an excellent misdirection attempt by Grant to change the subject..


MolBasser

__________________
Molecular Basser
"The Science of Fishing"

Moss if you get a chance try Blue Marlin they have the power of a tuna, but jump like a salmon, I caught a 250lb on off Acapulco, Mexico it was a blast.

Now Moss if you look at the equations the present gravitational formula fails, you are not privy to all the flight adjustments made with deep space probes. Kepler gave us a base that is all.

Please don’t ask me show me data on space probes, you have already heard the pioneer probes are not behaving properly.

I'm not a spelling Nazi usually, Mol - I'm sorry. Its maybe that I know that Grant cannot enumerate nor describe Kepler's Laws's, if asked, that galls me.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

Plus, an excellent misdirection attempt by Grant to change the subject..

The subject here is gravity and repulsion, now if there is another title it is just in your mind.

Does Kepler have an answer for a halted planet, no? Does Kepler explain how the Moon remains in position, no. Does Kepler have an answer for the lack of gravity to contain the outward expansion of the Sun, no? I do. Now it has become obvious none of you have a counter. Now are you guys going to stand up and represent this proud Ba site or are you going to play duck and hide in front of a worldwide audience, remember everyone is watching.

I had a striped marlin eat my mackerel bait a couple of months ago off of SD (before I moved). It was one of the most exciting moments of my fishing career. I spotted the tailing marlin, we got close, pitched the bait out......and he ate the bait! We were so pumped up (the skipper of the boat and me) and inexperienced that we tried to set the hook too soon. That would have been awesome! I had him "hooked" for a couple of seconds...

I will have to defer any comment on space probe corrections to those that know the subject better.

I am not asking you for data on space probes, just data that shows that planetary orbits are not following Kepler's laws.

MolBasser

__________________
Molecular Basser
"The Science of Fishing"