This is so far off the mark that it is almost laughable. If this is the case, then why are so many mainstreamers working on physics that is beyond the current models? String Theory, LQG, TeVeS, etc are all attemps at finding and extending (or replacing) current theories.

For the mainstreamers it matters also, the big difference that I can see is that the mainstreamers actually try to work out models using the math and the ATM types here go round and round using words that don't seem to add up to much of anything.

Jerry's been asked what, seven or eight times to provide the calculations for his 14% claim? I've yet to see his equations. All he does is take off on another tanget. Why won't he present them? Is it because he can't, because there really isn't any equations, just his word salad with his guesses inserted?

So how exactly are the springs on the Cassini spacecraft that launched Huygens not a test of inertial mass? Those springs were calibrated here on earth to give Huygens a specified push. Too much or too little and the craft would have missed Titan or landed completly out of the projected landing area. None of which happened.

I think a quote is the best example I can give to offset your misguided picture of mainstreamers. Although he's a particle physicist, his attitude permeates much of science. From John Ellis, who is working on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN searching for the Higg's particle "Many of us theorists would find failure much more interesting than if we just find another boring old particle that some theorists predicted 45 years ago." Sure sounds like a close-minded mainstreamer, doesn't it?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

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.

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? 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. Verify it with empirical facts, and then theory can be science, if it passes all the tests.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Here's what Wiki says on Physics Theory, as it applies to theory modeling: Isn't that what I said earlier, that theory is only modeling? So I must turn this around on you, since you are being so bold in yours above to criticize my research integrity: "Is it really necessary to argue facts with you? Can you just do the slightest amount of research into the scientific method and how science actually works? Maybe looking up the definition of "theory" on Wikipedia would be a good first step?" Would that work for you?

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

80 years ago this was correct; GR provided a relatively simple fix to Newtonian mechanics; a brilliant if curious dimensional solution. Even the inclusion of dark matter (when galaxies failed to rotate properly), was a modest adjustment. Then the universe became to big, and GR fell out of the saddle of Occum's razor. It is no longer simplifies - the physics surrounding 'inflation' are an unrelativistic mess. Hard science tells us the universe is too big to fit into a simple expansion box. If mainstream theory is correct, we are stuck trying to characterize weird happenings at the fringes of our observational limit. I reject that philosophy because there is enough strangeness in our own neighborhood.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

Such as the alleged 14% discrepancy in the mass of Mars? How about your calculation of same?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The last time I went up on the hill, there were no ten commandments. Not one word from a creator about how much of what is considered scientific fact is fact, nor how far we are allowed to extend ourselves in a blind tunnel without realizing there is no light.

There are no rules about how science progresses -where new ideas have to originate or why, no limits upon how foolish we can be or how seguine the reasoning may be off a fool.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

Jerry,

Bashing astrophysics and the epistemological shortcomings of science in general is not going to convince anyone that your alternative to the mainstream theory of how our Universe works/has evolved is better than the rest. And if you are not on a quest to convince people on this forum of various things, then what are you doing? By the way, what is your alternative, as you have not, at least to my knowledge, rigorously developed it mathematically and defended it in a manner not unlike a PHD thesis? Indeed, this is exactly what you would need to do before anyone begins to take you seriously outside of this forum. Alternative gravity models such as Berkenstein's relativistic MOND are getting more and more attention lately largely because Berkenstein did exactly what I said above. And don't play it like you don't have a vested interest in the promotion of your own astronomy ideas and you are just a modern day Socrates-- I am pretty sure you know as well as I do that such a position would be quite disingenuous.

