Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
Gravity is just a made up word to describe a force that nobody knows about,
So you agree, there is a force that keeps us on the ground then. And that society has named that force gravity. Glad you agree gravity exists :D
More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain.
And what causes weight? By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain.
And what causes weight? By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
This has been prove false time and time again. Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height. You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course. But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
I never said weight was the cause of a fall. If things leave the ground, they fall back down as long as they are heavier than air. There is no gravity needed for anything.Air resistance will make the falls differ by a little. If the objects were heavier and made the air resistance pointless, then yes they would hit the ground at the same time. So what's your point here?More mass objects will fall faster than less mass ones up to a point but the point is, they simply fall and hit the ground and stay there by their own weight.I don't see any need for gravity at all. It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.
Last time I checked, I didn't have to be told to perceive an object falling towards the Earth, except by my own brain.
And what causes weight? By your logic, it would seem that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive objects.
This has been prove false time and time again. Do an experiment and fill a box with shirts and another with books, make sure these boxes are the same size. Time each box as it falls from a specific height. You would see that it takes approximately the same time for both to hit the ground, leaving some room for human error of course. But alas, I know you will not even take the time to do this simple and quick experiment.
My dear Scepti, you've made my point for me. Absent of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed. Meaning weight cannot be the cause of the fall or else the objects would not fall at the same speed.
It also amazes me that you can not only contradict yourself in a matter of one post to the next but also within a single post. But I'm glad you accept the idea if gravity if not the name of it.
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
No. Gravity does not exist.Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.
No. Gravity does not exist.Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.
Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
Nope. I'm saying that is basically all that is acting upon our bodies, not what holds us to the earth.No. Gravity does not exist.Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
There is magnetism and atmospheric pressure and that's roughly about it. There's no reason for gravity at all, it's simply made up.
Sceptimatic, are you suggesting air pressure holds us down? And/or magnetism attracts us to the Earth?
We don't need any outside force to hold us onto the earth, as we cannot fall off a flat infinite earth, either side ways or upwards, because the earth is the floor, all the way down, infinitely.
Above us is the sky and what we know as space.
Gravity does not exist, it doesn't need to.
I see magnets stick together, so I know there is a magnetic force. I can also feel the repelling of magnets.
I see and feel nothing of gravity.
Gravity theories I find to be utterly fallacious and hypocritical. If gravity were related to mass really, then a bowling ball and a feather would not fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Yet what is seen is that everything falls at the same rate. The disc rises upward at 32 feet squared. Case is closed and chalk one up for the home team. Parallax already proved the earth was flat and thusly disproved even the electronic surveying equipment. This is because if light really bends so that you see through the telescope, technically the range finder instrument would not detect a curve either. Its all hypocrisy and reverse mind bending. I will prove it to you. Go out 80 miles from the shore and use a telescope. When you see the coast line, everyone just needs to hang it up and say the earth was flat actually...
Trust me, I realize who I'm talking to and that he doesn't reflect TFES directly.I've never said magnetism and air pressure keeps us on earth. I said no force was needed, except for our own weight.
And Scepti, proofs on gravity weren't presented, but reasons why pressure and magnetism can't be the cause were. But that is behind us now.
Its simple, if it applies to bowling balls and feathers it applies to a giant boulder and a feather as well. The earth rising upward is a more plausible statement. Gravity being related to mass is disproven by the before mentioned experiment.
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects. Some just spring off the table. This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science. You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery. I know how gravity works by the way. Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...
In addition to the above information, I would like to add that in certain portions of Hudson Bay, Canada there is absolutely no force to pull down on objects. Some just spring off the table. This situation opens the door to the paranormal and supernatural... It represents that there is some phenomena not explained by science. You can even google this phenomena and discover the mystery. I know how gravity works by the way. Gravity is proportional to mass; however this postulate is disproven when a boulder and a feather are dropped side by side in a vacuum...
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.
There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.
I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.
There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.
I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.
Even Genesis literalists tend to believe in a RE that is the center of the universe, not the floor of it.
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
I wasn't talking about the age of the universe or its origins.
There's no other force necessary to explain the motion of the planets. I don't know where you're getting that idea other than someone (maybe from your church?) told you that, or that just "seems right" to you.
I don't see why the existence (or not) of a deity impacts the shape of the Earth, unless you hold to some particular Creation story, like Genesis, as being literally true.
Even Genesis literalists tend to believe in a RE that is the center of the universe, not the floor of it.
That's true, although there are a few that get flatness out of the Bible, something about the corners of the Earth I think. Apparently some Muslims think it's flat too, again there's no consensus I'm aware of. It's JJ that claims a deity means the Earth is flat. My point is that a "deity" is non specific, therefore has no bearing on the Earth's shape. I don't know where exactly he gets it, but apparently some deity in particular that he believes in created a flat Earth (I guess?).
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
Anyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
Also, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
I am not sure you can even win the Nobel more than once.
I am not sure you can even win the Nobel more than once.
You can, but maybe not in the same field? Marie Curie won one in Physics and one in chemistry.
Multiple Nobel Laureates The work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been honoured by a Nobel Peace Prize three times. Besides, the founder of the ICRC, Henry Dunant (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1901/index.html), was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.
Linus Pauling is the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes - the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize.
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/bardeen_thumb.jpg) (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1911/marie-curie_thumb.jpg) (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1962/pauling_thumb.jpg) J. Bardeen M. Curie L. Pauling Physics 1956 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1956/index.html)
Physics 1972 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/index.html)Physics 1903 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/index.html)
Chemistry 1911 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1911/index.html)Chemistry 1954 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1954/index.html)
Peace 1962 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1962/index.html)(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1980/sanger_thumb.jpg) (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1917/red-cross_thumb.jpg) (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1954/refugees_thumb.jpg) F. Sanger ICRC UNHCR Chemistry 1958 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1958/index.html)
Chemistry 1980 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1980/index.html)Peace 1917 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1917/index.html)
Peace 1944 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1944/index.html)
Peace 1963 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1963/index.html)Peace 1954 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1954/index.html)
Peace 1981 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1981/index.html)
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)So does an Earth that is an infinite plane have gravity?
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
Yes
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.
If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.
If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?
That is an incredibly stupid (trollish?) question, but anyway, the answer is no. There is a tremendous amount of friction between the marble and your mattress, which will slow the marble drastically. In the near-total vacuum of space however, there is no friction, no drag, and it is possible for objects to reach a state of equilibrium, where all forces - such as the centripetal force pulling a planet out of it's orbit, and gravity pulling it in - are equally balanced, and an orbit can be sustained for many billions of years.
Who is trolling here? You are the one who comes to a web forum that you do not believe in just to ridicule the people on it.
Anyway, yes a marble will roll towards me if I lay in my bed. That does not explain gravity or even planetary motion.
The marble isn't exactly meant to be an explanation, more a demonstration of a concept. Not so much a "this is how it works", more "this is a rough representation of the observed behaviour".So, it is kind of like that, but not really?
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.
If I do this, will the marble go in circles around me for billions of years?
Gravity fails to explain the motion of planets. And it always fails to explain the reason why the orbits of planets have lasted as long as they have. If the universe was really billions of years old, the orbits of many planets would have decayed already and entered the sun. There is a deity hence there has to be a flat earth model. There is another force at work besides gravity that makes the orbits established. Just mere Big Bang does not suffice...
The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.
Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.
Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff. Or use a cloth you span across horizontally over some object (with the middle clear of any obstructions).
Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.
