>Hilmar,
>
>Newton's Law is not consistent with the observable facts.
It is consistent, under normal circumstances. Only under very extreme circumstances will the observable facts contradict it.
Let me give you another example. There are several "atomic models"; "model" can be understood as a "simplification of reality".
One of them treats atoms as perfect spheres, with perfect elasticity.
Has this theory been disproven? Well, in a way. There are more complete, and more detailed, "models". But if we want to analyze the movement of molecules in a gas, this particular model is accurate enough.
> On scientific grounds, how can you deny it is incorrect?
On the other hand, it has, indeed, been replaced by a more comprehensive theory, or actually by at least two.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