In accordance with thermodynamics, it is easier to criticize others in life than it is to do the hard work developing something that is truly unique and potentially far-reaching yourself; it is easier to break eggs on "mischief night" than it is to take the time to provide sustenance and care for some chickens so they can continue to lay eggs. It is also commonly known that people who are unsatisfied with the state of their fields/occupations and the lack of progress in their lines of work to launch attacks on others' fields which at least appear to be progressing. As you said yourself, science is not an exclusively rational enterprise, we can only pretend to sever science from the humanities. Our life experiences, successes and failures, and even personalities, figure into the equation (no pun intended). Your field is rocket science; unfortunately, rocket science is a stagnant field-- we are still using the same basic chemical rocket technology that we used at the beginning of the space age. So, while those "bandwagon-jumping sheep-like" astronomers have been innovating, developing new detectors and telescopes, making significant progress ruling out many ideas about how our Universe works, rocket scientists have been utterly unsuccessful in applying ideas based on well-established physics, let alone ATM ideas to help transport some of us off this planet before an extinction event(s)! At least the astronomers have been hard at work innovating/creating (rather than spending huge chunks of their time criticizing rocket scientists) thereby enabling a search for new homes, as the discovery of extrasolar planets is about as clear-cut a case of how science has progressed as you can get.

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?


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.

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.


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?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

hahahahahahahahaha, ROTFLOL!
So, that is why there is so much mainstream research going on, because we are satisfied with how everything is already.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

So we shouls be able to measure a difference right here on earth as we move away from the sun in our own orbit?

Why can't we?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Disclaimer: This poster is rank amateur.

Withdrawn after Nereid pointed out the rules for this forum, which I, as rank amateur here *grins* had, in ignorance, ignored. Thanks for your tolerance.

Acolyte

So what evidence did they find? how did it become 'null' or are you just making this up?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

That's one thing you said. But you also said this:

I simply pointed out that science does not ever declare a theory proven. You responded by giving me links to pop-science articles presumably intended to show how science does seek to "prove" theories ("but it seems science likes to PROVE its theories right too"). This all happened pretty recently so I'm not sure why I have to recap this. I'll just assume you now understand that science doesn't seek to prove its theories.

You keep using the phrase "dedicated test". Can you please explain to the group exactly what you mean by this?

Wow, sure glad I'm not part of the vast MIT conspiracy!
Ipse dixit.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

These two statements are complementary. Tensor's list shows why he thinks the conditions for a 'dedicated test' were met in the Huygens spring release mechanism, though no such test was designed, nor scientific papers written on this. Perhaps Tensor should write a scientific paper on this test for inertial mass at Saturn's orbit, to show conclusively that ESA, Anderson, Turyshev, Nieto et al, that they do not need to test for any variables in the Equivalence principles or Newton's G in the outer solar system? Or should such a 'dedicated test' be carried out to test for why certain phenomena in our solar system seem to point to something not being totally consistently right with gravity as a 'universal constant', along with all the other deep space problems, like flat galaxy rotation curves, etc.? Tensor, you want to write a dedicated paper to why a 'dedicated test' should not be done?

The point is that if (per Tensor) "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" is to hold true, but if inertial mass (and comensurate G per equivalence) were proven false, then Strings or Branes theory becomes a construct that may be internally consistent, even elegant and beautiful, but it may not connect to reality of how works the cosmos. Just a possibility, why ATM exists in principle, that MS may have built a fabulous theory, but only a model consistent with itself, and not necessarily one that is real to explain reality itself. It's like a beautiful game of chess, which is elegant and fascinating (why people keep playing it) but it does not explain anything of the real world, except its own internal structures of the game. A real 'dedicated test' is one way to see if it connects to reality or not.

So yes, mathematical models can be falsified way before they even get to the actual experiment, but this does not supersede a dedicated test of the model itself. Once the model is proven internally consistent, then it needs to connect to reality, or else it remains merely a theoretical model. Or, it remains philosophy.

I hope this answers Tassel's question.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Answer the question Nutant Gene 71. You were asked exactly what YOU meant by dedicated test. You've then highlighted something that you dismiss off hand as not being an appropriate test.

What WOULD be an appripriate test.

Please re-visit the ATM rules before replying.