Edit: It needs to be explained that mass and weight are two complete different things. Weight is the force that is acting down on you, where mass is the actual 'weight' an object has. If you take a plane and make a parabolic flight, once you go down you feel weightless. Zero gravity. It is expressed in g-force and 0 g-force is when you could float through the air. You also experience this in a rollercoaster (much cheaper alternative). Once you go down with high speed, you will actually start to become weightless, hence the safety harness to keep you aboard. Once you go up, you feel very heavy, and you are pushed inside your seat.
However do you actually lose weight while on a ride in a rollercoaster? Would a scale tell you, you weigh different when measuring before or after the ride? The answer is no (unless you puked, but that is never a significant change). You remain your same body as you go along in the ride, yet you feel heavier. You did not gain in mass, obviously, you are still the same person, but you feel heavier and that has to do with the kind of force that (what's in the word?) weighs upon you.
But still, the speed that keeps the orbits stable cannot occur by just a chance of big bang. A sudden explosion wouldn't be able to create that level of order and balance in the solar system.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
That's not what I said.
Okay, guys, keep focusing on the easy target if that's what you feel you need to do (I understand, arguing for RE when the Earth is so obviously flat is hard!). Just remember that you're arguing with a single goofball with, um, opinions of his own that most of us consider, um, controversial, and not the FES when you go after him.
Haha, sorry Roundy, Sceptimatic just comes up with stuff that seems to demand a response. Not that you don't I guess, but he's on another level.
I understand, and you're probably performing a service. I think he desperately needs to be taught.QuoteAnyway, to your comment, yes, things fall at a measurable rate. However that's not all we have to go on. It just turns out that not only does gravity explain trajectories of falling objects on Earth, it also explains the motion of the Moon, stars and planets.
I don't believe this has been definitively proven. It is just accepted because it appears to elegantly explain something that was once considered a mystery, based on long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe.QuoteAlso, local variations of acceleration can't be explained by the Earth simply accelerating at a constant rate.
I agree that if this phenomenon is a real one it is a problem with the accelerating Earth model. It's one reason why as a zetetic I feel I can only definitively conclude that things appear to fall at a measurable rate.
Newton's law of gravitation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent to Kepler's laws and can be used as an accurate descriptor of all classical orbits. Richard Feynman shows the equivalence rather quickly in his lecture, "The Character of Natural Law".
Right, as I said, the conclusion is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
That's not what I said.
No, that is what you said. You said Newton's Law of Gravity is mathematically equivalent to Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws are based on the assumption that the Earth is not flat and that the planets are revolving around the sun. In other words, it's based on assumptions about the nature of the universe. And I see no reason to put blind faith in that.
Sorry about the delay in response. I've been feeling kind of groggy lately. I blame the painkillers. And I went back to work today.
Every single scientific theory is based on some sort of assumption, it has to.
But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.
If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.
That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to. Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.
One reason why I generally distrust science.
QuoteBut what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.
Only if you assume that the planets revolve around the sun in the first place. You'll understand if I'm not ready to do that.
I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance. The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered. Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.
QuoteThat is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to. Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.
Predictive power is overrated. Astrologers have been accurately predicting the positions of the planets since long before it was a widespread belief that the Earth is spherical. It didn't mean that their model was right.
If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.
I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance. The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered. Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.
Anecdotes about the disdain of colleagues is much less impressive than predicting an as yet unknown planet, purely on mathematics. It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory. If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow. The evidence speaks for itself in this case. Whatever superlatives I add on are essentially inconsequential when you get down to the basic fact that the theory -is- an astoundingly accurate tool for understanding how the physical world works.
Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk
Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk
I think he was using the compression of the mattress as an analogy for mass' effect on space-time, which gives rise to gravity.
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point. I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard. Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.
I won't understand unless you explain it. There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view. The model fits -perfectly-.
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory. If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point. I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard. Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.
Wrong. Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there. No assumptions are necessary. That's why it's the superior methodology.
QuoteI won't understand unless you explain it. There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view. The model fits -perfectly-.
It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat. I believe I've already covered this.
QuoteIt is an astoundingly strong test of the theory. If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..
