Darnok

It has many meanings, you pick what fits your way of thinking http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption belief as synonymous for assumption also works... http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/assumption

Many times, but not many and not very distant places... that is why locally it might be true. While globally not really. As for metric system debate... it is one of its topic, sine science is trying to measure things like speed of light using equations made for 10-based system... but other numerical systems could gave more accurate results but with different equations... that is why we can't change numerical system and equations without changing concepts that they were based on.

Another thing why do you think speed of light is constant in vacuum? What evidence do you have? Where were made experiments to prove it? If we made experiments with speed of light on Earth, on Earth's orbit, outside of Earth SOI, on Mercury orbit, on Pluto orbit, outside Sun SOI, near star at least 50% larger than our Sun and... just in case outside of our galaxy SOI then I will accept that C=constant, but otherwise... what is your prove it really is constant? And I am not talking about calculation, I want evidence from experiments from different locations... because speed of light might be constant LOCALLY.

Science is based on assumptions Sure, but laws of universe/nature works somehow... and those are not 10-based values as science shows it on every step.

1. So I am using force vs force that is between that object "something" and Earth... and how does it prove existence of mass? 2. Ohhh, so you can say something is wrong and then run without giving any evidence of your claim... how scientific Every experiment starts with sample size of one. 3. Then core is cooling down and tidal force may increase its "life". Maybe you should try to build your own solar system and show me evidence that any radius is good for stable orbital movement? In which post?

Using different numerical system would require use different equations... some could be simpler?

For counting we have 10-based system. I said in one post that 10-based system is mainly for every day common use. While you are trying to convert equation made for 10-based system into other numeric systems... that is plain wrong. For different (for example) non-integer base system you would need different equations. But narrow mind is narrow mind, what you read in school stays true for you forever.

Science is not democracy. It is best and very natural approach.

Exactly It is universal, while our 10-based numbers aren't. That is why metric vs imperial has no sense for me because both are wrong. However what I like in imperial is that it is trying to use different "systems" for different things IMO that is best way to improve scientific calculations, but instead of 10-based numbers we should try to search for different numerical systems... in some cases maybe binary in other π-nary, maybe there would be even case 10-nary system. So why 1/86 400 of the mean solar day, why use solar day at all? It is not natural nor universal value... it is local value for our solar system and we are trying to use it to measure entire universe... it is very stupid concept as stupid as geocentric solar system model.

And how is that natural? Why we not use 9 192 631 771 periods? And why cesium?

Not on natural, but on artificial calculations 1kg=1000g it is our concept, because 1 is shorter than 1000, there is no natural approach in this. As for 1 metre... how much is 1 second? And how it is natural?

Concept of 10-based system is not logic based. Also widest used system doesn't mean it is correct system, because making computations on floating numbers you are doing lots of miscalculations, rounding errors etc etc. It is very inaccurate approach. Just because you are so narrow minded you can't see this doesn't mean it isn't there. Also what is π? Isn't that base system for motion in our universe, since most of things orbits or spins on circular-like paths?

Universe works in math constants units system That is why I said "modified imperial" not exact imperial. Key idea is to use different numeric system for different real/natural event or physical property of matter and energy. If you find correct numerical system you won't get meaningless numbers like @PB666 described in his post (1.616199(97) × 10−35) instead you will have natural numbers like 1, 2 or 10 is π in π-nary system just like 10 is 2 in binary system.

If we are talking about every day common use then metric seems fine. But in science modified imperial system would be better, because universe doesn't work in 10-based numeric system.

I would vote for 1.1.5 for probe telemetry

I was talking about photos and videos made today. Are you aware that today that power plant is draining lots of money? Structures that are build in there should be showed to public.

Answer is very simple... where are photos and videos made after disaster? With all those drones and cameras today we should have 360 degrees panorama views or some other selfies from site near power plant... unless someone is taking lots of money for nothing. I read somewhere that EU is paying 800 millions of EUR per year to maintain power plant structure and protect us fro radiation.

Of course that any object on orbit around Earth would affect our planet in same way Moon does, but with different value/force Also it depends what orbit would Ceres have, I have few ideas, but it need some tests... does anyone know any good software to simulate our solar system? As for boson.... well good purpose would be to get Nobel prize for calculating it But please I don't want to start discussion about why I think quantum physics is human invention and most of, if not all, particles described by that branch of physics doesn't really exist, because they are miscalculated. I want to talk about 2nd Moon in here.

1. No arguments, but you still defend your little model with mass It would be nice to admit you were wrong if you can't support your claim. 2. You are now arguing about "it was absolute statement vs is wasn't" instead of talking about math? You said you can make every ratio you want... sure, but not with math constants! If you think otherwise please show me evidence and find different pattern with math constant, but as accurate as the one I presented. Inaccuracy in this case is result of Earth's and Moon's age, we are talking about bodies that has about 4.6 billion years and this had impact on their sizes and shapes. As for my hypothesis "This ratio is pattern for every habitable and inhabited planet in our universe" you didn't proved it is incorrect 3. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster/Earth_s_magnetic_field_provides_vital_protection even wikipedia disagrees with you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field "Earth's magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation." Sure Earth's core source of heat is radioactive decay... I didn't said that source of heat is tide made by Moon... I said that Moon helps core to cool down slower, than it would without Moon. And that bold part is nice statement without even single evidence --- As for 2nd Moon, I wonder if Earth would have it and then something happen and this moon (Ceres) would drifted away how it would affect volcanic activity. Also to everyone criticizing Titius–Bode law check this one ... if you search on this forums you can find my version of this law, with math constats of course

1. 1. So you only calculated that one force can affect other force. How this makes mass real? Just because more people uses mass in their calculations and hypothesis doesn't make it real. Apply your calculations to that definition of numerology it fits 2. It is not absolute statement it is simple hypothesis that comes from observation, you can observe/measure Earth and Moon radius and see that their ratio can be written using math constant. Math constants are very real and they were observed in nature, not invented nor calculated... well they were converted into numeric system that has base 10, but this source of main misconception... most people think about constants as about common numbers. Universe doesn't work in 10-based numeric system (<< this is absolute statement), so every number that describes real physical property written in 10-based system is meaningless and inaccurate.

I have one... because we have Moon Earths core is still liquid, since Moon can cause tides on surface, it can also cause tides inside liquid core. That is why Mars is "dead planet" and Earth isn't... habitable and inhabited planets must have magnetic field for time long enough to develop intelligent creatures like us. Without Moon Earth-type (I am not using "size" in here because size is not important, ratios are) planets won't be able to sustain liquid core for long enough. (How can I merge posts?)

1. Just because you acknowledging the present state of our knowledge as the "final", does not mean that this is so and in the future nothing will change. I didn't said "mass is meaningless" learn to read... I said mass is model that explains force created between two objects in space. But numbers behind that explanation are meaningless, because they are artificial/imaginary/invented by humans. 2. No, I don't have evidence today, so I can't call it "theory", but that means today I can call it "hypothesis", as far as I understand scientific language, and search for evidence. It also means you can't call it "numerology" according to scientific terms, because you have no evidence it isn't correct.

How? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories IMO you are confusing "Luminiferous Aether" with Aether - particle that possibly creates space and those gravitational waves are nothing more, but waves of particles. And those particles affect in very minor way everything around us, also those particles are affected by energy and matter in very weak way.

This ratio is pattern for every habitable and inhabited planet in our universe But of course you are still in "geocentric model" where every pattern is limited only to our solar system.

Density is not real it is human invention - derivative of mass. Mass is human invention - this is how today we understand force that occurs between two objects, but that doesn't mean mass exists, it is only our model and someone fit there some meaningless numbers. Semi-major axes is human invention. All those terms are created by us and they are not properties of any real object. Planet radius isn't human invention it is property of that planet. Math constant is also not human invention it was discovered by exploration/observation of universe/environment.