Robittybob1

Maybe the OP question was in haste. Was it the laws of physics I was really making enquiries about? Never mind are there universal laws, natural laws or even laws of physics? The discussion will be helpful. Laws of nature? I have not heard of them sorry.

OK so what were the consequences of breaking that universal law? You didn't give me clues as to when this was broken. Are you talking relativity again? What was your situation that you were thinking of but let's post the answer over in the new thread.

Are there Universal Laws? Can you break them? What are they? Is the a consequence of breaking a law?

We might have to go back and see who asked the first question for we seem to have an Ockham's razor situation involving ever complex questions here. Maybe we need a thread discussing universal laws. I have heard there are universal laws. The expression isn't used that often lately. What about the Newton's universal gravitation equation, can that be violated? New thread for Universal Laws http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93577-are-there-universal-laws-can-you-break-them/

What is the right word then, error, mistake, penalty ???? If you break a universal law what have you done? What are the consequences? There is no crime in violating Ockham's razor There is no penalty for violating Ockham's razor or do you just say "So what Ockham's razor isn't a law any way".

I'm not following your logic there, sorry. I said it was evolution that violates Ockham's razor. It is the principle that Ockham's razor is not the arbiter of a theory but just a rule of thumb to be used as a guide, it is not a universal law. There is no crime in violating Ockham's razor.

Thanks. It is rather trivial but it certainly makes it easier to think about how orbiting bodies operate. Look at "mv^2/r = GMm/r^2" can you have that equation as a rule of thumb? I know there are some who are much better at math than myself so I wouldn't be surprised if you could but knowing that every bit of change in GPE is converted 50:50 into energy lost (drag or gravitational radiation) and kinetic energy is rather nifty IMO.

Is that the position seen from hindsight? When you first propose a new theory that's when the Occam's Razor issue rears up. Later on as you say when there are "well understood mechanisms" we wouldn't want to go back. My main concern was whether it was the right section on the forum to discuss these matters.

Well I wonder if in the day Darwin had the claim made against him that his theory of evolution violates Ockham's Razor? It seems as soon as you have a new theory someone makes that claim, OK it doesn't seem prevalent on this forum. I hope you don't really want answers to all those questions, for they were just thrown in there to make a point weren't they?

It seems that still no one knows what I'm talking about. From that site it says "The viscous drag due to the atmosphere actually speeds up the satellite in its orbit,..." do you think that is correct? It does going through some steps, I'm sure drag in the first instance would slow it down, the slowdown allows it to fall. 1/2 of the energy lost from the object through falling is converted to kinetic energy, the other 1/2 was lost by the drag. Now do you all agree with that? Why do you think it speeds up when drag should be slowing it down?

Could it be said the evolution is the classic example of Occam's razor failing? The easy explanation "God did it". The very complex one evolution was based on "small gains of selective advantage over countless generations". I quite often propose an alternative theory, and commonly it gets shot down because of the claim Ockham's Razor shows that it wouldn't happen that way. I have always felt that was an incorrectly applied use of the principle but the argument always seem to have added weight when that claim is made. It appears a simple way of winning an argument. But when it was claimed "Ockham's Razor has never failed" well I thought there might be a simple falsification of that, but as Strange has pointed out, if it seems it has failed you can claim the unnecessary complexity was necessary and then Ockham's Razor survives.

I was trying to explain an issue on another thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93442-gravitational-waves-discovery-expected/page-3#entry906394 and I wasn't making much progress But on a site I found the effect I was trying to explain:http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/gravitation/orbits/section2.rhtml Now years ago when I had said that the reduction in the potential energy is always split, half goes into additional kinetic energy and the other half is lost as drag, someone called that the "RB Law". I think it was a known fact long before I found it out so does anyone know the proper name for this relationship? The Potential energy gets more negative but the energy lost to drag and the kinetic energy are positive. (I suppose it is not that useful for it would have to be an ideal circular orbit for the relationship to work.) I want to see the correct formula for this situation. Any clues please?

Thanks - I was thinking of removing the thread but since it is being discussed I'll let it stay. Can you think of a particular case where Ockham's Razor appears to have failed? I could research this myself but it is late here and I'll follow-up on this in the morning.

DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God - just 1 out of the 5. The majority win on the forum. Did he hijack the thread? The OP seems to have a very loose question to answer:Quote OP #1

I was having a discussion on another forum and this is what someone said: Has the Ockham's Razor never once been observed to be wrong? That would be interesting to know if that is truly the case.

You seem to have an unusual logic. I might have scored that 1 to nothing. 2,3,4 and 5 don't seem to have any evidential value so are neither for or against. hence all score zero.

Explain G-rad as a drag? "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S Carlip http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909087.pdf The word drag is not in that paper, where did I see it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay This study puts magnetic braking and G-Rad under the same heading. "Angular Momentum Loss by Magnetic Braking and Gravitational Radiation in Relativistic Binary Stars" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0455v1.pdf If the same math cover these two could G-Rad be thought of as gravitational braking? That makes you think. How could the delay in the establishing the curvature of spacetime act as a gravitational brake? Is it like the object running up against the wall of the analogous rubber sheet? Drag is like having a force against the direction of motion. Would it be something like the Poynting Robertson effect that caused a drag. Now for the following thought experiment I will accept Strange's idea that gravitons are massless (particles/waves???), massless anyway. That means an object can produce any number of gravitons for they will not take energy to form (They could be like the ticking clock of matter any number of ticks can be generated. but only at a certain rate). Now just a thought experiment using gravitons. If the graviton acts orthogonal to the motion the mass is bent through a small angle (equal to the curvature of spacetime at that point and like a type of right hand rule but different pointing rules) but if the graviton is "late" there could be a slight rear facing force plus the bending force (like running into the wall of curved spacetime). Somehow that idea of "late" could be related to gravitational time dilation (Larger or more massive bodies being more sensitive to the time delay because they have more time dilation in the space they are in). @Mordred can you see some sort of extension to the thought experiment? What is the next step?

I know that but I was looking at the root of that word there was three parts "a", "bio" and "genesis" In new word "a", "dei" and "genesis" so what is the "a" part mean? I can see dei is from deity and genesis - from Greek for origin, but what does the "a" mean? Sometimes "a" could mean without, so does adeigenesis mean "origins without God" "origins without a deity"

No it was great. I like making up new words too. What does the "a" at the beginning of adeigenesis imply? For in abiogenesis the "a" has a similar meaning to "before" but I couldn't find it quickly.

Look at Wikipedia on Orbital energy. When I say factor of 2 it could even be 1/2 depending on which side of the equal sign you put it (as in the equation you highlighted). I'm not really sure what you are saying but I'll wait for Imatfaal's response. [i might have even used the word "factor" mathematically correct for if 2 times something times some other thing = something else 2 is a factor of something else, in other words something else has a factor of 2. Please correct me if I'm wrong]

What I put in a post to Imatfaal came after much study on the connection between orbital energy and kinetic energy, for it really bugged me that slowing something down actually made it speed up but in a different orbit. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93442-gravitational-waves-discovery-expected/page-3#entry906394 Kinetic energy (KE) is positive. The BHs both speed up as the decay occurs. The Potential Energy (PE) becomes more negative as both BHs get closer to each other. Each BH in orbit loses orbital energy (OE) Let's see if those equations can be written in LaTex.

Abiogenesis or adiogenesis are different spellings for the same event but only one is rejected by spellcheck.

@EE - We all have our differences and if all those differences were listed we would never get to the end of that process. So even if your reactions are extreme and interesting in themselves you need to have worked out how they compare to the average in your group, country and such like. Then you could say you were the odd one out. I think that is what they are after. You know your own feelings (possibly) and reactions but you don't know the other's and you need to know both, before you can say you are different.

Thanks for clearing that up for Strange. That article is quite good and if you know me at all you'll know why I liked this sentence straight out of the article.

@Imatfaal - Try and write formulas for the following. Normally to lose orbital energy you need drag or reverse thrust. Gravitational energy is equivalent to that drag, so the orbital energy is converted to G-Rad and kinetic energy, whereas in normal orbital decay orbital energy is converted to drag (heat energy) and kinetic energy. You lose that orbital energy which has a component of gravitational potential energy in it, it is losing (reducing) that potential energy factor that is the source of the heat and kinetic and in this case G-radiation. There is the factor of 2 in those equations.