Jerry is now on my banned senders list

[...] [...]

There will never be one. That's the trouble with facts: they can't be proved or disproved, they just are.

Anyhow, I prefer the word "model" instead of theory, since the Average Person can't distinguish between theory and guessing, and has even more trouble understanding that even with the best theories there is a "plus or minus X" built into the predictions made with them. In most cases, that +/-X is small enough to make no difference for practical purposes.

Gravity is a fact. That is, things fall down if not held up. Aristotle was the first to propose a theory to explain it. He posited "attractive properties", and theorised that light object had lower "attraction" than heavy ones. There is some dispute of exactly what he meant, BTW, so the above is my take on it.

Galileo developed a model that described how gravity works, (ie, how fast things fall in Earth's g-field could be calculated. This theory has not been falsified. Then Newton developed a model that applied Galileo's equations to the motions of planets. He universalised gravity theory. Later still, it was found that the theory worked only for low relative velocities, such as those that obtain when you fall to the ground. I believe Einstein had something to do with that.... ;-) Etc.

But none of these theories are powerful enough to predict the motion of three or more masses moving/orbiting relative to each other in a gravity field for more than a surprisingly low number of orbits. It appears that

3+ bodies in a gravity field move chaoticly, and chaos math must be used to build a model. That's not easy.

If by "proving" gravity you mean some model that spits out gravity as a necessary consequence of solving the equations, no such model has as yet been successful, nor have any seemingly successful attempts produced results that could be translated into experiment. String theory looks promising, and, according to the people who build it, also has the requisite beauty. Certainly, without understanding the math involved, I think the concepts it uses are very cool.

There is a difference between predictive and explanatory theories. For your sakes, I've cut three paragraphs in which I enlarge on this theme. ;-)

cheers, wolf k.

Only the one? I can think of at least three... Guy

A theory is what we use to explain facts. Facts can be verified by falsifiable experiment, theories can't. I know that most of us would not bother with such semantic niceties in everyday speech but it has been used by creationists, climate change deniers and so on.

I'm happy enough with either term but I'm bound to say that theory is the currently accepted one.

But nobody knows why and until we do we have to live with the fact that one day something might fall up :-)

It went to Newton via Hooke, I think, but yes.

Agreed. Even turbulent flow makes my head hurt so I am grateful to you for preserving me from chaos maths :-)

Correct. That's the point. I can't grok string theory though. I am an electrical engineer by training: anything you can't measure with a Model 8 Avo is leakage :-)

LOL! Guy

Good question, I picked it up about 25 years ago reading geology texts, has science moved on? Guy

Not quite, evolution can be shown to have happened over the fossil record. You can also look at dogs who evolved from wolves and into the many varieties we have today by selective breeding. Various domestic animals. Can do various experiments with various plants. Its all evolution. Nowadays we even have DNA to help map evolution instead of comparing physical features and understanding their timelines. Darwins theory was more completely described as evolution by natural selection - survival of the fittest (best adapted). In other words it is the mechanics especially the driving force of evolution that causes so much grief.

The biggest problem for many people is how can evolution of species such as man can have occured without the intervention and control of a higher being. One of the easiset and fullest description of both the problem and the likely solution is provided in Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker.

Not sure why you keep talking about a falsifiable experiment, this is a new idea to me (or new terminalogy). I do know what a repeatable experiment is and why that is required.

Cheers, Simon

No there has and indeed still is much discussion and reasonable disagreement on the mechanisms of evolution. I'm not sure what you mean about gravity. It is there, there are a number of theories about it and there is still much discussion, research and experimentation etc. Is it not part of the search for the unified theory of everything.

Cheers, Simon

No, was demonstrating a point as to how data can be misinterpreted or misrepresented as fact. If you cannot see that then I can only give up. But it isnt trivial, it is an example of misrepresentation of data, if this happens from a respectable organisation then unfortunately it brings any other conclusions into doubt. It was the same with the recent 'normalisation' of data from East Anglia. What are we to think of that ? Everyone has correctly pointed out that base unmodified data from any research must be retained and made available to anyone who wishes to revisit it. I bet a lot of scientists are struggling with what to do about it - as indeed they should be.

Cheers, Simon

Yes I do. Believe to her it was nothing personal but the simple premise that you are subsidising a failing industry. This had knock on effects that energy costs for everyone and any subsequent manufacturing costs were higher than they should be. This to her was an anathema (ok how is it spelt ?). Then theres the other question that if you do it for one industry then you have no choice but to do the same for any other. How many people believe that our car industry in the 60's was worth subsidising. It is worth considering what would have happened had the NUM decided to co-operate and close down the more expensive mines, be a bit more flexible in their working practices. Then of course the management needed sorting out - they were a mess, just like the old car industry. However, there was no chance of that, AS was quite happy to screw anyone that wasnt willing to support him and his mates 100%.

Cheers, Simon

Sure, just like the data about the Kennedy assassination is claimed to have been misinterpreted. I don't buy it.

There are many data sets. They are pretty much all in agreement and no scientific body of national or international standing disputes the consensus view. Guy

Evolution is far better understood than gravity. We know how it works and the mechanisms behind it, what causes it etc, while with gravity we only know how it works but not why.

No that isnt a fair comparison. Have you read the sunday times p5 on IPPC claim that World glaciers are melting so fast that those in Himalayers will disappear by 2035. Someone was bit confused by this and decided to check back on original research. Unfortunately there wasnt any it was a speculative guess by someone. Now been suggested its completely wrong so IPPC will remove it from their next report. Whoops.

As said before, concensus on such a complex system worries me, there should be raging debates all over.

Cheers, Simon

I dont think everyone is in agreement on the why in evolution, but advances in studying DNA may result in a far stronger case.

Cheers, Simon

Actually they are, apart from those who reject it for religious reasons. The mechanisms of heredity and genetic mutation are very well understood. Our understanding of genetics even led to the discovery of a second mechanism for evolution - genetic drift due to dominant vs recessive genes.

"Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Try googling it, if you are in the mood for philosophy.

cheers, wolf k.

They've been accepted for a bit longer than ten years and nobody is asking for money to stop them.

Is it trivial that some of these people conspired to suppress dissent?

Is it trivial that the head of the IPCC seems to be involved with companies that will make him a fortune if money is spent attempting to stop warming? Why doesn't he step down?

Is it trivial that Al Gore stands to make billions in carbon trading?

Then there are the Greenlanders who seem very surprised that all their glaciers are in retreat when it appears to be just the one.

It all piles up.

Which is nothing to do with evolution.

Happens all the time at the quantum level.

No thanks I once tried to read Satre - well I read a couple of his writings and some about his work.

Cheers, Simon