Strange

That argument can be made. But if that is true, the correct solution is to teach a more realistic model, NOT to make up an over-complex model that bears no relation to the real world and adds no explanatory power.

By the way, this explains why a canonball falls as fast as a pea (ignoring air resistance): the force on the canonball is greater, but it takes exactly that much more force to accelerate it the same as the pea.

He means that the equation you quoted gives you force, not acceleration: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 The acceleration is given by dividing the force by the mass: g = F / m1 = G m2 / r^2 where m2 is the mass of the planet and r is it's radius. Correct. Initially, it was measured (using techniques similar to Sensei's example in post 34). But now we know how to calculate it as well.

As you don't seem to be adding anything new in terms of the mathematical formalisms (theories) that we use, I am still not sure what the purpose of your idea is. For the example of the trajectory of a golf ball, a very simple diagram can be drawn using just two vectors that explains perfectly what happens AND is perfectly aligned with the maths. Instead of this simple diagram you want to introduce something far more complicated (a infinite number of triangles to represent a circle for example - something that is done, by the way, when learning calculus). I don't see how this helps.

It just depends how accurate you want (or need) to be. The words "real" and "imaginary" are just names; they don't mean anything; they certainly don't mean that part of the number is more real than the other. No, I am saying it is NOT the same. We calculate it from their mass and radius (using Newton's equation for gravity).

Can you show us this math? How do you use all these triangles to calculate the path of the ball?

On the moon, for example, the value of g would be different (i.e. it would not be 9.8) therefore it would not by pi^2.

Planck originally calculated the value of the constant from an analysis of the "black body" spectrum. But this is pretty complicated - especially if you are not even comfortable with fractions and basic algebra. Maybe you should start here: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pre-algebra

You seem to have this backward, though. IF you have a theory, THEN you can invent some story to explain it. You seem to have invented a story which explains nothing; which has no formalism of any sort behind it.

Analogies are not science. They do not allow you to do any analysis, perform any calculations or draw any conclusions. In other words: a waste of time. (They can be useful if you already have a theory [you don't] and you want to explain it in non-techncial terms.) How can a point (zero dimensions) be represented by a triangle (two dimensions)? And why would a point leak? How can a moment in time be represented by a triangle (leaky or otherwise)? I get the impression that you are just asserting that these things are (everything is?) a "leaky triangle" for no other reason than it fits your imagination. If it is a scalar magnitude, then there are zero vectors (and, therefore, no triangle). True. But this is 1 dimensional and so, again, not triangle. Again, a 1D vector, not a triangle. How can mass be a triangle. And how is it wonky. Then I am still not sure what the point of this is. You still haven't demonstrated how the concept of "leaky triangles" can be used to calculate or explain anything.

I think these lectures by Richard Feynman are a good introduction to one aspect: http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

"Common knowledge" is almost the exact opposite of objective evidence. So your detailed suggestion to improve things is to employ wise judges who can dispense perfect justice? And that is your idea of "detail"? How do define and measure the wiseness of judges? Who defines what is "perfection" in their decisions? (I assume "perfect" is defined as a judgement that you agree with?) But if the wise judges have disappeared, then why is the selling of perfection increasing? That seems to contradict your thesis. You should really stop making erroneous assumptions about me. It makes you look a little foolish.

They are not illusory. But they are not 100% successful either. You have not yet explained what you would do to create your perfect world. You keep making all sorts of suppositions about my opinions. (I don't think any of them have been correct. But then they are all baseless, so that isn't surprising.) My opinions are not the subject of this thread: it is about your (so-far undefined) proposal for a better judicial system. Or, at least, your definition appears to go no further than "make it work better by using psychology".

It would be useful if you could provide a link to where this is explained/derived. I'm not sure why you say that. As far as I can tell (without working through it in detail) it is comparing the outward acceleration (from the big bang model - the FLRW metric) with the inward acceleration due to gravity. If the latter is larger, then the universe will eventually collapse. If the former is larger, then the universe will continue expanding. This, I think, depends on the density of the universe. I may have that wrong, as it is a bit off-the-top-of-my-head... More here: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density

There is nothing wrong with Ophiolite's English. He, almost invariably, writes carefully and with great precision (and using as few words as necessary). You would do well to learn from that. But I'm glad you have mastered irony.

On the contrary, it is vague and utterly lacking in details or supporting evidence. Changed in what way? How should the legal system be changed to cope with it? What specifically needs to be done to ensure that in future the legal system keeps pace with society? What is this mysterious "something"? And why did it disappear? I am not aware of any such taboo. In fact, I have been making exactly this point. What evidence do you have that this frequently-discussed subject is taboo anywhere?

It might help if you explained how, in your new system, you are going to encourage (force?) people to follow the rules. All I can tell from your long and vague dissertation, is that you will use "psychology". Well, gosh. I bet no one has ever thought about that before. So, how exactly do you make people, with different ideals of what is just and different goals, work together when they currently do not want to? I assumed you didn't complain because they are not derogatory. <shrug> If you really think it is offensive to say that your "theory" is naive and ignores human nature, please feel free to report it to the moderators.

I wonder if anyone has considered this before (and discarded it) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

The photon has no mass. 0.001 by itself is neither a frequency or a distance (or a weight or ...) You must specify the units. 0.001 Hz is a frequency. 0.001 inches is a distance. 0.001 kg is a mass. The "wave symbol" is the Greek letter lambda, the Greek equivalent to the letter L. When you cut and past it, you are copying the code for the letter, but not the font it is displayed in. Therefore it appears as a lower case L in your file (which looks a little bit like a 1 in some fonts). Change the font to Times Roman and you will see it is an l not a 1. Change it to Symbol and it will appear as lambda. As is often the case, you are seeing significance where there is none.

This is not a search for "perfection"; this is an attempt to prove the model wrong - to find out where it breaks. This can only be done quantitatively. Which is why there is little value in your idea. How do we test it? What would prove you wrong?

I am impressed by the way you quote Ophiolite and then totally ignore what he says. "Directive" != "Direct" Except when they are not clear, concise and comprehensive. (I wonder if you mean comprehensible?)

Sorry, I can't take a comment like "retarded" seriously. It is not like it is a medical diagnosis, or something, just a generic insult. You use an offensive word like that but then get upset when someone asks a reasonable question about a possible genuine problem - that makes little sense. Yes. Although, as always, much of what you write is an incomprehensible jumble of random ideas and disconnected words. But I try and make sense of it so that, if possible, I can provide a few answers.

Oh for heavens sake, grow up. It was just a question. And hardly a rude one. It helps if people can understand the people they are conversing. In your case, you have a very chaotic and hard to follow way of conversing, throwing all sorts of random ideas together. It would be helpful to know why.

No. Nothing of that nature.

To "fall out" is an English idiom that means that something is a consequence of something. In this case, the fact that g is approximately pi^2 is a consequence of the way the metre was originally defined. Yes. I, for one, had no idea that the metre was originally defined in that way. (I have studied history of science, but that detail had passed me by.) Perhaps I am the only one here who was not aware of that, in which case my use of "we" was inappropriate. So thanks for starting this thread and brining this little bit of new information to my attention.