Sir Isaac Newton’s *Universal Law of Gravitation* [first published in 1687] has become deeply embedded within mainstream science and is currently accepted as an unquestionable article of scientific faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

The unquestioning belief in Newton’s *Universal Law of Gravitation* is perhaps one of the strangest mysteries in modern mainstream science because:

a) The “law” was originally grandly claimed to be “universal” based upon extremely limited observational data from one celestial body [the Earth].

b) The “law” is a magical force at a distance [for which Newton feigned no hypotheses] which “acts” upon celestial bodies without any underlying mechanical explanation.

c) The “law” is based upon the immeasurable “mass” of large celestial objects and is [therefore] a totally unscientific “law” because it cannot be falsified [by real observational measurement of “mass” for celestial objects].

The unquestioning faith in Newton’s *Universal Law of Gravitation* by the mainstream scientific establishment is presented as established “facts” to the consumers of mainstream science.

However, upon closer examination it is evident that mainstream planetary “facts” are actually underpinned by very limited “precise observational data” which is hidden in a “fog” of “fuzzy observational data” [where the observers don’t know precisely “what” they are measuring – like the “radius” of the gas giants] and Newtonian calculations that are based upon an inexplicable [unscientific and magical] “force at a distance”.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream Newtonian calculation of the immeasurable “planetary mass” correlate very precisely with the observational gravity data thus far collected from the surface of rocky planets.

However, the mainstream Newtonian calculations based upon “fuzzy observational data” reflect the fuzziness of the data.

Unfortunately, these calculated “planetary mass” values are accepted unquestionably by the mainstream [instead of being rejected as unscientifically derived values].

However, consumers of mainstream science can perform a “reality check” [of the Newtonian theory] based upon the “precise observational data” published by the mainstream scientific establishment for the rocky planets [Venus, Earth and Mars].

Interestingly, a “reality check” based only upon “precise observational data” indicates that “equatorial surface gravity” is very strongly correlated with the “equatorial surface radius” for the rocky planets.

The correlation between “equatorial surface gravity” and “equatorial surface radius” does not rely upon any magical forces at a distance or any theoretical calculations based upon self-fulfilling [circular] logic.

The “reality check” correlation is based solely upon “precise observational data” and can be used to predict an “equatorial surface gravity” of 2.24 m/sec2 for Mercury [instead of the Newtonian calculation of 3.70 m/sec2].

A similar “reality check” for the gas giants [based upon the mainstream “fuzzy observational data”] provides a surprisingly good correlation [R2 = 0.9491] between “gravity versus radius” when compared to the mainstream “gravity versus mass” calculation [R2 = 0.9743].

The correlation between “equatorial surface gravity” and “equatorial surface radius” [based upon limited “precise observational data”] provides an excellent correlation [R2 = 0.9996] for the rocky planets.

Overall, this “real world” observed relationship provides a verifiable [and predictive] formula that underlines the fact that Newtonian heuristics [based upon the calculation an immeasurable mass] are neither meaningful nor scientific.

Wavelength…diameter

Pingback: Science Fraud & Fantasy (part 6) – Kensho Homestead