How big are Honorverse Asteroid Belts?

phillies wrote:

cthia wrote:Actually guys it is both. There is the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. The law of gravity allows one to apply its equations in determining, amongst other things, what to expect of the acceleration of a falling body on Earth, or to calculate the effect of distant planets on Earth or the effect of our Sun.

However, it does not explain the why. The why is the realm of theories. In this case being Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Well not exactly. Newton's law of gravity lets you do calculations that are approximately accurate. The General Theory of Relativity is a refinement based on the requirement that if you are in a small sealed box you cannot tell if you are on a planet providing gravitational force or if you are in remote outer space but accelerating at the matching rate. ("Equivalence principle")

Under modern conditions there are important engineering results for which you must use general relativity (or at least the "post-classical approximation") in order for things to work. If you do not, there will be catastrophic failure. Example: anything that uses a GPS.

No argument here. My intent wasn't to cover the depth and breadth of either. Simply to point out the existence of a 'Law' and a 'Theory' concept to gravity. Posters are capable of additional research on their own.

cthia wrote:No argument here. My intent wasn't to cover the depth and breadth of either. Simply to point out the existence of a 'Law' and a 'Theory' concept to gravity. Posters are capable of additional research on their own.

Sure. I just find it somehow perversely amusing that, even within the limited local observation we can make, we know the that Newton's 'Law' gives less accurate results (around the edges) than the 'Theory'.

Quotes hopefully disambiguated

cthia wrote:Actually guys it is both. There is the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. The law of gravity allows one to apply its equations in determining, amongst other things, what to expect of the acceleration of a falling body on Earth, or to calculate the effect of distant planets on Earth or the effect of our Sun.

However, it does not explain the why. The why is the realm of theories. In this case being Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Tenshinai wrote: I think i would rather describe it as the LAW being what IS, and the theory trying to explain WHY it is as it is.

cthia wrote: But I just said the same thing.

Let me try that again. Newton's law and General Relativity both describe what the gravitational force is. In that sense, they are both 'laws', that being a term that now refers to empirical results that are slightly better supported than the Cox-Merz rule. Neither of them explains *why*. There are known alternatives, such as the Brans-Dicke scalar theory which seems to be incorrect, so 'why is the Einstein version correct?' is a legitimate question.

Why do I suspect your niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

Why do I suspect your niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

Urgh... I soo totally hate it when physics is turned into maths.

So, rigid and cumbersome. From my point of view, it´s merely a crutch once you go from using it to describe physics, to BEING physics.

But then, i always were extremely abstract in my basic way of thinking.

Let me try that again. Newton's law and General Relativity both describe what the gravitational force is. In that sense, they are both 'laws', that being a term that now refers to empirical results that are slightly better supported than the Cox-Merz rule. Neither of them explains *why*. There are known alternatives, such as the Brans-Dicke scalar theory which seems to be incorrect, so 'why is the Einstein version correct?' is a legitimate question.

Hmm... Nope. I think you missed what i meant at least a bit too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

Looks like wiki and its likes agrees almost perfectly with my previous statement.

Oh for crying out—
Sir Isaac Newton defined gravity as the force between two bodies. He never understood what caused it, how it worked, or where it came from. The Universe began with the emergence of a single atom. It is obvious that the force of gravity must travel. How does it travel? The GTR embraces the fact that atoms must give off energy. The only energy that us mere mortals know that travel thru space are radio waves, electromagnetic energy.

GTR explains these waves in intricate detail along with ramifications. Einstein stood on the backs of others up to that point and put all knowns in a bag and shook it up. What coalesced he kept. Einstein's GTR massages that atom, explains why it acts as both a particle and a wave and gives implications of both, explained why Planck was having so much trouble with his "light quanta," and explains why Newtons theory failed to account for the extra 43 arc seconds of Mercury's orbit. How does gravity propagate? Why does gravity propagate? Einstein's theory delves into electromagnetic waves in conjunction with gravitational waves. Technically, both Newton and Einstein's are both theories. We have allowed ourselves to call Newton's theory a Law, even though it fails in certain occasions. Such as, when velocities approach that of light and/or gravity becomes much larger than experienced on Earth. You must separate Newton's three basic 'laws' from his 'theory' of gravity.

You mentioned other theories. Yes there are. You asked why Einstein's theory may be correct. Occam's razor may suggest an answer, since Einstein's theory is the simplest of all.

GTR doesn't explain the why of gravity??? It is a veritable treatise on the matter.

Why do you suspect my niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

What is because she doesn't trip over the glaringly obvious?

cthia wrote:Oh for crying out—
Sir Isaac Newton defined gravity as the force between two bodies. He never understood what caused it, how it worked, or where it came from. The Universe began with the emergence of a single atom. It is obvious that the force of gravity must travel. How does it travel? The GTR embraces the fact that atoms must give off energy. The only energy that us mere mortals know that travel thru space are radio waves, electromagnetic energy.

