How big are Honorverse Asteroid Belts?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tenshinai 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.

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.

But I just said the same thing.

Also, the reason that the theory has to remain a theory is because we do not have definitive, conclusive, evidence of its proof. We only have local phenomena. What happens within a black hole for instance? I am currently working on a paper, to be submitted for publication to CERN, on my theories regarding the Schwarzschild radius. Specifically t(0) -> t(7) with most of the fun happening t(1) to t(3). Sorry, subscripts and superscripts not readily handy.

If that gets into Arxive, let me know, cthia!

cthia wrote:
But I just said the same thing.

Not even close!

Though i expect it´s quite possible that that was what you meant.

Also, the reason that the theory has to remain a theory is because we do not have definitive, conclusive, evidence of its proof. We only have local phenomena.

Mmm, as long as we can correctly describe and predict what happens with current theory, it´s impossible to say if that is because it is correct, or because we found a wrong theory that provides the correct answers(happened before).

SWM wrote:If that gets into Arxive, let me know, cthia!

Sure thing. I shall do you one better and link it. If I meet the deadline, so far so good, the expected publication period is Fall 2015. The preliminary synopsis has been accepted. That is a formal enough paper. These type papers are rather demanding as you can suspect.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:If that gets into Arxive, let me know, cthia!

Sure thing. I shall do you one better and link it. If I meet the deadline, so far so good, the expected publication period is Fall 2015. The preliminary synopsis has been accepted. That is a formal enough paper. These type papers are rather demanding as you can suspect.

Oh, I know! Though you high-energy guys have arXiv, which lets you get pre-pub papers out. Lets you get some feedback before it gets printed. We didn't have that option when I was publishing in astronomical journals.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:If that gets into Arxive, let me know, cthia!

Sure thing. I shall do you one better and link it. If I meet the deadline, so far so good, the expected publication period is Fall 2015. The preliminary synopsis has been accepted. That is a formal enough paper. These type papers are rather demanding as you can suspect.

SWM wrote:
Oh, I know! Though you high-energy guys have arXiv, which lets you get pre-pub papers out. Lets you get some feedback before it gets printed. We didn't have that option when I was publishing in astronomical journals.

arXiv and snarXiv. My aunt echos your sentiment: "I didn't have anything like that. Didn't even have the internet. There was only a three-letter entity called a BBS."

For, of course, bulletin board systems. How quaint!

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.