>NASA still uses Newtonian Mechanics when planning and controlling
>spacecraft trajectories. Within that context (the description of the
>motion of bodies to, say, 16 decimal places) allows them to predict the
>size of the target area of the spacecraft to within 16 decimal places
>(say, a window with a radius of 120km). Any alternate postulate or law,
>that embodies as its /implicit context/, the same predictive quality as
>Newtonian Mechanics regarding the motion of bodies, but dictates a target
>/outside/ the one predicted by NASA, would be /demonstrably/ false.
>Utterly and completely. No ifs, ands, buts, or likelihoods.
Then how do you explain the Challenger blowing up?
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Visit Meme Central! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm