[edby]

 

Well, this is just getting silly.  Once more - I never claimed either position.

You've explicitly claimed both. It's difficult to proceed until you've made up your mind.

I don't find any place where Bill has claimed either. He did say this:

Also, if a model provides an erroneous prediction, it is in error, not incomplete.  It's is incomplete when it can't provide any prediction under a demonstrated circumstance within it's stated domain.  Neither Newton or Einstein ever pronounced their models were 100% error free, but they both provide useful predictions and are used all the time to get real usable results.

But that is a claim about what Newton or Einstein didn't pronounce! If I say 'Dave thinks grass is red', and grass is not red, but Dave thinks so, then what Dave says is false, what I say is true. Also, even if "Newton or Einstein never pronounced their models were 100% error free" is true, that doesn't mean they said there were errors. Rather, they didn't pronounce on it.

Pete, in case I missed something, can you provide precise quotes where Bill explicitly claims both? I.e. that GR is error free, that GR is erroneous?

[edby]

Getting get back to somewhat on topic:

The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.

What's, or better where's the mass of earth? How thick is the 'plate' representing flat earth? 10km, 100km, a few thousands of km? I would more tend to the later.
With this, the much greater part of earth mass is below anything 'we are living in', even the deepest mine.
The other way round anything 'we are living in' is above that mass.... shielded by that mass from the direct force of UA.

OK but presumably some very deep parts of the Earth are not shielded from the direct force, otherwise it wouldn't be accelerating.

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, even if "Newton or Einstein never pronounced their models were 100% error free" is true, that doesn't mean they said there were errors. Rather, they didn't pronounce on it.

I see what you're doing. You're suggesting that if Newton and Einstein did not personally point out their errors, then we can pretend that it's not currently the scientific consensus. Poor form.

Pete, in case I missed something, can you provide precise quotes where Bill explicitly claims both? I.e. that GR is error free, that GR is erroneous?

Since you're playing a petty semantics game, it is important to amend your request to match my claim. I claim that the RE club simultaneously claims that GR is not error-free, and that it is not erroneous.

Ah, but we know that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (and, indeed, General Relativity) is incorrect in some cases. It at least indicates that it is incomplete. And we already know what your feelings are about incomplete models. They are bunk.

Also, if a model provides an erroneous prediction, it is in error, not incomplete. [...] Neither Newton or Einstein ever pronounced their models were 100% error free, but they both provide useful predictions and are used all the time to get real usable results.

The matter of fact, and a simple statement of scientific consensus, is that GR is not a complete understanding of gravitation. Bill already told us what he thinks about incomplete models - they are bunk. He needs to either revisit his priorities and acknowledge that these models are bunk unless they make them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, or accept that an incomplete model is not useless/bunk.

[edby]

Pete, in case I missed something, can you provide precise quotes where Bill explicitly claims both? I.e. that GR is error free, that GR is erroneous?

Since you're playing a petty semantics game, it is important to amend your request to match my claim. I claim that the RE club simultaneously claims that GR is not error-free, and that it is not erroneous.

What is 'the RE club'? And you did not claim that above. You specifically said the Bill claimed this, which he didn't. And it's not 'petty semantics'. If you call Bill out for saying X, then you should be pretty sure he did say X, and be prepared to back this up with a citation.

I see what you're doing. You're suggesting that if Newton and Einstein did not personally point out their errors, then we can pretend that it's not currently the scientific consensus. Poor form.

No I am not suggesting that.

[Pete Svarrior]

If you call Bill out for saying X, then you should be pretty sure he did say X, and be prepared to back this up with a citation.

I suspect Bill is well capable of clarifying his stance if he believes it was misrepresented without your attempts at completely disintegrating this discussion. This doesn't require a petty argument on semantics, merely a "You're mistaken. I did not mean X, I meant Y."

[BillO]

Well, this is just getting silly.  Once more - I never claimed either position.

You've explicitly claimed both. It's difficult to proceed until you've made up your mind.

Well I'm baffled.  You'll have to quote me on where I did that.  I can't seem to find it.

This doesn't require a petty argument on semantics, merely a "You're mistaken. I did not mean X, I meant Y."

Would that work if I did it yet again?  I'll try.

You are mistaken.  I did not say GR was erroneous nor did I say it was error free.  What I did say was Neither "Neither Newton or Einstein ever pronounced their models were 100% error free" and later I said "I have yet to read a substantiated claim that it has failed in any way.  I think it remains as useful as it was back in 1915.  It has not demonstrated itself to produce erroneous predictions."


They are the statements I have made about GR.  I think they makes my position on GR rather clear.  Let me sum it up.  I have never heard of it being in error.

