This is the most interesting article Physorg has published in a long time. I feel like I've actually gained some insight after reading this. Wonderful!

It's interesting but I would offer a qualifier:
If many come to the same conclusion independently, with independent data sources, then that is a strengthening of the test rather than a show of bias. (Statistically speaking you're increasing your data size - and thereby your statistical power).

@antialias
True. I mean, ultimately all this article is saying is that you have to consider ALL contributions to a result. If you expect a result to have a certain level of noise, and it doesn't have it, then if the noise level is low enough that means even very unlikely alternate explanations become viable. In that context, testing something in multiple ways with different people serves to improve your odds.

In that context, testing something in multiple ways with different people serves to improve your odds.

Yes. That's the idea behind intra-observer and inter-observer tests (e.g. when testing whether a software with human interaction is robust)

Inter-observer: Let several people use the software on the same dataset and see how well the result matches
Intra-observer: Let the same user operate on the same dataset several times over and see how well the outcomes match

Also many research efforts (from the analyses done at CERN to image classification tasks to radioastronomical analyses) simulate noise levels to test whether their results are statistically valid or whether they disappear in the noise. The tricky thing is often to choose the right type of noise to simulate (not all noise is AWGN. E.g in data transfer simulations you have to also simulate e.g. block noise which you get during lightning strikes)

An another example is uniformity over several years of an investment fund's annual return. Lack of variation from the 10.5% rate given by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was a big clue it was a Ponzi fraud.

"They intuitively reasoned that when something seems too good to be true, most likely a mistake was made."

not true.

the reasoning is that if there is NO attempt at a defense, then their is no honest attempt to discover justice... a unanimous vote to condemn can be a passionate mob action... it can be a collusion of miscarriage/corruption of justice... if there is NO CONSIDERATION for facts, evidence, or arguments TO THE CONTRARY, one could literally condemn in IGNORANCE .

it's a miscarriage of justice/science to IGNORE data/information/concepts

unanimous agreement often indicates the presence of systemic error in the judicial process, even if the exact nature of the error is yet to be discovered. They intuitively reasoned that when something seems too good to be true, most likely a mistake was made.

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block .......I guess this must prove their biased Dark Matter & AGW narratives are so far out of whack that no quantity of science should ever constitute as evidence against them.........Now let's see how fast the 1 Stars come in......but notice, I haven't cast a vote.

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block ....

Your hypothesis is easily disproven, since I haven't voted a 1 star in quite some time. Guess your bias is already present in your head, neh?

Look at the title. It is saying too much evidence can be dangerous, whereas, the article is suggesting that too much agreement in evidence is dangerous! If the effect being proposed is true, a lot of evidence can be helpful by providing the agreement or lack of it that the article is claiming is indicative! It sounds very much like the lie factory of "science" is planning on overturning a lot of it earlier frauds and blaming the public for having been so gullible they believed the lies. So much for the "thousands of experiments that 'prove' 'relativity' is true, 'evolution' is true, vaccines are safe"! One suspects, too, an initiative, now, to "conclude" a theory true if only one data point supports it and everything else disagrees!

Nothing new here, looks like a review of bias effects that is rushed as a background of an opinion piece. It warns for bias/low noise effects, but goes overboard in suggesting we will never see some results that are surprisingly clear precisely because of random noise. Since there are so many experiments done, it will happen once in a blue moon.

Ah well, at least the author came down on the bias regarding mathematics as a constructed tool cherry picked for its success (never mind all the math that is rarely or never used). But instead he dug up a quaint philosophic idea of testing, which measurement theory 101 has rejected long since. Methods and instruments can be characterized separately, obviously!

The racists (!) and other ways crackpots in the thread supply the expected noise. Else the web had been suspiciously high quality...

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block ....

Your hypothesis is easily disproven, since I haven't voted a 1 star in quite some time. Guess your bias is already present in your head, neh?

.......you're talking about your claim to Electrical Engineering after I've corrected you when you've made so many glaring gafs in the subject matter subject matter.

Someone holding a Biology degree & claiming also to be an EE as well with all your gaf statements about EE related subject matter, is simply a storyline you've concocted that has no believability. At the University I attended I never once met a Pre-Med Biology Major who made a successful transition into an engineering curriculum, I met a couple who tried.

Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted.

Hmm... so at least one of them found Christ not guilty.

Benni bringing it down, oh so predictable

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block ....

What are you on ?
Voting is totally irrelevant & not anonymous, profiles open, are you blind or showing immense insecurity, EE's are not like this unless they had a major trauma, have you ?

Focus on the Science & especially "Balance of Probability"

Until your banal comment things were going well, please lift your game & focus on topic or at least quality of discussion at hand, otherwise you betray yourself

Benni says

I guess this must prove their biased Dark Matter & AGW narratives are so far out of whack that no quantity of science should ever constitute as evidence

Didnt you attend labs at uni EE study to point to/ identify unknowns applying key equations Eg Power Losses, Same issue re DM.

If not, then articulate please ?

Benni claims

......you're talking about your claim to Electrical Engineering after I've corrected you when you've made so many glaring gafs in the subject matter subject omatter

Been observing your puerile attempts to often defend immensely insecure position

Antialias_physorg right on the money, anything seemingly tangential is only issue of style & sometimes like me frustration at the low level those like you insist on !

Benni claims

Someone holding a Biology degree & claiming also to be an EE as well with all your gaf statements about EE related subject matter, is simply a storyline you've concocted that has no believability

Wrong !
I did similar, went from EE Ba.Sci to Food Science (Curtin University) & includes microbiology AND got distinctions too !

Benni claims

At the University I attended

Which please ?

Benni claims

. never once met a Pre-Med Biology Major who made a successful transition

Proves you mixed with the wrong crowd, go away !

1 Star or 5 Star ... I guess this must prove

Benni's attempt at statistical analysis LOL

Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted.

Hmm... so at least one of them found Christ not guilty.

I gotta admit - THAT was funny...:-)

Benni's attempt at statistical analysis...

So was that one...:-)

BartV claims

Not sure what law or what time period this is referring to. Probably post-NT history. According to the Old Testament, a suspect was found guilty when there were 2 or 3 credible witnesses

How credibility assessed ?

a. By witnesses claiming "God will strike me down if I lie" ?
b. Believe in one version of a book ?
c. Looked & acted like hysterical women claimed jesus 'rose' ?
d...

Isnt it great we moved judicial systems beyond mere emotional , as evidence shows humans are known to be unreliable witnesses & also now have benefit/understanding of:-

i. Critical thinking
ii. Causation
iii. Psychology
iv. Criminal patterns "motive, means & opportunity"
v. Debate/dialectic & the legal processes to manage ugly emotional mob mentality ie stoning
vi. Forensics - knowledge of Physics, Chemistry & of course DNA !

Why didnt a god, any god, educate directly so long ago re DNA, imagine all the innocents that would be saved had god bothered to communicate well

Look at the title. It is saying too much evidence can be dangerous, whereas, the article is suggesting that too much agreement in evidence is dangerous!

There's a bit of a discrepancy between what the title says and what the article says. The title says much evidence is bad, but the article argues the exact opposite: Many analyses performed on the same dataset can lead to systemic bias - but the more independent data (evidence) is used the less this effect happens.

So, when Zionists expect every last person to support their goals and label any skeptics as anti-Semitic...

Or the americans as unamerican/unpatriotic. Or the germans as un-arian, or .... you'll find idiots that use such simplistic labels to further their aims everywhere. And in far greater numbers than expected.

you're talking about your claim to Electrical Engineering after I've corrected you when you've made so many glaring gafs in the subject matter subject matter.

Like? I don't claim to be the most perfect engineer there ever was, but I can't really remember you ever having done what you just claimed.

Someone holding a Biology degree & claiming also to be an EE as well with all your gaf statements about EE related subject matter, is simply a storyline you've concocted that has no believability.

You can ask a few people on here (e.g. CaptainStumpy). They've seen my work. They know my real name and can easily google it to show that what I claim to be is correct.

And I do NOT hold a degree in biology (as I told you before). I hold a PhD in human biology (Dr. rer. biol. hom.) Got that programming novel image segmentation and analysis algorithms. Which is similar to what I did for my masters thesis in EE (specialized in biomedical EE)

Benni - you are a demonstrative IDIOT. antialias has credentials, you have angst, attitude and "beliefs". Your attitude may hold sway in a crowd of 12 yr olds but with adults let alone scientists it demonstrates nothing but arrogance and ignorance, neither of which any adult aspires to be known for.

Scientists and other people have known for quite some time that many people tend to limit their exposure to news sources that offer information that goes against their own beliefs—instead, they are drawn to sources that they find agreeable and in so doing bolster their beliefs—when multiple people do the same thing and use the same sources they create what has become known as echo chambers. The researchers with this new effort have found a similar pattern in information processing by people that use the Internet—most specifically, those that use Facebook.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

........thus forming 1 & 5 Star voting brigades,

Scientists and other people have known for quite some time that many people tend to limit their exposure to news sources that offer information that goes against their own beliefs

Pop quiz: Where do scientists get their information from?
Answer: Journals and conference papers.

Pop quiz: Which papers get published in journals and conferences?
Answer: Papers that show something new (and pass peer review). The more astounding the new findings the greater the chance for publication. I.e. these sources don't contain echo chamber material by DEFINITION. Scientists live for the new stuff. It's practically the only part of the job description.

You don't have the first clue about the realities of scientific work, do you? Science is not facebook.

But that's you'r usual MOD, isn't it? Making shit up without sweating actual knowledge.

Benni Fails to answer direct questions re EE lab work & meanders with

Scientists and other people have known for quite some time that many people tend to limit their exposure to news sources that offer information that goes against their own beliefs—instead, they are drawn to sources that they find agreeable and in so doing bolster their beliefs...

Ah you write as if you accept you're not a Scientist but, you claimed uni graduation in Electrical/Nuclear thus *should* make you a Scientist - capisce' ?

Which uni ?

NB:
Evidence linked to rational interpretation re Maths/Physics consistency beats mere claim !

Did you drink too much ?

Tell us WHY you have some ill-defined objection to a Dark Matter "place holder" - if at least as algebraic interim re General relativity & Newtonian gravitation demonstrated ?

Pray tell, along with my many other questions you refuse to answer or links offered you acknowledge you wont read, are you an Electric Universe devotee ?

"Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted." I've never heard of this. Does anyone know the source? I would imagine somewhere in the Talmud. Does anyone know a rabbi, or scholar who can answer this question.

Mike, perhaps Benni is just bored with your stupidity and couldn't be bothered responding to a mentally defective imbecile.

kleinzahler asked

"Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted." I've never heard of this. Does anyone know the source? I would imagine somewhere in the Talmud. Does anyone know a rabbi, or scholar who can answer this question

I guess it can be found on a religious site, scholars in that field, the good thing is those sorts of arbitrary ideas from primitive emotional religious times are well superseded, fortunately we have an understanding now of Psychology and just what makes the justice system far more likely to be fairer - its a heap of combinatorial issues loosely traced back to the Magna Carta some 100's of years before bible/talmud reached Britain AFAIK ie There aren't any clear references to any religious texts re the Magna Carta or its preceding document. The previous1000 yrs dark ages werent moderated by jesus story from another continent, god doesnt communicate well...

bluehigh Fails with the best tall poppy attack he can muster

Mike, perhaps Benni is just bored with your stupidity and couldn't be bothered responding to a mentally defective imbecile

Prove it ?

Benni claims to be Electrical/Nuclear Engineer but, won't prove it, doesnt write like one & Nil technical depth, fails to answer simple Q's, see my posts & Quora.com

Did Electronic Engineering @ Western Australian Institute of Technology, Bentley 1976-1982 & included many extra electives in Mech Eng, AI, Cybernetics & part post grad in Applied Stats.
Added Ba Sci. in 2008 from same place but, renamed Curtin University (Student No 7602128, call/email to confirm, np, imbecile" Ha! ), then back 3rd time 2010 graduated in Food Science certificate & even got distinctions where Nil experience of pre-requisites, so quite pleased :-)
Might go back next year re molecular biology as this year is "Settle commercial position" - whats your commsec1 nick ?

Your qualifications ?
:P

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block .......I guess this must prove their biased Dark Matter & AGW narratives are so far out of whack that no quantity of science should ever constitute as evidence against them.........Now let's see how fast the 1 Stars come in......but notice, I haven't cast a vote.

Just to be clear, I did give this a 1 star. Because it's off topic and irrelevant. Want to get 5 star posts? Say something about the actual article we're reading instead of being a dick.

So, when Zionists expect every last person to support their goals and label any skeptics as anti-Semitic, they're ignorning their own cultural tradition that dissent is a sign of a healthy process?

I'm shocked.

Geez, guys. Really? Don't suppose there are any mods around? No? Of course not.

And the thread flies off course...

LeetenantTard, please enlighten us on how your comment, about cantdrive continuing to smoke despite knowing he would get cancer, was on topic and relevant.
http://phys.org/n...war.html

There are these things called ANALOGIES. I'm not typing this out again anti. It was dumb the first few times.

http://phys.org/n...ear.html

Listen up idiot. How was your comment relevant and on topic?

@Mike_Massen

its a heap of combinatorial issues loosely traced back to the Magna Carta some 100's of years before bible/talmud reached Britain AFAIK ie There aren't any clear references to any religious texts re the Magna Carta or its preceding document. The previous1000 yrs dark ages werent moderated by jesus story from another continent, god doesnt communicate well...

Uh, not quite certain what you are trying to say here, but Magna Carta was signed by King John around 1215. His father was Henry II, who played a profound role in the development of the English legal system - and whose knights murdered Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism was quite well-established in England and the rest of the British Isles long, long before Magna Carta.The Bible had reached England when Rome adopted Christianity - in the 400 AD era, if not before.

And how frequently it can be noticed how Axemaster, Anti_Physics, Ira, Stumpo, VietVet, Muttering Mike, and a couple others unanimously vote 1 Star or 5 Star as as single voting block

Those peoples are a lot smarter than me Bennie-Skippy, I don't belong in there with them.

