[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Forget that. Let's go to basics.
1. You said Newton did not know what mechanism caused gravity.
2. You now say that classical gravity (GR is also classical but I assume you mean Newtonian) has experimental support.
On it's face we have a Science fail of epic proportion.
Anyway, what are the three necessary components of an experiment please?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If you want me to answer your questions, provide citations or sources for your claims as I requested first, little buddy. Otherwise this seems like a very one-sided relationship.
I am somewhat intrigued by your dismissal of Cavendish and particularly this line. Cavendish lays out the experiments he did in detail, under the heading "Account of the Experiments" in his memoir so whatever definition of experiment you're using obviously isn't one shared by the man himself (or apparently anybody who has ever done an actual experiment). Of the first few experi
Yeah it needs thorough careful reading, not just a summary. He was extremely meticulous and thus exposes the limitations of his own (not an) experiment.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I am somewhat intrigued by your dismissal of Cavendish and particularly this line. Cavendish lays out the experiments he did in detail, under the heading "Account of the Experiments" in his memoir so whatever definition of experiment you're using obviously isn't one shared by the man himself (or apparently anybody who has ever done an actual experiment). Of the first few experi
"Done actual experiments".
Superfluous "actual" yet again.
What are the three necessary components of an experiment please?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah it needs thorough careful reading, not just a summary. He was extremely meticulous and thus exposes the limitations of his own (not an) experiment.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I've read through it quite thoroughly. He constantly presents hypotheses for things that might have caused the results that weren't gravitational attraction and performed many variations of the experiments to rule them each out in turn. These potential other causes included (electro-)magnetism, air currents, variations in temperature among others and each time he was able to isolate the issue and still found his results confirming the gravitational attraction of the spheres.
It's also one of the most repeated experiments in physics. There are probably 20+ video examples on youtube alone and dozens of papers published in journals with repeats of them using various levels of advancements in technology. Not to the mention the fact that it's a common experiment for uni students to do so there are probably hundreds if not thousands of students repeating it every single year. And all of these repeats continue to find the same conclusion regarding the existence of attraction between two arbitrary objects of large mass - obviously with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy depending on the setups of the experiments.
I've read through it quite thoroughly. He constantly presents hypotheses for things that might have caused the results that weren't gravitational attraction and performed many variations of the experiments to rule them each out in turn. These potential other causes included (electro-)magnetism, air currents, variations in temperature among others and each time he was able to is
bBbBbBbBUt wHat iS sCiEnCe, bRo?
I'm not about to debate the philosophy of science, which I admittedly know very little about, with a couple of donkeys who, between them, think that we live on a pancake fried up a couple of thousand years ago by a magic pixie in the sky. We're just really not approaching this topic from the same direction.
I've read through it quite thoroughly. He constantly presents hypotheses for things that might have caused the results that weren't gravitational attraction and performed many variations of the experiments to rule them each out in turn. These potential other causes included (electro-)magnetism, air currents, variations in temperature among others and each time he was able to is
Well done for actually reading it. It does not work. The factors you describe are the probable causes. Of course, you do know the Earth density was already "known", deviations to prediction are ironed out to achieve a result in line with that predicted. Any undergrad will tell you the "experiment" cannot be done.
The reason the "experiment" does not work is because it is not an experiment.
Tell me, what are the three necessary components of an experiment?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Gl Will. You asked for this.
I'm not about to debate the philosophy of science, which I admittedly know very little about, with a couple of donkeys who, between them, think that we live on a pancake fried up a couple of thousand years ago by a magic pixie in the sky. We're just really not approaching this topic from the same direction.
"Philosophy of science"?
This is Science101. This you should know before opening your trap and spouting off ANY of the above.
Three necessary components of an experiment. Now.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"Philosophy of science"?
This is Science101. This you should know before opening your trap and spouting off ANY of the above.
Three necessary components of an experiment. Now.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You think you are getting more from me after your ungrateful behaviour?
Wind your neck in billy goat boy, you're lucky I haven't called up the zoo to tell them where they can find their escaped donkey.
Come on brah, don't be mad like that. Let's just all live in peace and harmony on this lovely planet of ours.
I'm still waiting for the super secret definition of physics.
One thing this clown and Deuces have in common is ignoring any burden of proof of any of their claims and then demanding you jump through their hoops. Doesn't work like that.
And here's a tip. If you have a point to make about the necessary components of an experiment, asking others to name them does not help your point at all. The truth does not change if d2 does or does not know or choose to answer your question. It's YOUR point, make it yourself.
But first, you do have a lot of previous claims that you should support with evidence, of course.
One thing this clown and Deuces have in common is ignoring any burden of proof of any of their claims and then demanding you jump through their hoops. Doesn't work like that.And here's a tip. If you have a point to make about the necessary components of an experiment, asking others to name them does not help your point at all. The truth does not change if d2 does or does not kn
What are the three necessary components of an experiment?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm not about to debate the philosophy of science, which I admittedly know very little about, with a couple of donkeys who, between them, think that we live on a pancake fried up a couple of thousand years ago by a magic pixie in the sky. We're just really not approaching this topic from the same direction.
I love pancakes. Especially with lots of melted butter and maple syrup.
What are the three necessary components of an experiment?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Man, seems like you should have figured that out first before trying to lecture people about science.