I call BS on that. If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well. But hello dark matter and dark energy. When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.
I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two. I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.
Start with the assumption the earth is flat, do some measurements, find out you're wrong OR start with the assumption the earth is round, do some measurements, find out you're right OR ask "what shape is the earth?", do some measurements, find out it's round. Whichever way you look at it, if you do the measurements, you'll get the answer.
The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.
Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point. I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard. Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.
Wrong. Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there. No assumptions are necessary. That's why it's the superior methodology.
I won't understand unless you explain it. There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view. The model fits -perfectly-.
[/quote]QuoteIt is an astoundingly strong test of the theory. If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..
I call BS on that. If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well. But hello dark matter and dark energy. When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.
I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two. I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.
You make the assumption that your senses can tell you all you need to know.
There was already reasons to suspect that the Earth was round at that point. Unless you think there is another was they -should- have interpreted ships disappearing beneath the horizon or that the understanding of astronomy that contradicted the Earth being flat should be ignored?
I don't think you really understand what Dark Energy is, but it does not contradict gravity in the slightest.
In regards to Dark Matter, it does not really contradict Gravity... yet. Although it could easily turn out to be this centuries Ether. Scientists looking at a problem the wrong way. It could very well up end the Theories of Gravitation, we could very well discover the universe works in a new and unanticipated way. If so the scientific community would welcome it.
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions. It all starts with observation.
QuoteThe revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.
If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?
QuoteModern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.
Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology? As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions. It all starts with observation.
The third option I offered made no assumptions: "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."
QuoteThe revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.
If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?
I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.
QuoteModern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.
Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology? As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.
My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.
Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world. It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round. Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day. Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place. Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. Say, 1000 years.
This mass and gravity makes me laugh.
The stuff that's made up to fit a globe borders on the ridiculous and I'm at a loss as to how, supposedly clever people willingly fall for it.
It's as if it's a worship of scientists that makes people believe this crap, almost the same as someone having pictures of a pop group on their wall, then going to see them, whilst pulling out their hair and screaming when they come onto the stage.
At first I thought it was just an arrogance by some but it goes beyond that. It really is a worship of scientists, either historical or present.
We have no chance on this earth as a race.
With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions. It all starts with observation.
The third option I offered made no assumptions: "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."
And that would be the zetetic approach.QuoteQuoteThe revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.
If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?
I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.
But Rama Set just said that when information is found that "doesn't quite fit" (a hell of an understatement in this instance), a theory is dealt "a crippling blow"! Um, apparently not?
[/quote]QuoteQuoteModern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.
Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology? As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.
My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.
Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world. It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round. Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day. Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place. Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. Say, 1000 years.
Gravity has a model that does not work. Instead of looking at the data and rebuilding from a blank slate, the Orthodoxy has introduced Dark Energy/Matter to account for the discrepancy. Saying that if you introduce ill-defined, completely hypothetical energy/matter, the theory of gravity is somehow suddenly congruous is misleading at best, or delusional or deliberately deceitful at worst.
Completely hypothetical matter whose only "known" attribute is to "exist" in precisely the right amount with the precisely right properties to reconcile your model with reality is not science. You may as well substitute "fairies" for "Dark Matter".
"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy". What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved" Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable.
The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.
Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world. It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round. Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day. Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place. Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. Say, 1000 years.
What do you mean round Earth had 2000 years to "jam the pieces in place"? Mass is said to attract other mass by gravity, and as such, from this one axiom alone, you can show Mathematically that a clump of mass would form a sphere, everything would be forced to the centre of the Earth, and thus satellites could orbit if there's no air resistance, the moon orbits for the same reason, planets orbit the sun for the same reason, the tides happen because of gravity from the moon, etc. etc.
Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.
It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place. Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will! How are you proceeding from observation anymore?
Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.
Why do you keep saying this? Do you really understand your own model so poorly?
[/quote]QuoteIt always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place. Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will! How are you proceeding from observation anymore?