GTR explains these waves in intricate detail along with ramifications. Einstein stood on the backs of others up to that point and put all knowns in a bag and shook it up. What coalesced he kept. Einstein's GTR massages that atom, explains why it acts as both a particle and a wave and gives implications of both, explained why Planck was having so much trouble with his "light quanta," and explains why Newtons theory failed to account for the extra 43 arc seconds of Mercury's orbit. How does gravity propagate? Why does gravity propagate? Einstein's theory delves into electromagnetic waves in conjunction with gravitational waves. Technically, both Newton and Einstein's are both theories. We have allowed ourselves to call Newton's theory a Law, even though it fails in certain occasions. Such as, when velocities approach that of light and/or gravity becomes much larger than experienced on Earth. You must separate Newton's three basic 'laws' from his 'theory' of gravity.

You mentioned other theories. Yes there are. You asked why Einstein's theory may be correct. Occam's razor may suggest an answer, since Einstein's theory is the simplest of all.

GTR doesn't explain the why of gravity??? It is a veritable treatise on the matter.

Why do you suspect my niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

What is because she doesn't trip over the glaringly obvious?

I'm afraid your interpretation of GR is not an ideal match for modern physics. Atoms do not emit energy. Gravity waves do travel through space, just as electromagnetic waves do. General Relativity is not Grand Unification; GR only covers gravity, not electromagnetics. It does not occur to me that the Brans-Dicke theory is more complicated than General relativity, but it is still not correct. General Relativity *is* more complex than the Newtonian theory, and it makes different predictions, predictions that happen to be correct.

Why do I suspect? She seems to have no trouble outarguing college sophomores, who if smart are up to the math, ergo she is also up to the math.

phillies wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh for crying out—
Sir Isaac Newton defined gravity as the force between two bodies. He never understood what caused it, how it worked, or where it came from. The Universe began with the emergence of a single atom. It is obvious that the force of gravity must travel. How does it travel? The GTR embraces the fact that atoms must give off energy. The only energy that us mere mortals know that travel thru space are radio waves, electromagnetic energy.

GTR explains these waves in intricate detail along with ramifications. Einstein stood on the backs of others up to that point and put all knowns in a bag and shook it up. What coalesced he kept. Einstein's GTR massages that atom, explains why it acts as both a particle and a wave and gives implications of both, explained why Planck was having so much trouble with his "light quanta," and explains why Newtons theory failed to account for the extra 43 arc seconds of Mercury's orbit. How does gravity propagate? Why does gravity propagate? Einstein's theory delves into electromagnetic waves in conjunction with gravitational waves. Technically, both Newton and Einstein's are both theories. We have allowed ourselves to call Newton's theory a Law, even though it fails in certain occasions. Such as, when velocities approach that of light and/or gravity becomes much larger than experienced on Earth. You must separate Newton's three basic 'laws' from his 'theory' of gravity.

You mentioned other theories. Yes there are. You asked why Einstein's theory may be correct. Occam's razor may suggest an answer, since Einstein's theory is the simplest of all.

GTR doesn't explain the why of gravity??? It is a veritable treatise on the matter.

Why do you suspect my niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

What is because she doesn't trip over the glaringly obvious?

I'm afraid your interpretation of GR is not an ideal match for modern physics. Atoms do not emit energy. Gravity waves do travel through space, just as electromagnetic waves do. General Relativity is not Grand Unification; GR only covers gravity, not electromagnetics. It does not occur to me that the Brans-Dicke theory is more complicated than General relativity, but it is still not correct. General Relativity *is* more complex than the Newtonian theory, and it makes different predictions, predictions that happen to be correct.

Why do I suspect? She seems to have no trouble outarguing college sophomores, who if smart are up to the math, ergo she is also up to the math.

I'm looking for my passport, before the excrement hits the rotary air impeller, because if what you say is true, then I've been stealing from companies for years, who have multi-million dollar contracts with my firm.

The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted due to an atom's electrons making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The energy of the emitted photon is equal to the energy difference between the two states. There are many possible electron transitions for each atom, and each transition has a specific energy difference. This collection of different transitions, leading to different radiated wavelengths, make up an emission spectrum. Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. Similarly, the emission spectra of molecules can be used in chemical analysis of substances.

It is part of what I do every day in the Lab. Lab manager, Geotechnical firm. Big companies utilize our resources and know how, to perform expensive GC-MS, to identify contaminants in soil and water. Well, my assistant runs the tests now...mostly.