I guess this must prove their biased Dark Matter & AGW narratives are so far out of whack that no quantity of science should ever constitute as evidence against them...

My vote does not have any thing to do with DM or AWT or AGW or even the DE's you can not do. I give you the bad karma points because you are so charming and nice to everybody.

Now let's see how fast the 1 Stars come in.

Okayeei, non problem Cher, here you go.

but notice, I haven't cast a vote.

Everybody is allowed to vote. You don't have to if you don't want to. Do you have any more silly things to say for now? Good, now sit down. Yeah, with the silly looking pointy cap on your head.

Benni - you are a demonstrative IDIOT. antialias has credentials, you have angst, attitude and "beliefs". Your attitude may hold sway in a crowd of 12 yr olds but with adults let alone scientists it demonstrates nothing but arrogance and ignorance, neither of which any adult aspires to be known for.

Yeah, but... He has an "Estate" with ski trails an' everything...
Oops. Sorry, Benni - that made you look arrogant...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

To those who asked for the source of the cited Jewish law: It's in the Talmud, at Sanhedrin 17a. If all 23 judges on the court vote to convict, the defendant goes scot free.

has its own limits and exceptions

This is fundamentally in contradiction with

here are actually no global rules, therefore the Universe is random

Also:

space-time

and

philosophy

are orthogonal concepts.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

To those who asked for the source of the cited Jewish law: It's in the Talmud, at Sanhedrin 17a. If all 23 judges on the court vote to convict, the defendant goes scot free.

Many thanks Mizrahim - Kol Tov.

"It's interesting but I would offer a qualifier:
If many come to the same conclusion independently, with independent data sources, then that is a strengthening of the test rather than a show of bias. (Statistically speaking you're increasing your data size - and thereby your statistical power)."

Before reading the article I would have agreed. But the principles that apply to this sort thing would indicate that in this case you should suspect the true independence of the conclusion, data sources, etc......the source of bias could simply be that all the conclusions were reached by humans.

.the source of bias could simply be that all the conclusions were reached by humans.

Sure. That's one source of bias we have to be careful about (and also one of sources most difficult - if not impossible - to eliminate). As humans we do have a certain set of biases. E.g. thinking that the flow of time is somehow universal, that there is a clear distinction between any two objects (which there really isn't), that causality is somehow a fundamental part of the universe, etc...

Any/all of these could be wrong.

But the idea of using statistical analysis is one where you take the human out of the equation as far as possible. It's still the human that formulates the hypothesis/null-hypothesis and sets the boundary conditions of any experiment/scientific inquiry. It is good practice to occasionaly check those. fun things can be found (as Einstein did when he checked the boundary conditions of Newton).

Ophelia (O) asked

Uh, not quite certain what you are trying to say here, but Magna Carta was signed by King John around 1215

Sure but, not initiated by him.

O said

His father was Henry II, who played a profound role in the development of the English legal system...

OK, didn't know that, my understanding is Magna Carta was a means to settle a dispute on the basis it limited the powers of the king & to prohibit slavery, thus not religious imperative as bible accepted that

O claims

Catholicism was quite well-established in England and the rest of the British Isles long, long before Magna Carta

I dispute "well-established", primarily because there were many translations attempts, besides precise communication essential for a uniform belief system, also before printing press, so distribution limited

O says

The Bible had reached England when Rome adopted Christianity - in the 400 AD era, if not before

Sure, should have clarified KJ Version...

@Mike_Massen

Ophelia (O) asked

Uh, not quite certain what you are trying to say here, but Magna Carta was signed by King John around 1215

Sure but, not initiated by him.

No. I stated, not asked. And, no, John certainly didn't initiate Magna Carta - and I never stated or implied that he did. It was forced upon him by the barons.

O said

His father was Henry II, who played a profound role in the development of the English legal system...

OK, didn't know that, my understanding is Magna Carta was a means to settle a dispute on the basis it limited the powers of the king & to prohibit slavery, thus not religious imperative as bible accepted that

You have a rather simplistic view of the power struggle going on during that time period. And prohibition of slavery as part of the document isn't a majority view, though it was of the abolitionists in later times.

@Mike_Massen

O claims

Catholicism was quite well-established in England and the rest of the British Isles long, long before Magna Carta

I dispute "well-established", primarily because there were many translations attempts, besides precise communication essential for a uniform belief system, also before printing press, so distribution limited

O says

The Bible had reached England when Rome adopted Christianity - in the 400 AD era, if not before

Sure, should have clarified KJ Version...

Again, your meaning is unclear. If you really don't think Catholicism and Christianity weren't "well-established" at the time of Magna Carta, I suggest you do some serious reading into the history of both. Because you are wrong. If you are trying to say there were no English translations of the Bible at that time, you have an obtuse way of doing so. But, Wycliffe translated in the 1380s and Tyndale in the 1500s, long before the KJV. Partial translations existed as early as 700 AD

@Mike_Massen

In sum, Christianity was well-established at Magna Carta. And an English translation of the Bible wasn't necessary to establish a "uniform" belief system. The multitude of abbeys, monasteries, and convents and numerous monks, priests and nuns took care of that. One of the sticking points for all monarchs was the tremendous amount of wealth tied up in the Church both before and after Magna Carta - precisely because Christianity was well-established. No, no English translation of the Bible existed then, but so what? Few could have read it anyway besides the priests, etc., who had Latin translations and passed on the meaning of the Bible as the Roman Catholic Church saw it - your "uniform" belief system.

Given the way that the U. S. congress votes, all Republicans vote one way, all Democrats vote another, doesn't this show that the votes are not individual choices, but are the results of other factors, such as either extortion or collusion?

Given the way that the U. S. congress votes, all Republicans vote one way, all Democrats vote another, doesn't this show that the votes are not individual choices, but are the results of other factors, such as either extortion or collusion?

Which is to say the problem is not "too much evidence" but group think and human psychology. And that's what they're actually referring to in this article. If you're a juror then having fifteen eye witnesses may count as "evidence" but it's not about scientific evidence. It's about the way in which our memories, ideas and opinions about the world can be distorted by a variety of things.

Which is why everyone who's making dumb statements about climate change needs to read it again.

cancelled

Everyone who has argued with me in the past about my theories as detailed in "The Situation of Gravity" should read and understand paragraph 6 (Eugene Wigner)

@Ophelia
Seem very passionate re 3 posts in quick succession ! I don't profess to be a historian & as such power struggle isn't of interest. My aspect revolves around evidence of substantive relationships re misperceptions of religious influence in derivation of legal maxims as some may perceive Magna Carta (MC) to have import. in my opinion there's negligible religious influence re Law until MC & even then incomplete, abolition of slavery is a key step not congruent with any bible version. In any case given; negligible organisation, feeble communication & lack of education across the region up to MC support the view christianity wasnt "that" well establish, especially so as very few translations attempted & incomplete ie. https://en.wikipe...slations
&
https://en.wikipe...slations

IMHO, evidence for MC influenced by religion is slim, fortunately we've moved beyond reliance on notion of any gods...

