Native said:
↑
No, it is all what YOU and your fellow "newtonians" require, but it´s not sufficient for me and for the real explanations of WHY they mowe as they do as I write above too.
I know. And this is why the consensus scientific method isn´t working. It´s apparently enough for the Newtonian model just to put calculations on observed objects - which anyone interested in math can do without any knowledge of gravity - and then never mind WHY the objects moves as they do.
For the Newtonian approximation, you use F=GMm/r^2 and F=ma. Those two equations, proprly used, will give accurate predictions of the motions of the planets. The discrepancies for the planets closest to the sun are dealt with by General relativity.
Notice that the Newtonian description gives a force, F that is caused by mass and decreases with distance. The equation F=ma tells how other masses respond to that force. This *is* a description of the causes for planetary motion. In the Einsteinian description, G-8(pi)T tells how space and time are curved by mass and energy and the geodesic equation tells how planets or light move in the resulting curved spacetime. Again, this is dealing directly with the causes of planetary motion.
Furthermore, as you have admitted, the calculations done agree with observations to within the accuracy of our measurements.
On the other side, you have the EU theory. As yet, you have given *no* reason to think it can do detailed calculations giving the specific motions of the planets in the solar system. In fact, it can't even do detailed calculations for the motion of stars in the galaxy. It only gives vague claims that E&M is dominant without the calculations and tests to back up that claim.
Guess which one wins? Hint: it is not the second one.
A "scientific practice" which just adds "dark ghost" into its theory when contradicted, isn´t a scientific method at all. It´s just pure guessworks and metaphysics.
Simply false. Here's an example.
After Uranus was discovered, it became clear after a while that its motion wasn't agreeing with the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Some people said that Newtonian gravity needed to be changed or given up. But, instead, a couple of men did some calculations based on Newtonian gravity and said that the problems with the motion of Uranus couldplained if there was another planet even further away from the sun that was affecting its motion. They were able to use Newtonian physics to predict where in the sky to look for that planet. When others actually looked, they found Neptune.
Now, here was a case where it could be argued that Newtonian gravity had failed. The predictions for Uranus simply didn't work out in detail. But, instead of being a failure, it actually became a dramatic success because they were used to predict the 'dark planet' that we now know of as Neptune.
The same type of thing is happening with dark matter. The disagreements with observations are such that *one* addition to the system is enough to resolve the differences. Furthermore, that *one* addition can be tested in other ways and in other contexts and the predictios made have been verified by actual observations.
We are now able to give fairly extensive maps of where dark matter is. This would not be possible if the 'new addition' didn't represent something real and 'out there'. Like Neptune.
I am very much interested in all science. I just have my focus on the examples where the cosmological science isn´t following the scientific method and where the standing cosmological science is far out in the nothingness with nothing more than unnatural speculations.
Sorry, but if the calculations done are giving accurate predictions that can be tested in several independent ways, that *is* the scientific method. What you seem to want is to replace that system that *works* with one that doesn't make any specific, detailed, predictions and to do so only because it aligns with your ideas about how ancient civilizations had some spiritual insights.
Sorry, but that simply isn't the scientific method.[/QUOTE]
