Moses asks science

[ratiocinator]

But the equations answer wouldn't give you trajectory or anything useful to do with space flight

Orbital mechanics or astrodynamics is the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics to the practical problems concerning the motion of rockets, satellites, and other spacecraft. The motion of these objects is usually calculated from Newton's laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation.​

​

Orbital mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's more, it was the small deviation from the Newtonian version of gravity for the planet Mercury that was the first test of general relativity.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1kg*1kg/1r^2=1 doesn't it ?

It doesn't tell us anything

It would if you hadn't got the formula wrong. You missed out G and don't seem to get that r is the distance between the centres of the masses, so putting '1' before it is redundant. Yet more ignorance.

If you had got it right, it would tell us the gravitational force between the two masses.

 

[ratiocinator]

Providing proofs doesn't mean I have wrote any papers for publishing .

The point is that if you had provided 'proofs' (which you obviously haven't; even using the word 'proof' in this context shows ignorance), then you could publish and become a world famous scientist.

What's stopping you?

 

[sayak83]

I have no problem with mass , it is a measure .

I have falsified relativity but that isn't what this thread is about .

I want to know why the moon does not affect the clouds when clouds have little inertia and can be large bodies .

You have falsified relativity!
Excellent you should no problem showing your publications in Nature or Science. Please attach the publications.
Thanks.

 

[jes-us]

The point is that if you had provided 'proofs' (which you obviously haven't; even using the word 'proof' in this context shows ignorance), then you could publish and become a world famous scientist.

What's stopping you?

1000's of other scientists who would never accept some of my findings because 1) I have no academics 2) The green eyed monster

I think even peer views would shove it under the carpet type thing .

I haven't provided any proofs in regards to the moon , I am talking other stuff .

 

[jes-us]

You have falsified relativity!
Excellent you should no problem showing your publications in Nature or Science. Please attach the publications.
Thanks.

It's been too long now , I have practically given up .

This body I occupy is feeling drained , I have abused this body for years, poor creature .

 

[ratiocinator]

1) I have no academics

Well, that's obvious....

I haven't provided any proofs in regards to the moon , I am talking other stuff .

All I've seen you post about science is clearly wrong and shows astounding ignorance. I tend not to post about subjects I know nothing about, unless it's to ask questions. You might want to consider that.

2) The green eyed monster

I think even peer views would shove it under the carpet type thing .

Didn't stop General Relativity from being accepted and revolutionising our understanding of space, time, and gravity. Nor did it stop the even more radical Quantum Mechanics from being accepted.

 

[jes-us]

Didn't stop General Relativity from being accepted and revolutionising our understanding of space, time, and gravity. Nor did it stop the even more radical Quantum Mechanics from being accepted.

You understand arrangements of words that aren't correct . You don't understand gravity , space or time but I am just too drained to be bothered to even begin to explain . I have explained it so many times on Facebook pages , groups , the world couldn't even see it .

 

[ratiocinator]

You understand arrangements of words that aren't correct .

Theories in physics are presented in mathematics. It has little to do with words. You can't really claim to understand unless you can do the maths. Popular accounts in words, without the mathematics, are always somewhat inaccurate.

I have explained it so many times on Facebook pages , groups , the world couldn't even see it .

You really should consider that the problem is your own lack of understanding and obvious ignorance of even the basics. You have no hope of introducing something radically new if you don't understand current theories and the evidence that supports them.

 

[Revoltingest]

You do realise that equation is falsifiable ?

Everyone who knows something about science
knows that all theories are falsifiable.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When something isn't falsifiable, eg, a claim that
God has 5 fingers per hand, this means that it
can't be tested for verification or being disproven.
Such claims can't be proven correct...nor even
proven wrong.

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Moreover, being wrong isn't even a problem
if a theory is still useful, ie, it makes accurate
predictions.

All models are wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sayak83]

It's been too long now , I have practically given up .

This body I occupy is feeling drained , I have abused this body for years, poor creature .

I am sorry if you are sick. Hope you take care of your health.
In science you have to demonstrate your claims to the satisfaction of scientists who are experts in the field. Otherwise your claims cannot be taken as true.

Can you tell what current science says about why tides happen? Can you explain the current theory?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no problem with mass , it is a measure .