Reg Mundy begs

Everyone who has argued with me in the past about my theories as detailed in "The Situation of Gravity" should read and understand paragraph 6..

No. Wigner offers (incomplete) aspect Eg hasn't considered Newton's gravitation re predicted perfectly another planetary body based upon odd orbit of the then known Uranus (IIRC) which turned out to be correct. The precision however re Mercury's orbit was still an anomaly until Einstein's relativity correction was proven correct ie. Asymptotic

Survival of the fittest, not cherry picking !

Wigner also seems unaware of analytical re numerical corrections for engine computers !

Existing Newtonian gravitation works very well & even better including corrections for Special Relativity adding a further layer of precision for physical devices as GPS, orbits etc

Your vague "theories" can't predict anything !

ie. Unable to calculate orbits/GPS etc as far as I know, unless you now have math, do you have Any ?

Example number four is one we should all take to heart. For many years, people used Millikan's data for the charge on an electron because the figured he HAD to be close to the truth.

Only after his death, did they review his original notes and realized just how much data he threw away. With his original data, the charge of an electron was much closer to the results that everyone else was getting .

Mendel's pea plant experiments were shown to have been fudged in more than a few places by simple statistical analysis that was not available to anyone at the time.

These experimenters deceived themselves and the public at large, meaning well, but believing somehow that the answer must be something other than what they were measuring. And then they found the answer they were looking for...

antialias has credentials

- deluded dimwit

Lol. He is a narrow minded leftover with too much invested in study that's becoming outdated. All Anti-Thinking can do is recite from old textbooks and dribble.
He's a senile old twit.

The evidence isn't overwhelming, just enough to be true.

What happens if they all find him innocent?

@Mike_Mastoid

ie. Unable to calculate orbits/GPS etc as far as I know, unless you now have math, do you have Any ?

Yup. Funnily enough, the theory predicts exactly the same results, hardly surprising as the calculations include relativity.......
It is the existence of gravity as a force that I take issue with, dumbass.

Reg Mundy claims

Yup. Funnily enough, the theory predicts exactly the same results, hardly surprising as the calculations include relativity..

Really - Prove it ?

When queried before you claim one of the 'problems' with contemporary Newton's gravity, it has 'influence' to infinity - you deduced objects would 'always come back', yet when asked to show maths how yours didnt have this 'problem' you refused ?

Now you claim maths & equivalent to existing Newtonian/Einstein's math AND whats more gives same results - WoW !

So without some fantastical discontinuous polynomial it *must* have same general form as Newton's simple one or with Tensors as Gauss' equations core of Einstein's field equations

So why can't you prove *any* of your claims & show the maths please ?

Reg Mundy claims

It is the existence of gravity as a force that I take issue with, dumbass

This is why you will *never* be taken seriously, you refuse to show Math & bark insults !

Capisce' ?

Cont @Reg Mundy
says

It is the existence of gravity as a force that I take issue with, dumbass

Hmm, so despite fact basic force equation F=ma works fine all way across non-gravitational areas of Physics through to gravitation you say gravity is NOT a force even when its clear Eg When standing on a typical bathroom scale the 'effect' which results from your body's mass 'forces' the sensor in the scale to deflect reporting your weight.

Same thing happens on the Moon etc Well unless you want to believe we didn't go, do you :/

So, by way of inference, deduction & the logic of how Maths ^ Physics meld so very well, you claim predictions of your theory are the same BUT, not with gravitation as an equivalent force ie Some other paradigm which (IIRC) is some expansion issue (?) which acts locally the opposite way around as a contraction if you like, via attraction - huh ?

Trust you realise your expansion "math" will have to address atomic orbits Not expanding ?

@Mike_Mastoid

Trust you realise your expansion "math" will have to address atomic orbits Not expanding ?

Of course they are expanding.
Everything is expanding, except your brain, which is shrinking....

Same thing happens on the Moon etc Well unless you want to believe we didn't go, do you :/

Where did I say it didn't? Another of your typical red herrings!

Eg When standing on a typical bathroom scale the 'effect' which results from your body's mass 'forces' the sensor in the scale to deflect reporting your weight.

And I suppose you can't think of any other possible reason for this, other than gravity? Acceleration, for example?
By the way, please stop voting yourself 5s with your sock puppets, its becoming embarrassing.

Reg Mundy claims re atomic orbits

Of course they are expanding

Why ? As nucleus charge/mass/r^2 to first e- shell orbital ratio would either be fully linear with Your 'expansion' bypassing integer shell/orbital relationships so therefore your maths *must* have at least one discontinuous term with integer dependency *or* orbital expansion is at different rate/effect than that which You claim is same as existing gravitation/field equations, if that were so, them your Math leads to a Nobel !

Or you make up claims to save face... Inference, deduction & logic not your best skill :-(

Reg Mundy can't help showing himself up

Everything is expanding, except your brain, which is shrinking

Really, show us your deductive skills re how you deleted the 'always comes back' problem with Your Math ?

Reg Mundy

Where did I say it didn't?

Comprehension Reg Mundy, its a question !

Reg Mundy, where's your Math & logic ?

Maths, for your 'acceleration', please ?

cont

Continued @Reg Mundy

In order to have some theory or even to start to have some theory of "expansion" which evidently operates exactly as attraction re You being on Earth's surface and NOT flying off then you logically have to have some math with either a square term ( ie negative*negative gives a positive) OR a discontinuous absolute value operator to delineate 'expansion' as it results in local 'attraction' via 'contraction' ie the Compressability of matter via (at local scale) Earth's gravitation. ie Water compresses (a bit) the deeper you get, voids in rocks get smaller as gases are compressed deeper you get etc

As before Reg Mundy, claims mean nada, zero, zilch. Some basic math to at least start with.

How about Force=Mass*Acceleration (f=ma) & works really really well, do you use that or have something different, maybe your acceleration has a vector component or its
part of a larger Tensor term, is that possible ?

ie You *must* define terms of reference !

@Mike_Mastoid

ie You *must* define terms of reference !

No, Mike, there is absolutely nothing that I *must* do.
If you want to understand my theories, first you must read them.
You are wasting our time just shooting in the dark.

Reg Mundy claims

ie You *must* define terms of reference !

No, Mike, there is absolutely nothing that I *must* do

That's Your problem & that is Further reason you will Never be taken seriously as You have Failed to define your terms of reference ie Math, Eg symbols !

Eg Is Your 'acceleration' term (Math) same as Newtons - yes/no ?

Reg Mundy says

If you want to understand my theories, first you must read them

Beg Pardon ? You claim your theory makes SAME predictions as Newton's gravitation & You ALSO claim it includes relativity but, You FAIL to Prove *any* claims !

Reg Mundy says

You are wasting our time just shooting in the dark

Wasting time is Your fault, You Fail to show *any* Math !

And you waste typing worrying about votes, you might be taken more seriously if you described the maths, is it the same or different to Newtons or Einsteins, if former then why should your interpretation be acceptable to claim atomic orbitals expand ?

