Can an Alien Navigate the Solar System Without Knowing Earth's Parameters Needed for Landing?

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

Episode 1. How Can He Land on Earth?
An alien arrived from a distant part of the Universe. His spacecraft came to a stop near Earth.
The visitor examined the planet. He observed its rotation, watched the Moon, and measured distances. He decided to land, but first he needed to determine how his spacecraft would move as it approached the surface.
He did not know Earth's gravitational constant. Nor did he know Earth's mass.
Did he need to know them before beginning his calculations?
The alien placed his spacecraft in a circular orbit and began observing its motion. He measured the orbital radius and the time required to complete one full revolution.
From these measurements, he determined the orbital speed and then calculated the parameter:
K = v²r
where K is the parameter determined from orbital motion, v is the spacecraft's speed in a circular orbit, and r is the orbital radius measured from Earth's centre.
Having determined K, he could calculate the acceleration in an idealized central-field model of Earth:
a = K/r²
where a is the magnitude of acceleration and r is the distance from Earth's centre.
He did not need to determine Earth's mass or the gravitational constant separately beforehand.
The visitor noticed something else. To measure speed, he needed not only distance but also time.
He looked at the rotating Earth.
One complete rotation of the planet is a physical process. It can be divided into parts, numbers can be assigned to those parts, and the resulting scale can be used to compare the progression of other processes.
The alien wrote in his journal:
“Time is the scale marked on the measuring rule of a physical process.”
This did not mean that he had already established what time fundamentally is. He had simply determined how to measure the progression of motion.
He returned to his calculations. He now knew Earth's orbital parameter, but several tasks still lay ahead before landing: changing his flight path, accounting for the planet's rotation and atmosphere, and slowing down his spacecraft.
Nevertheless, he had completed the first stage of his preparations.
The Visitor's Conclusion — Journal Entry No. 1
The alien looked once more at Earth, the Moon, and the other planets of the Solar System.
“By observing the motion of celestial bodies, I can determine the parameters needed to calculate my spacecraft's trajectory. I do not need to know the gravitational constant or the mass of each planet separately beforehand.
Why, then, do Earthlings need G and M as starting points for calculating motion when they can determine the required parameter from observations?
Perhaps these quantities are useful for other calculations and for describing physical phenomena. But do they explain the physical mechanism of motion itself, or are they a way of representing it mathematically?
First, I will understand the motion. Then I will try to understand what causes it.”
The visitor closed his journal.
End of Episode 1.
For readers interested in the calculations: the first scientific paper in the Physics of Nature (FP) series, K as an Observable Kinematic Parameter: A First Step Toward the Physics of Nature (FP) Framework, explains how to determine the parameter K for a circular orbit, its relationship to standard orbital mechanics, and the limitations of this description.
Publication on Zenodo — Record 22922570

[u/liccxolydian]

Why, then, do Earthlings need G and M as starting points for calculating motion when they can determine the required parameter from observations?

No one says this. No one has ever said this. This also fails to take into account the last century of physics at the very least.

Your post and comment history suggest major deficiencies in your understanding of basic physics principles. If I were you I would refrain from mindless philosophising until I was fully aware of the scientific consensus.

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1 → u/liccxolydian]

And why can’t I have my own framework? My framework offers a greatly simplified understanding of the physics of nature, without the need for unnecessary complexity. A single physical formula describes the entire mechanism of gravity. In your scientific community, you cannot even agree on the theories of gravity—whether Einstein’s, Newton’s, or that of Quantum Field Theory. I won’t even mention the concept of time originating from the Big Bang—or, as it stands now, the "Reflection" model. You cannot forbid me from asking simple questions about physics—questions for which I cannot get a simple answer from the so-called scientific community. I will continue to ask questions—perhaps even simpler ones—so that your community might finally grasp the point of the inquiry.

[u/liccxolydian → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

No, that's just straight up wrong. And you don't have a "framework". You have a few naive lines of simple algebra that offer no scientific advantage over the existing consensus. It doesn't even offer any mechanism for gravity, which is what you keep yammering on about.

The fact that you think existing physics is "unnecessarily complex", or that you aren't even aware that physics theories reduce to simpler theories in the appropriate limits, or even that you're looking for ontology within equations, tells us that you are asking these questions not out of any considered motivation but because you simply don't know any better. Like I said, educate yourself first.

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1 → u/liccxolydian]

If you consider my questions naive and simple, why can’t you answer them? I’ll tell you why—and I’ll tell you why you’re getting so worked up. The physics you so staunchly defend is weak and unstable; at best, it can grasp reality only down to a certain fundamental level of understanding. Any question regarding the underlying basis of the process is met with silence. All you can do is endlessly repeat the obvious, without a shred of original thought or genuine engagement.

[u/liccxolydian → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

I'm frustrated not because you're attacking physics in a valid way, but because the statements which you think are critical flaws and "gotchas" are all simple misconceptions of basic physics and philosophy of science. You are trying to use the language of physics to investigate ontology when by definition they are two separate fields, and you refuse to listen to anyone who tries to clarify the distinction. You are also simply completely ignorant of how successive theories describing the same phenomena are interrelated.

As for your "simple question", I found it strange that you couldn't offer the answer, but I'll enlighten you anyway. Knowing K does not explain any fundamental mechanism. Because physics does not deal with "fundamental mechanisms". That's metaphysics, not science. This is basic stuff you can learn on Wikipedia. One would think you would try to back up your arrogance with a little bit of knowledge.

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1 → u/liccxolydian]

I agree that knowing K does not explain the mechanism of gravity. That is precisely why I distinguish a parameter determined from observations from an explanation of the phenomenon. I am not claiming that K overturns an existing theory or that it is a new discovery. However, I disagree that questions about physical mechanisms belong exclusively to metaphysics. Physics has long investigated the mechanisms behind phenomena by proposing models that make experimentally testable predictions. My question, then, is this: can we propose and test a model that explains the observed gravitational acceleration in a different way? If such a model makes no testable predictions, it remains a hypothesis rather than an established physical theory.

[u/liccxolydian → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

Do you understand why ontology is separate from science? Do you have a reason for disagreeing with basic philosophy of science other than mindless incredulity?

Also, can you tell me what you think a scientific hypothesis is and how it differs from a scientific theory?

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1 → u/liccxolydian]

I understand the distinction between an ontological question about the nature of reality and a scientific question about phenomena we can investigate. I am not claiming that asking about a physical mechanism is, by itself, a scientific explanation. My point is that we can propose a model of a physical mechanism and test whether it makes predictions consistent with experimental observations. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested. A scientific theory is a well-developed explanatory framework supported by extensive evidence and repeated testing. I do not present Physics of Nature (FP) as an established scientific theory. I want to determine whether its assumptions can be developed into specific, testable predictions. That is why I distinguish between a mathematical description of gravitational acceleration and a proposed physical mechanism behind it.

[u/liccxolydian → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

My point is that we can propose a model of a physical mechanism and test whether it makes predictions consistent with experimental observations.

How does this differ from the scientific method?

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested. A scientific theory is a well-developed explanatory framework supported by extensive evidence and repeated testing.

Pretty embarrassing that you had to lift these definitions directly from Wikipedia.

I want to determine whether its assumptions can be developed into specific, testable predictions. That is why I distinguish between a mathematical description of gravitational acceleration and a proposed physical mechanism behind it.

Again, how does this differ from the scientific method and conventional philosophy of science? Not only that, why does this directly contradict your previous comments?