No, what I know to be true has already been proven. It is something I can see with my own two eyes. There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework.
I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.
I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.
I don't think my senses are a limit to my perception.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course ::)
In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 or that the Earth is infinitely large.
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point. I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard. Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.
Wrong. Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there. No assumptions are necessary. That's why it's the superior methodology.
QuoteI won't understand unless you explain it. There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view. The model fits -perfectly-.
It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat. I believe I've already covered this.
QuoteIt is an astoundingly strong test of the theory. If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..
I call BS on that. If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well. But hello dark matter and dark energy. When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.
I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two. I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.
Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?
Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?
Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.
Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.
I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.
I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.
I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.
I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.
I don't think they want to be associated with the bible's viewpoint. From what I've seen, most of the FEers make it sound as though their initial assumption is because it looks flat on a local scale.
I do know of one person however that doesn't believe the Earth is rotating. However, how that leads to the conclusion that Earth must be flat and not simply a geocentric model, I'm not sure.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework.I would be very much interested in seeing such a model.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.
FEers face a similar stranglehold. :(
Gravity, as far as I have understood from the work of even Stephen Hawking, occurs when an object of a certain mass creates a ripple in the space fabric of the universe. This dimple in the universe pulls in objects from all directions and forms bends in the space-time continuum. What I am discovering after much research is that there is much guessing and throwing of cards when it comes to such theories. There could be a form of etheric cohesion which seems more likely than some confession of a real space "fabric" (a term I use loosely)... The etheric cohesion creates a sensation of a constant upward movement by steady energization. Please read the FAQ on how we stay on the earth... It answers a lot of question that you may be asking...
[/quote
You should do research outside this forum, not just rely on the FAQ to answer your questions. The FAQ presents more questions than it answers.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.
FEers face a similar stranglehold. :(
Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.
FEers face a similar stranglehold. :(
Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.
Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.
If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? ???
The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time.
FEers face a similar stranglehold. :(
Has this forum been shut down? You're free to think as you please, conduct experiments as you please, and collaborate as you please. There is no stranglehold for FEers other than the theory they believe in.
Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.
Globularists are doing nothing to halt your research in FET
Shutting us down would be the most effective way of helping us. No, the stranglehold is not the theory itself. It is insufferable, prejudiced globularists such as yourself.You could all be crying a river about how the government shut down your forum because you believe "they're hiding the truth", but in reality, no one would even bat an eyelash at you. Sadly, FET has no plausibility whatsoever, but fi the same happened for a more reasonably plausible theory such as, say, 9/11 being rigged, and then people would listen.
That's actually not true at all. It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light. Not only have we not had the time, we have not had the numbers either.
That's actually not true at all. It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light. Not only have we not had the time, we have not had the numbers either.
How is most of the world believing the Earth is round slowing down your progress? Or is it that all you really want to achieve is a larger community of believers? This sounds awfully like a cult...
You've had plenty of time, and all you've come up with are illogical and completely broken models, and the numbers are everywhere to be found.
...you could ignore every single RE post and work solely on FET if you so chose to. We are actually helping you identify the holes in your theory.
You completely misunderstand. We don't have as many people researching these things as REers have traditionally had. Remember it took close to two thousand years to figure out what you yourself claimed to be an incredibly simple (almost like it's something we should just understand intuitively the way you put it!) working model of the universe and that's with the scientific orthodoxy on your side.Like I said, things only really kicked off since Newton's time, and I never said RET is simple, but rather it assumes very little and it all comes together very nicely. Gravity explains just about everything that we can observe about our Earth.
I entirely disagree. I think we've made great leaps in the last several years and as more years pass the theory is bound to become more refined and robust.
That's actually not true at all. It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light. Not only have we not had the time,
we have not had the numbers either.
I don't see any need for gravity at all.
All knowledge takes this form. Name one theory that is not made up to explain what is happening in the universe?
It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.