Maths !

@MM
Can't you get it thru' your thick head, maths is ONLY A MODEL of reality, and while it represents our best efforts to describe it, there are countless exceptions where reality and our best maths diverge.

Reg Mundy feeble distraction

Can't you get it thru' your thick head, maths is ONLY A MODEL of reality, and while it represents our best efforts to describe it, there are countless exceptions where reality and our best maths diverge

LOL !

Don't YOU understand Maths is Asymptotic, it works Very well in Describing relationships testable again & again, its WHY its used Always in ALL branches of Engineering from electronic to electrical to mechanical to structural to chemical etc.

Eg Your Engine Computer !

Learn Physics, Maths is the Foundations, relative completeness is part of the dynamic.

ie. First Newton re gravitation, which isnt accurate enough to describe Mercury's orbit, then an asymptotic improvement with relativity providing correction improving accuracy & so it goes.

Don't YOU understand, its YOU that makes the claim YOUR theory makes the same prediction that existing Maths does but, you don't show YOUR Maths - ie Don't U have any ?

Learn Calculus !

Continued @Reg Mundy who emotionally imagines

... and while it represents our best efforts to describe it, there are countless exceptions where reality and our best maths diverge

Countless no, you're way off tangent without understanding; accuracy, resolution, repeatability & sequence

Take Gravitation F=Gm1m2/d^2
Works very well to high orders at local scales AND used to make very good predictions to; launch rockets, achieve orbit, change orbit, leave Earth to reach Moon, Mars, even to accelerate craft to edge of solar system Voyager, Pioneer AND use slingshot effect to assist by stealing bit of Jupiter's momentum etc

BUT, you must understand these equations are a static, when you apply over time series there is introduction of variance, its an incremental effect. It doesn't invalidate (static) maths with your facile blurt "Its only a model", that's a huge mis-characterisation as the maths IS used in all Sciences & reliably.

Then you have algebra eg DM :-)

@MM
Several proverbs come to mind, e.g.-
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
etc.
You are one of those idiots who insist that maths and science can explain EVERYTHING!
Here's news for you. They cannot.
We rely on ever-improving mathematical models, but at present we are making NO PROGRESS and are at last realising that a fundamental rethink is necessary.
Twerps like you nay-say anything unorthodox, and that's what this thread is about - you just don't see it, do you?

@Reg Mundy

Need to re-read my posts, I've *never* claimed maths explains !

I've stated Maths *only* describes & in contemporary experience very well too within layers of asymptotic progress according to; accuracy, resolution & cognition of variance !

You've made claims covering huge range of fundamentals without *any* substantiation especially so re context of Maths in relation to proven Physics of >100years, other than what looks like vague linguistic "logic" which can't make *any* predictions ie mere claim.

You appear to avoid large asymptotic progress & you don't seem to be aware that its self-evident as approaches an asymptote, extends period by which corrections are added.

You also tenaciously avoid means to converge leveraging any existing proven Physics & instead lurch to an emotional idea a "rethink" is needed, did u miss Calculus ?

If you've keen mental discipline then address claimed top 3 "countless exceptions"

ie Can you converge properly please ?

@MM
Can you give one example of an asymtotic occurrence in nature?

Reg Mundy asked

Can you give one example of an asymtotic occurrence in nature?

Eg ratio of red:white blood cells in mammals, asymptotically close to statistical maxima Eg 1000:1 & matches economics in comparison with number of cars on the road vs number of sum ambulances+police+fire engines also approaches 1000:1 as equilibrium maxima reached

But, your question re Nature is tangential to issue re development of Physics & also same applies to math/chem ie. I am not talking physical process per se' but, the collective understanding as details gleaned

Eg. Basic chemistry, increasingly developed predictability of chemical reactions re bonding potentials.

~150yrs ago nil, then over next ~50yrs improved well then later minimal corrections as level of predictability reduced variance in experiment vs prediction.

ie. As time passes, esp last 75 yrs or so gap between prediction & experimental measurement of relative bond energies asymptotically approaches a minima

@Reg Mundy,
Your question re nature could have huge number of examples but, even that's dependent on understanding of key training in "Probability & Statistics" which builds on graph theory - in respect of key asymptotes in Eg control systems; devices for temp, humidity, pressure, pH etc control. Eg Math is Magnitude*(1- e^(-x))

ie. Air con controller is doh a model but, works perfectly well to very small variance (error bars). Eg temp @t=0 is 9 C, set it to 22C, turn it on, it approaches asymptote of 22C according to the thermal mass of the air (& radiative/conductive loss to walls/ceiling) the target temp of 22C, but, subject to measurement variance at the target point. ie Overall curve is Magnitude*(1- e^(-x)) & say measurement variance of +- 0.5 deg C is within the 'dead band' such as to minimise power consumption.

So it is with Gravitation:-
ie. For millenia nothing, then Newton, Einsteins work didnt throw out Newton his maths built on it to asymptote...

@MM
You are full of crap, throwing out reams of meaningless guff without one true example of nature converging asymptotically on anything.

So it is with Gravitation:-
ie. For millenia nothing, then Newton, Einsteins work didnt throw out Newton his maths built on it to asymptote...

This last paragraph is typical of you. Nothing/Newton/Einstein! That's an example of asymptotic convergence?
By the way, one of my qualifications is a B.Sc. in Pure Maths and Statistics from a world-class university, so try and grow up and contribute to a meaningful exchange.

Reg Mundy claims

You are full of crap, throwing out reams of meaningless guff without one true example of nature converging asymptotically on anything

Huh ? why can't a Ba. Sci observe asymptotic behavior in nature but, why ask ?

Eg 2 How about 4 legged mammalian straightline speed, do you deny effective maxima limited by anatomy & only highly adapted species can being to approach it ?

Reg Mundy claims

This last paragraph is typical of you. Nothing/Newton/Einstein! That's an example of asymptotic convergence?

Of course you can add Gauss before Einstein but, I didnt want to make it too complex for you ie Einstein relied on Gauss, so as a Ba. Sci you surely *must* understand that intervening step ?

Can't you appreciate; before Newton its nil ie y=0 at relative t=0, then Newton y=y+g1, where g1 is first level gravitation at t=t+t1 & so on re Einstein...

Newton failed to explain Mercury, Einstein did, ie improvement

Only dark matter left, so far ;-)

cont

Continued @Reg Mundy claims

By the way, one of my qualifications is a B.Sc. in Pure Maths and Statistics from a world-class university

Really !
Which Uni & when please ?
You notice then why I didn't add particularly relevant caveat on my asymptote equation ;-) ?

Which begs question, how can a Ba Sci in Pure Maths be blind to asymptotic maxima/minima throughout nature's patterns of energy/movement/growth etc interactions ?

Reg Mundy asks

..so try and grow up and contribute to a meaningful exchange

Really !
So why *must* you resort to derogatory terms; "crap", "dumbass" etc & especially when you're clearly unable to articulate WHY your "expansion" *should* mean atomic orbitals would do likewise ?