The matter of fact, and a simple statement of scientific consensus, is that GR is not a complete understanding of gravitation.

You'll have to back that up with a reference.  A reliable reference, not something from any FES or group that believes in an aether, or just some shumcks  drumming up their usless thoughts on some forum.

[Pete Svarrior]

I have never heard of it being in error.

That's unfortunate - I would have thought you would educate yourself on the matter before speaking up.

Start with Wikipedia - at least it gives you some entry into the issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

[BillO]

I have never heard of it being in error.

That's unfortunate - I would have thought you would educate yourself on the matter before speaking up.

Start with Wikipedia - at least it gives you some entry into the issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

You didn't really read those, did you Pete?  In each case they state that not enough information is known to make a decision about whether GR explains them or not.  There used to be far more 'doubtful' situations years ago, then a young lad in England got to work on those and proved GR explained them just fine.  Even if anyone ever comes up with definitive proof that GR is in error in certain cases, that does not reduce it to useless, does it?  If it accurately predicts 99.999% of all gravitational phenomenon it seems to me to be quite useful.  When GR was first published no one rushed to throw away Newton's work.  We still use it today all over the place.  And if someone comes up with something better than GR, I'm okay with that too.  That's the way science works - constant improvement. 

You can't possibly be trying to compare UG and GR to your UA, can you?  Can UA predict one tiny little thing?  Just one Pete.  That can't be too hard.  Pick just one thing and use UA to provide an quantitative prediction.  Let's say, since it is specifically mentioned in your wiki, use it to predict the fall-off of gravity with altitude.  I'll be satisfied if the prediction is within an order of magnitude of observation.

[edby]

We discussed the flyby anomaly here. It was noted that the ‘anomaly’ consists of an error of 0.000094628% in explaining the craft’s velocity.

But here we come to an impasse in trying to compare the plausibility of two competing theories.

RE sends up a spacecraft so that it uses the gravity slingshot once, or twice, to assists its flight. Doing this at all requires everything we currently know about planetary masses, the theory of gravitation, which predicts varying gravitational attraction between the planet and the spacecraft depending on the distance, not forgetting the difficulty of that attraction changing continuously as they change relative positions, etc. It does this to within an error of 0.000094628%.
FE by contrast postulates that we can do away with gravitational theory altogether, on an assumption that includes abolishing the conservation of energy.

Which is more plausible? The impasse is that there are no varying degrees of ‘completeness’. Both theories are incomplete. RE cannot explain the error above. FE cannot explain where the energy source for the acceleration comes from. So are both equally plausible? Difficult.

Note I can ‘complete’ the FE theory by postulating giant flying turtles which accelerate the earth and the whole universe through space. Is that more plausible than either of the incomplete theories? It’s a well-known problem in the philosophy of science.

[Pete Svarrior]

You didn't really read those, did you Pete?  In each case they state that not enough information is known to make a decision about whether GR explains them or not.

The moment you start lying, you lose my interest. The flyby anomaly is extremely well known, and your attempts at pretending that you don't understand it are thinly-veiled.

We discussed the flyby anomaly here. It was noted that the ‘anomaly’ consists of an error of 0.000094628% in explaining the craft’s velocity.

Your personal incredulity and you thinking that it's not significant (against everyone who's actually qualified, not "memebers of faculty" of a fictitious academic institution) does not change the scientific consensus on the matter.

Unless this thread is salvaged into an actual discussion, rather than repeated dishonest assertions on the RE club's side, it will be chucked to AR where it belongs.

[BillO]

You didn't really read those, did you Pete?  In each case they state that not enough information is known to make a decision about whether GR explains them or not.

The moment you start lying, you lose my interest. The flyby anomaly is extremely well known, and your attempts at pretending that you don't understand it are thinly-veiled.

I'm not lying and I resent that you are saying I am.

The fly-by anomaly is interesting and I am aware that GR does not account for it by itself, however unless all the other possible explanations are accounted for we can't come outright and say "Look GR is wrong!".  That's not the way things are done.  Things like dark matter and the Casimir effect and other possible influences need to be eliminated fist, because if they are there, they will also interfere with the GR calculations.

But again, I'm okay with it even if it eventually is proven to be in error in this case, or any other.  That's the way science works.  It will still be a useful theory.

Unless this thread is salvaged into an actual discussion, rather than repeated dishonest assertions on the RE club's side, it will be chucked to AR where it belongs.

And I'm guessing the only way to do that is to agree with you.  Is that it?  You are the one taking this off track.  And the only one that seems to be getting angry.  It is supposed to be (was) a discussion about UA and you keep trying to turn it into a discussion about GR.  Perhaps you could break off all this GR discussion into it's own thread and we can get back to UA here.