<< >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? >>
1000000000E16 (sorry i was off by about 16 decimal places, someone say
"haha") dollars go into a program for it and youd think there escape incase of
emergency would work. or maybe youd think it wouldnt blow up in the first
place. but you know that one tiny tiny tiny variable could have cause that
explosion. human imperfection is a sad thing.