Tell us Reg Mundy re your comments elsewhere, why you imagined gravity, as Newton's formula is stated, words to effect of "..means objects always come back eventually." ?

Its pure math question so, please articulate it well from a Ba Sci level please ?

Continued

Continued @Reg Mundy
FYI: I have a particular interest re asymptotes as patterning identifier & derived for observation of some variance types Eg Noise in sampled control systems which includes one of my hobbies re trading on share market ie one can identify a useful pattern in perception re the variance differential which ordinary graphical axes hide when translated to suit a particular control systems target ($), anyway thats broad brush

Operation in practice is very interesting... Just uploaded an old first prototype derivation in xlsx file but, edited of course to take out my commercial/private sheets
http://www.niche....ert.xlsx

Reg Mundy as a Ba Sci in Pure Maths, what are (maybe two) key aspects which I hope stand out as readily applicable to crafting an experimental methodology to pin down a potential correction term to Einstein's field equation to account for dark matter distribution variance in galactic structure, amoung other things ?

@MM
Wow! Didn't realise you traded on the share market! Perhaps you could give me a few tips as to which shares you think are going to rise, so I can avoid them.....

what are (maybe two) key aspects which I hope stand out as readily applicable to crafting an experimental methodology to pin down a potential correction term to Einstein's field equation to account for dark matter distribution variance in galactic structure,

If you had bothered to read and understand my theories before rejecting them, you would know that I fundamentally disagree with Einstein's field equations, as they treat gravity as a force or an effect due to the strength of a totally imaginary field similar to a magnetic field, which implies that gravity is a force, which I propose is not the case. So, why would I try to pin down a potential correction to equations which deal with an imaginary force in an imaginary field? Think, boy, think!

Reg Mundy

Wow! Didn't realise you traded on the share market! Perhaps you could give me a few tips as to which shares you think are going to rise, so I can avoid them

What a strange idea, best to avoid those going down unless its a typical market irrationality in anticipation of a negative announcement then, if you have liquidity pounce, ie a No brainer !

Reg Mundy says

So, why would I try to pin down a potential correction to equations which deal with an imaginary force in an imaginary field?

Because those equations work in many ways all the time !

Besides you say your equations made same results re motions & even include atomic orbitals, so unless they're crafted with big selective discontinuities as massive polynomial across 10 levels or so they must have same general form as Einstein's field equations !

If former then publish paper win a Nobel prize as you'd have an alternative form, if latter then a copy+correction & get a Nobel re dark matter !

@MM
Oh dear, I see that your sense of irony is as well-developed as your general IQ.

Because those equations work in many ways all the time !

If you wish to obtain a desired result, then any half-decent mathematician can construct a mathematical model to achieve that result (or asymptotically approach it by adding numerous corrections afterwards, as furbrain does...). The end result is a mathematical "MODEL" which, in the best circumstances, allows predictions to be made. BUT it is still only a model! It is NOT reality!
Why would anybody bother adding yet another "correction" or alternative to proven equations which work most of the time against the real world? We need a complete re-appraisal of how we construct our models, not another coat of paint on an already-discredited edifice which requires Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Gravitational Waves, WIMPS, etc., etc., to survive, NONE of which can be proven to exist!
Think, boy, think!

Reg Mundy claims

...already-discredited edifice which requires Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Gravitational Waves, WIMPS, etc., etc., to survive, NONE of which can be proven to exist!

Eg. DM is *only* an algebraic place-holder, none of what you claim has been discredited ever, Science progress asymptotic, not instant !

Someone who claims graduation in Pure Maths you've missed Kurt Godel's work & not understood it in conjunction re empiricism relation to prediction
ie Maths describes, it cannot explain as no-one can ever 'explain' anything ie the classical phenomenological issue !

Eg
Newtons gravitation (NG) predicted all solar system orbits except Uranus/Mercury, please learn man, learn !
https://en.wikipe..._Neptune
It proved NG worked, it wasn't necessary to abandon it, people took their time & discovered the missing mass was Neptune.

Prediction re Mercury needed major paradigm shift as NG scalar, Einstein's vector field

continued

@MM
Do you ever actually read what I have written, or just spout off the first thing that comes into your head?

Eg. DM is *only* an algebraic place-holder, none of what you claim has been discredited ever, Science progress asymptotic, not instant !

I JUST SAID THAT! Are you agreeing with me, or have you just misunderstood again?
The last half of your post is about as pertinent to this discussion as a formula for making ice cream.
Look, if I say that fairies exist, I can never be proved wrong. If I say they don't exist, I would be proved wrong as soon as anyone produced one.
So, Newton/Einstein can never be proved wrong just because we cannot find DM, DE, GW, etc., but I will be proved wrong as soon as we definitely do. I therefore claim the ethical high-ground on that basis. Meanwhile, it is patently unjust to label me a nutter and acclaim Newton/Einstein as correct when logic and a simple application of Occam's Razor indicates the opposite.

"Isnt it great we moved judicial systems beyond mere emotional , as evidence shows humans are known to be unreliable witnesses & also now have benefit/understanding of:-
i. Critical thinking
ii. Causation
iii. Psychology
iv. Criminal patterns "motive, means & opportunity"
v. Debate/dialectic & the legal processes to manage ugly emotional mob mentality ie stoning
vi. Forensics - knowledge of Physics, Chemistry & of course DNA !
Why didnt a god, any god, educate directly so long ago re DNA, imagine all the innocents that would be saved had god bothered to communicate well."
Except that all the things you listed are not infallible. Psychology? DNA?
Police still require eyewitnesses whenever a crime or even more so a missing person incident occurs. Evidently it still is reliable.

RMWST commented

Except that all the things you listed are not infallible. Psychology? DNA?

Never implied infallible. Check Scientific Method conjunction with "Balance of Probability" & worked very well & far beyond *any* religious approach *ever* as its substantive ALL gods *ever* are very BAD communicators !

RMWST appears not to have Criminology experience to be facile

Police still require eyewitnesses whenever a crime or even more so a missing person incident occurs

Please do research to clarify Provenance of your statement regarding complexities, legal maxims (primarily in Australia) is one of my hobbies, there are certain procedures at many levels re law & how reliable even police eyewitness claims are, please avail yourself of research

Have been successful vs Federal government, I know process
http://www.austli...245.html

RMWST claims

Evidently it still is reliable

Comparatively only as lowest common denominator :-(

Police still require eyewitnesses whenever a crime or even more so a missing person incident occurs. Evidently it still is reliable.

"Some 75% of the wrongful convictions for rape and murder, including a number that led to people being scheduled for execution, were based on eyewitness testimony."
http://www.scienc...ts-weigh

" Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony."
http://www.scient...have-it/

"...legal maxims (primarily in Australia).."
Since you mention Australia here is what their legal system has to say about the reliability of DNA evidence:
http://www.alrc.g...evidence

" Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony."
I've been told that if you look far enough you can find any reason to doubt even DNA evidence:
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

All of my posts on phys.org are consistently instantly marked down to 1 from 5 by some prat who has obviously set up a mechanism to automatically do this. Its time some adjudicator tracked the source of these sort of shenanigans and banned the perps permanently.
Meanwhile, I would like to thank the four critics who marked my last post as 5 from 5 after actually reading the post. You are part of the few bastions of enlightenment who make posting on this site worthwhile.

