Creation Science at its best

[BigPat]

Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies.

As has already been mentioned, you are confusing "g" the measured value of earth's gravity with "G" the gravitational constant in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (or inverse square law). Using the constant "g" in a calculation is just assuming that the earth's gravity is constant (it is mostly uniform but it is not truly a constant value for the entire earth) rather than calculating or measuring the exact forces of Gravity at each point on earth.

There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.

What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories.

Not really, General Relativity was an attempt to explain relativity in a relativistic way. General Relativity describes gravity in terms of curvature of space-time. Newtons law of Universal Gravitation can be derived from General Relativity if certain values are assumed for space-time. Is General Relativity the final answer on gravity? That is doubtful, but it goes along with the idea of the post that you called "BS" on. Scientific theories change with new scientific knowledge.

Define working. Surefire way to start a war in any science field.

Empirically confirmed.

And what is approximate? And Einstein gives us how much deviation? Thats another way to get into a war. How about something say 3 ten thousanths of an inch?

I don't know the exact numbers, but I know that at subluminal speeds or in the absence of large gravitational fields the effects of relativity are infinitesimally small.

Being easy to solve has nothing to do with viability nor does it prove a theory correctly.

Ok.

So you're telling me that Newtonian equation is used because it gives an answer of "close enough?" Uh no not at all. Actually first year Calulus ( 1 and 2) will get you through Einsteinian equations.

Newtonian mechanics works to a high degree of accuracy in most conditions. It is also far easier to use and much easier to teach and explain. That is why it is still used. There are some areas where newtonian mechanics cannot be used, such as in particle accelerators or in adjusting the clocks of GPS satellites. In those cases, relativistic calculations must be used.

I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.

I am still trying to figure out what you are calling "BS" on. In my post, I was replying to a poster who claimed that evolution is not good science because the theory has changed. The poster said that "real science" like Newton's laws, does not change. I simply pointed out that all science changes and all scientific theories are modified as new information is discovered, including his example of Newton's laws, which have been superseded by Einstein's relativity theories. What did I say that was "BS"?

[BigPat]

I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.

Please point out what specific statements I made that were incorrect.

[ray8285]

, I was replying to a poster who claimed that evolution is not good science because the theory has changed.

The poster said that "real science" like Newton's laws, does not change. I simply pointed out that all science changes and all scientific theories are modified as new information is discovered, including his example of Newton's laws, which have been superseded by Einstein's relativity theories. What did I say that was "BS"?

Oversimplification of what this poster said---not just changed, but, the very heart of what the theory espouses and uses for evidence has changed

Newtons Laws are still in effect, you are talking about additions to these laws but the base ideas are still there as is the evidence in support of it otherwise it could not be called a Law.