Don't make me break down GC-MS, my 'fun' in the forum is limited now. Don't have copius amounts of time as I did when I first joined, when I was on a three month use-it or lose-it vacation, while my Lab was being redesigned, stranded at the beach in the snow. I no longer have time, or the inclination, to argue over ludicrous matters.

Annachie wrote:

wastedfly wrote: - gravity is not a theory. Its a law.

Actually, it is a theory, famously modified by some patent office clerk, and currently up for modification again due to some small thing.

Somehow Einstein managed to cheat Newton. I'm not sure of the details, but it has to do with the curvature of space. There are no such things as scientific laws. There are only explanations that account for obsevable data and provide predictability. Those explanations last until better, more complete ones replace frequently because new data must be accounted for. Some explanations last a long time, but are always subject to re-examination and revision.

Don

cthia wrote:Oh for crying out—
Sir Isaac Newton defined gravity as the force between two bodies. He never understood what caused it, how it worked, or where it came from. The Universe began with the emergence of a single atom. It is obvious that the force of gravity must travel. How does it travel? The GTR embraces the fact that atoms must give off energy. The only energy that us mere mortals know that travel thru space are radio waves, electromagnetic energy.

GTR explains these waves in intricate detail along with ramifications. Einstein stood on the backs of others up to that point and put all knowns in a bag and shook it up. What coalesced he kept. Einstein's GTR massages that atom, explains why it acts as both a particle and a wave and gives implications of both, explained why Planck was having so much trouble with his "light quanta," and explains why Newtons theory failed to account for the extra 43 arc seconds of Mercury's orbit. How does gravity propagate? Why does gravity propagate? Einstein's theory delves into electromagnetic waves in conjunction with gravitational waves. Technically, both Newton and Einstein's are both theories. We have allowed ourselves to call Newton's theory a Law, even though it fails in certain occasions. Such as, when velocities approach that of light and/or gravity becomes much larger than experienced on Earth. You must separate Newton's three basic 'laws' from his 'theory' of gravity.

You mentioned other theories. Yes there are. You asked why Einstein's theory may be correct. Occam's razor may suggest an answer, since Einstein's theory is the simplest of all.

GTR doesn't explain the why of gravity??? It is a veritable treatise on the matter.

Why do you suspect my niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

What is because she doesn't trip over the glaringly obvious?

Cthia, you are quite incorrect about General Relativity.

General Relativity does not say anything about waves. It says nothing about wave-particle duality. It does not say anything about atoms giving off energy or waves. It does not have anything to do with Planck's quanta. It does not even say anything about why or how gravity propogates. It does not say anything about electromagnetic radiation. The only thing you have said about General Relativity that is correct is that it predicted--not "explained"--the 43 arcsecond discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh for crying out—
Sir Isaac Newton defined gravity as the force between two bodies. He never understood what caused it, how it worked, or where it came from. The Universe began with the emergence of a single atom. It is obvious that the force of gravity must travel. How does it travel? The GTR embraces the fact that atoms must give off energy. The only energy that us mere mortals know that travel thru space are radio waves, electromagnetic energy.

GTR explains these waves in intricate detail along with ramifications. Einstein stood on the backs of others up to that point and put all knowns in a bag and shook it up. What coalesced he kept. Einstein's GTR massages that atom, explains why it acts as both a particle and a wave and gives implications of both, explained why Planck was having so much trouble with his "light quanta," and explains why Newtons theory failed to account for the extra 43 arc seconds of Mercury's orbit. How does gravity propagate? Why does gravity propagate? Einstein's theory delves into electromagnetic waves in conjunction with gravitational waves. Technically, both Newton and Einstein's are both theories. We have allowed ourselves to call Newton's theory a Law, even though it fails in certain occasions. Such as, when velocities approach that of light and/or gravity becomes much larger than experienced on Earth. You must separate Newton's three basic 'laws' from his 'theory' of gravity.

You mentioned other theories. Yes there are. You asked why Einstein's theory may be correct. Occam's razor may suggest an answer, since Einstein's theory is the simplest of all.

GTR doesn't explain the why of gravity??? It is a veritable treatise on the matter.

Why do you suspect my niece will soon be able to explain the needed mathematics?

What is because she doesn't trip over the glaringly obvious?

Cthia, you are quite incorrect about General Relativity.

General Relativity does not say anything about waves. It says nothing about wave-particle duality. It does not say anything about atoms giving off energy or waves. It does not have anything to do with Planck's quanta. It does not even say anything about why or how gravity propogates. It does not say anything about electromagnetic radiation. The only thing you have said about General Relativity that is correct is that it predicted--not "explained"--the 43 arcsecond discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

GTR does not say a lot of things...directly! For many EFE is just sitting there, from which much can be gleaned. Ungleaned. Obviously some of us does more with a little than a lot of us does little with more.

I've acknowledged your post.