@Reg Mundy
I've approached your claims via normal convergent dialectic but, you want to adopt divergence instead, so therefore appropriate to backtrack a bit to clarify. I've asked you several questions never answered whilst observing you make even further claims without key substantiation. In order to be efficient to not waste both our time further please clarify

1. Your comment long ago - existing Newtonian/Einstein gravity means objects will eventually come back, why u think ?

2. You mention a re-think is necessary re gravity but, won't offer anything tangible, or just why some inflationary property can be consistent with atomic orbitals, ie math please show ?

3. You often state maths is *only* a model as if its a Fail but, you cannot obviously offer anything other than maths - well unless you demonstrate in a lab offering a causal aspect free of maths dependent only upon something else Eg ?

Step by step, start with your earliest claim/expectation per 1. ?

@MM
1. Can you quote one instance where this is not so? Every object which leaves Earth's gravity, or Sol's Gravity, falls within the influence of some other body. NOTHING in nature observes the "asymptotitc convergence" so beloved by mathematicians. Things which get smaller eventually ALL become quantum.
Name something that "asymptotically" approaches the speed of light - things either cannot, or already do, reach the speed of light - and so on.
2. I cannot explain expansion theory here, you need to appreciate the whole scenario not just one aspect.
3. Quantum entanglement? Perhaps you think I should demonstrate it to you by physchic force as I type this post.....

Reg Mundy misrepresents

1... Every object which leaves Earth's gravity, or Sol's Gravity, falls within the influence of some other body

Not genuine, initial claim was that if something leaves Earth it will eventually be drawn back to Earth as G is continuous & extends to infinity - now you are shifting the question, moving goal posts

Returning to your initial Q, do you believe "everything will come back Eg to earth, if from earth even from infinity" ?

Reg Mundy says

2. I cannot explain expansion theory here, you need to appreciate the whole scenario not just one aspect

Of course you CAN ! because you claim your maths makes same predictions as Einstein's field equations or Newtons AND even included orbitals AND you claim to have graduated in Pure Math (PM) - ie dead easy, I know many PM graduates !

Reg Mundy says

3. Quantum entanglement?

No, not genuine yet another shift, it was in context with your claimed maths re G only

Please converge !

@MM
1. I ask if you can quote ONE instance where an object leaves Earth's gravity and DOES NOT RETURN (excluding objects falling under the influence of other bodies). So, you make a statement saying objects attaining escape velocity do not return, I say they do unless moving into the influence of other bodies. You cannot quote an example, and neither can I. That is impasse, not victory for you!
2. No, I can't explain expansion theory in detail here. It needs a book.
3. Read your own question 3, and try to stay relevant. QE is a perfect answer to the question you ask.

Reg Mundy with initial claim

.. I say they do unless moving into the influence of other bodies

Earlier you say your math predicts (as Einstein/Newton) same planetary orbits then your claim here directly contradicts as those orbits based on classical mechanics & extrapolation which shows objects DON'T return upon reaching escape velocity

Not good refusing to show math as odd raising barrier, alternatively sensible to converge addressing Questions re 'objects not returning'

a. Did you allow for Δ kinetic energy ?
b. Does math include function limit of 1/r as r approaches infinity ?
c. Do you include any math beyond the scalar dimension ?

Reg Mundy claims

That is impasse..

No you haven't completed convergent process

Reg Mundy oddly

.. not victory for you!

Beg pardon, how old are you ?

Reg Mundy, please stay focused as tangential comments distract from essentials are not smart or congruent in arriving at the key issue, one key step at a time please

@MM
You wanna see the maths/diagrams/explanation for orbits without gravity? Then either work it out for yourself (it only requires you to THINK) or read the book "The Situation of Gravity" which lays it out in a non-technical manner.
"No, you haven't completed convergent process". What does this mean? I haven't performed somersaults either, but how is that relevant?
What's the relevance of my age?
"...please try to stay focused...". Look in the mirror, Pal!

Reg Mundy (RM) says

You wanna see the maths/diagrams/explanation for orbits without gravity?

No. I already know Classical Mechanics please re-read my post ?

RM spamming his book again demands

Then either work it out for yourself (it only requires you to THINK) or read the book "The Situation of Gravity" which lays it out in a non-technical manner

Comments here are not for selling your book !

Besides *any* math re orbits HAS to include proper technical description, especially so if your claim you HAVE math were true ?

RM says

.. haven't completed convergent process". What does this mean?

You blatantly refuse/sidestep proper process of dialectic convergence something ALL pure maths graduates know very well !

RM asks

What's the relevance of my age?

Re "victory", not adult, immature :-(

Where did you graduate "Pure Maths" & when please ?

Your claim in all respects re your maths looks very shaky, be disciplined & answer my questions Please ?

@MM

No. I already know Classical Mechanics please re-read my post ?

Classical mechanics? I'm targetting the classical mathematical model which shows velocity of object asymptotically approaching zero as it leaves Earth, and state that this model is incorrect. I ask for one example in Nature of something "asymptotically approaching a limit". Give me one!

RM spamming his book again demands

No, I ask that you think for yourself, the book is far beyond your comprehension as it requires suspension of belief in establishment dogma. The maths you so fervently desire require explanatory diagrams which cannot be included here.

Where did you graduate "Pure Maths" & when please ?

Earth, and before you were born.
In return for my answering your personal questions, please answer mine:- Where and when were you born? Which school did you go to? What convictions have you had (also name any prisons you seved time in). Which university did you attend? What courses did you do?

Reg Mundy confused

.. the classical mathematical model which shows velocity of object asymptotically approaching zero as it leaves Earth, and state that this model is incorrect

No, classical model (primarily) shows gravitational force approaching 0 as d approaches infinity, NOT velocity unless its *lower* than escape, ie straightforward arithmetic & doesn't even need Calculus, can you appreciate the key difference in your position please ?

Yay, Reg seems we've converged (thats point of the process) to nub of the matter head on !

So please focus on that & I will answer further questions you raise if they are relevant to understanding the physics & also value of crafting diagrams & how to enhance them to greater effect especially if the maths has disparate recursive property or Calculus is involved but, for time being lets finalise that key issue that seems to have misled you

NB: diagrams ie Trajectories based on maths, citing an equation I can plot in Excel !

@MM
Mmm, should have said velocity asymptotically approaching a limit, not necessarily 0 (which is only a specific limit...).
Look, if you must plot trajectories/orbits in Excel, then all you have to do is start from any point with two bodies (make it roughly Earth/Moon spheres) and plot their positions at quantum time intervals (you can make the quanta seconds to simplify this, they are as good as anything). Assume the spheres double in size every second (or any other increase in size you like, I am trying to keep things simple). Now, everything else, including the observer and the measuring implement, also double in size every second.
Plot the position after one second. Then, go back to square one, and plot the positions after one second. (this is because there is no actual starting position, any second is as good as any other.)
Tell me if you get an elliptical orbit.
If you do, congratulations, you have just realised how orbits occur without gravity....

