The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone disagree with this?

[Dave]

The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?

If so, please explain.

Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.

Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo. Agreed - YES
Has this been reproduced?
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?

You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?
If so, which model gives better predictions? This is the acid test.

Copyright release on the above in exact and equivalent:
(and rights and patents) all public domain - attribution annon.:

[Dave]

Post by Dave
The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?
If so, please explain.
Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.
Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo.  Agreed -  YES
Has this been reproduced?
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?
You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?
If so, which model gives better predictions?  This is the acid test.

Why am I doing this:
1- want people to have confidence in physics education. Most people give
up with the difference between kinetic energy and momentum.
Acceleration from gravity in m/s per meter descended unifies both.
2- there is at least 1 armed insurrection in the world about Western
education. Flim flam and burble is not education. All needs to be correct.
3- a reinterpretation of gravity in the basic model opens more people up
to exciting possibilities of relativity - dynamic models with rotational
inertia, seeing what it takes for flying saucers etc.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?
If so, please explain.
Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.
Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo.  Agreed -  YES
Has this been reproduced?
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?
You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?
If so, which model gives better predictions?  This is the acid test.

Because you are an uneducated, babbling crackpot that does not
understand high school level math, geometry or physics.

<snip crackpot babble>

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?
If so, please explain.
Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.
Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo. Agreed - YES
Has this been reproduced?

Yes, an untold number of times.

It is shown by basic algebra, geometry and calculus.

It is demonstrated in high school and above physics lab classes.

It is demonstrated every time a gun, from BB pistol to naval cannon, is
fired.

It is demonstrated by every rocket ever fired.

It was demonstrated on a daily basis in the UK by the Luftwaffe during
the 1940's.

It is demonstrated by every pendulum that ever existed.

Post by Dave
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?

Since you have obviously never taken any physics courses, you don't know
that a common piece of equipment is two evacuated tubes, one containing
a coin and the other a feather.

You can buy a set for classroom demonstrations here for $103.79:

https://www.flinnsci.com/guinea-and-feather-tube---demonstration-kit/ap4670/

Post by Dave
You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?

Since the definition of acceleration is m/s^2, no.

<snip crackpot babble>

[Dave]

Post by Dave
The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?
If so, please explain.
Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.
Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo.  Agreed -  YES
Has this been reproduced?
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?
You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?
If so, which model gives better predictions?  This is the acid test.

For the avoidance of doubt, a model which must be
considered to whether or not it better fits the data of
free fall from gravity is speed increase directly
proportional to distance descended, not time.

Copyright release on the above in exact and equivalent:
(and rights and patents) all public domain - attribution annon.:

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave
The court decides "All science must be evidence based." Does anyone
disagree with this?
If so, please explain.
Looking at evidence for acceleration from gravity of 9.8m/s^2
in free fall (60m) drop, and the time to get to each meter.
Done hundreds of years ago by Galileo.  Agreed -  YES
Has this been reproduced?
Who has the original Galileo log books, and were instruments with
traceable calibration used?
Where is the evidence which would stand up in a court,
beyond reasonable doubt? (95% confidence level in science terminology)
Has someone a budget to do this in a transparent vacuum tube, to reduce
effects of air resistance?
You get the idea.
Can math other than acceleration given in units of m/s^2, fit the data?
If so, which model gives better predictions?  This is the acid test.

For the avoidance of doubt, a model which must be
considered to whether or not it better fits the data of
free fall from gravity is speed increase directly
proportional to distance descended, not time.

Crackpot babble.