I have falsified relativity but that isn't what this thread is about .

I want to know why the moon does not affect the clouds when clouds have little inertia and can be large bodies .

Wanting to know things that one doesn't understand
is useful. But to not understand doesn't mean that
commonly accepted science is wrong. It means that
some study of this area is required.

 

[gnostic]

Moses sat down to rest at night by a great lake and looking into the sky he could see a full moon .

Moses then asked science , ''if the tides of oceans are a consequence of the moon then why sitting here I have not got my feet wet ? ''

Why doesn't the moon affect any other bodies of water , is it because you have got it wrong ?

Because my rubber ducky in a beach side pool doesn't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Because specs of dust sitting on the pier don't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Because dry grains of sand on the beach don't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Are we to believe the moon can move an absolute huge mass of water but doesn't affect the mass of what I mentioned ?

The larger the mass, the more of the effect from the moon.

the spec of dust, grain of sand & rubber ducky have very little masses.

Among the earliest astronomer to propose the moon and tides connection, was an early 2nd century BCE Hellenistic Greek astronomer, Seleucus from Seleucia. He was one of few ancient astronomers who accepted Aristarchus of Samos’ heliocentric model, that the Earth rotating on it own axis, along with other planets, were orbiting around the Sun.

From Seleucus, he logically proposed that the Earth’s rotation plus the orbital motion of the Moon around the Earth, had attraction forces to the tides of the seas; this was over 1500 years before Newton’s theory on gravity and the gravitational forces.

 

[jes-us]

Wanting to know things that one doesn't understand
is useful. But to not understand doesn't mean that
commonly accepted science is wrong. It means that
some study of this area is required.

I didn't know that science had tested the great lake for tidal current . If they hadn't tested the great lake they'd have no proofs . As long as they did test it and got a result I am happy my query as been answered .

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't know that science had tested the great lake for tidal current . If they hadn't tested the great lake they'd have no proofs . As long as they did test it and got a result I am happy my query as been answered .

I wouldn't see a need to test Great Lakes to
verify that tides exist. But the extent, timing,
& causes would be interesting.

 

[jes-us]

I wouldn't see a need to test Great Lakes to
verify that tides exist. But the extent, timing,
& causes would be interesting.

Of course there would be a need when there is other possible explanations , the two explanations I presented earlier in this thread .

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I didn't know that science had tested the great lake for tidal current . If they hadn't tested the great lake they'd have no proofs . As long as they did test it and got a result I am happy my query as been answered .

Great! Not only have the Great Lakes been tested for tidal movements; they are continually monitored.

Great Lakes tide and water level gauges

Tides & Great Lakes Water Levels - NOAA Tides & Currents

"The rising and falling of the sea, “the tides,” are a phenomenon upon which we can always depend. Caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun, tides are very long-period waves that move through the ocean and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. The same happens in the Great Lakes, although the largest tides in the Great Lakes are only about 5 cm and are mostly impacted by precipitation, evaporation and runoff." .... <more in the 2nd article>

So. Happy now?

 

[jes-us]

Great! Not only have the Great Lakes been tested for tidal movements; they are continually monitored.

Great Lakes tide and water level gauges

Tides & Great Lakes Water Levels - NOAA Tides & Currents

"The rising and falling of the sea, “the tides,” are a phenomenon upon which we can always depend. Caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun, tides are very long-period waves that move through the ocean and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. The same happens in the Great Lakes, although the largest tides in the Great Lakes are only about 5 cm and are mostly impacted by precipitation, evaporation and runoff." .... <more in the 2nd article>

So. Happy now?

Yes I would be 9/10 happy with the conclusion , obvious for 10/10 I'd like to observe the experiment etc to make sure it was done correctly and not a false result or something that was made up .

 

[sayak83]

Yes I would be 9/10 happy with the conclusion , obvious for 10/10 I'd like to observe the experiment etc to make sure it was done correctly and not a false result or something that was made up .

Do it yourself

 

[jes-us]

Do it yourself

I have no access to such a lake , I know from experience that my fishing float at night when there is no wind and a full moon , doesn't move position .

 

[Bthoth]

I have no access to such a lake , I know from experience that my fishing float at night when there is no wind and a full moon , doesn't move position .

lakes are not global