Reg Mundy

..should have said velocity asymptotically approaching a limit..

Ok, all can mistype but, raises issue: interpretive vs formulaic as latter makes good prediction Eg satellites but, former just cannot ie only describes (geometric inferred relationship) after event

NB Escape velocity (Ev) reached at launch but, then at point of Ev as craft passes max G, then velocity reduces as G force declines But, rate at which v decreases is *less* than rate at which G force falls off whilst difference widens, thus if at Ev or greater craft can't return - hence that specific Asymptote as 1/d reaches 0

Very busy at mo, passed your post to eldest who informally studied astronomy ie. He has your notes & avoiding leading him in any way however, for my curio re your sentences

i U say 'plot..positions' but, via spherical or elliptic ?
then
ii Y double (& what) spheres, orbit or just draw where & rationale for it ?
iii Did u craft any formula for this ?

cont

continued @Reg Mundy

Whilst my eldest interprets your approach, to me seems geometrically interpretive rather than formulaic - which might be illustrative I can't see how it predicts but, none the less it is worthy of his time to craft plots you suggest. I have rather more urgent needs & in any case want him to look at it afresh so as not to lead him in any way at all, he is now 23 & designing some very interesting software in Java for a joint project we will be licensing soon to a public co re lab instrumentation displays - suffice to say his approach is often more intuitive than formal esp data structures so I think its useful for him to do it & ask his own Questions later.

In meantime, please see at least first 6mins of a classical mechanics lecture carefully & indicate at what time index your key mathematical to physics objection stirs key analytic concern that physicists & satellite orbital planners are so wrong ?
https://www.youtu...53dqcbtA

@MM
Two dimensions will do.

In meantime, please see at least first 6mins of a classical mechanics lecture carefully & indicate at what time index your key mathematical to physics objection stirs key analytic concern that physicists & satellite orbital planners are so wrong ?

Current positions of Pioneer probes versus predicted positions.
Incidentally, if you construct a mathematical model of anything, then contiually refine it to match reality, in the end you will get a very close relationship with reality. This does not mean that the mathematical logic is correct.

Reg Mundy(RM) trying humor

Two dimensions will do

Lol !
Only ever with paper & so obvious a (good) physicist would never apply 2D motion to any real 3D mass even seemingly simple Earth/Moon !

Please attend to converge, saves *both* our time, maybe aspect of your view has illustrative process down the track...

RM & humor

Current positions of Pioneer probes versus predicted positions

:-)
Only if you *totally* ignore *all* incremental cumulative variance, no-one would be so facile

ie Clearly obvious fully *impossible* to craft a singular predictive formula to describe "n-body" orbital motion, except maybe nano scale; masses, distance, time where error variance comparatively negligible !

RM says

.. construct a mathematical model of anything, then contiually refine it to match reality, in the end you will get a very close relationship with reality

:-)
Hrmm, only ever *after* events & can't ever be predictive at all as I hope you know full well...

cont

Continued @Reg Mundy (RM) who said

Incidentally, if you construct a mathematical model of anything, then contiually refine it to match reality, in the end you will get a very close relationship with reality

Addin to my last post, it can only be *after* event with Nil predictive property for obvious reasons, it still *only* describes can't ever actually explain & we will prove that re your methodology...

RM says

.. does not mean that the mathematical logic is correct

Absolutely correct !

Great you see that !

Thus you're open to entertain avoiding what appears, at first sight, to be a circular (only interpretive) approach which cannot ever be used to make a real prediction & be proven to be so re key arena of error analysis, variance & cumulative error corrections over discontinuous periods

Back to your method, understandably simplified for here, your first point re plotting - its key as it needs initial data otherwise can't be used at all :-(

cont

Continued
@Reg Mundy his graphic method says

...start from any point with two bodies (make it roughly Earth/Moon spheres) and plot their positions at quantum time intervals...

& raises first absolutely key question, please follow this seriously, free of distracting humor for moment

Initial data: Earth equatorial r=6378K, Moon equatorial r=1738K, Orbit 384405 K

To maintain scale please be disciplined re initial conditions for plot to be valid ie

1. Coordinates on X-Y graph, ie. Earth center @ x,y=0,0
2. So lets put Moon center on x=0 & some y coordinate, where should we put Moon y center
to apply consistent scale factor from radius through to distance between centers on y ?

Can you see where we're going, why its essential to progress in systematized manner so we don't get misled by our own hubris, especially so if we get distracted during any process assuming we are right in all steps but never check ?

3. Then what formula we use to plot positions over time ?

@MM

Lol !
Only ever with paper & so obvious a (good) physicist would never apply 2D motion to any real 3D mass even seemingly simple Earth/Moon !

I'm trying to keep it simple for you! Ny all means, do it in 3D.

Reg Mundy (RM) who said

Incidentally, if you construct a mathematical model of anything, then contiually refine it to match reality, in the end you will get a very close relationship with reality

Addin to my last post, it can only be *after* event with Nil predictive property for obvious reasons, it still *only* describes can't ever actually explain & we will prove that re your methodology...

Rubbish! If the model describes what happened, then you can run it forwards in time and "predict" what will happen. That's what we do when we launch satellites etc.

Reg Mundy says

I'm trying to keep it simple for you! ...

Beg pardon, whatever your 'graphical method' turns out to be, cant be done in 3D without specific formula entailing major complexity, so far you've not posted anything suggesting you like articulating complexity as you imagine it can be done in simple 2D paper-thin diagram but, cannot for obvious reasons :-(

Reg Mundy says

Rubbish! If the model describes what happened, then you can run it forwards in time and "predict" what will happen. That's what we do when we launch satellites etc

*Only* if level of depth of any model covers (asymptotically) all variables, so far you only have a literally paper-thin 2D approach but, nil formula thus cannot use it to differentiate Eg Satellites mass relation to kinetic energy, launch vectors, resultant orbital paths etc :-(

Reg please converge, questions in my last post, very simple arithmetic to go straight to nub of your method, or critique them one at a time ?

@MM
In view of the recent LIGO results, I suspend further defence of my theory that gravity does not exist as a force until results are either further ratified or debunked.
Thanks for the interesting debate.
Reg.

Reg Mundy (RM) says

..recent LIGO results, I suspend further defence of my theory that gravity does not exist as a force until results are either further ratified or debunked

Beg Pardon ?

Surely you must see its unrelated as every material ever observed propagates waves of "difference in energy" ie solids re acoustic, water re ripples, gases re light & acoustic, space re light etc All matter & non matter can & does propagate energy, even ripples in vortex light !

Therefore deduction is clear, your graphical method re inflation theory (IT) has nil dependency upon existence or otherwise of (any wave) perturbations as they're universal

Surely you realise timing of ratified/debunked not definable, may never happen !

I'm still looking forward to even a simplest start of describing your theory re the 3 points I raised, changing your mind re a non-sequitur appears as an odd excuse as surely you can refine your theory with *either* branch of gravity wave evidence ?