The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: muggsybogues1 on September 06, 2013, 06:58:26 AM
-
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/)
For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.
-
This is a major challenge how?
-
This is a major challenge how?
The centuries-old failure to measure the imaginary force the Cult of Gravity worships.
-
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/)
For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.
Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.
Think of pi. When Zu Chongzhi calculated pi to be 3.141592920, later calculations showed he was off by 2.664 * 10-7. Not much, but, in the words of your article, "a constant should be constant." If pi was a real constant, why does its value change?
For something like gravity, which isn't just calculation but experimenting to try and find a very, very weak force, having difficulties in narrowing it down to an exact number is to be expected. At that scale a person standing near the experiment can severely alter the results.
Just as our methods of calculating pi have become more exact over time, so will our methods of calculating G. But we're still transitioning from the Zu Chongzhi to Christoph Grienberger.
-
Oh. I guess a measurement difference of 240/1000000 is physics breaking. My worship of a fictional force that accurately describes universal motions is completely shattered now. I think I'm going to switch over to the side that has measurements differences of 400%.
-
Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.
But why can't it be accurately measured? Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.
-
Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.
In 1983 the 17th CGPM redefined the metre thus, "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."[81] As a result of this definition, the value of the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s and has become a defined constant in the SI system of units. Improved experimental techniques do not affect the value of the speed of light in SI units, but instead allow a more precise realization of the metre
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History)
-
Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.
But why can't it be accurately measured? Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.
-
muggs,
why do you think that gaps in scientific knowledge mean that we should disregard it? What is wrong with not knowing things and what is wrong with the pursuit of answering what isn't known?
-
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.
I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.
-
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.
I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.
Or maybe, and you might want to sit down for this, gravity is a real thing and it is just a difficult thing to measure for the reasons stated above. :o
And there is proof that it exists.
-
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?
-
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?
Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.
I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.
-
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?
Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.
I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.
It cannot be created, no one knows how or why it should work, and apparently they're not even able to measure it accurately.
-
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.
I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.
Saying that scientists cannot measure the exact value of G is not the same as saying that scientists can not measure G at all or that the value of G measured is not useful.
-
The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.
-
The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.
And if you cannot describe it, you should not be proclaiming it as a fact.
-
The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.
And if you cannot describe it, you should not be proclaiming it as a fact.
I can't tell you exactly how a computer works. I guess I shouldn't think that they work.
-
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?
Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.
I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.
It cannot be created, no one knows how or why it should work, and apparently they're not even able to measure it accurately.
Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.
And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.
-
That's a good point Alex. Sometimes I really don't understand how FEers logic works. They say they are zetetic in the sense that they must be able to observe themselves before they can accept. They say they don't believe in gravity because they can't see it (although they can observe what it does). There are many others which we can't sense directly with our sensory organ like electromagnetic force, radio wave, etc.
They say they are also zetetic and yet they come up with ideas which they cannot sense, explain or prove themselves either such as UA, ice wall, dome, weird maps etc. Although I don't always agree with his methods, at least Rowbotham tried to do some experiments and observations himself and presented the explanation in a kids friendly way. But his followers? Nothing. Nada. Rien! Just fallacy.
This is not zetetic. This is a complete denial.
-
Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.
False analogy. No one is measuring those particles to ensure that we are "creating gravity."
-
Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.
False analogy. No one is measuring those particles to ensure that we are "creating gravity."
So you are doubting the existence of magnetism. Good to know.
And how is using electrons to produce an electro-magnetic field different from using matter to produce a gravitational field?
-
Magnetism "exists" in the sense that something is pulling metal together at a distance, but the mechanism is unknown. Magnetism can be manipulated on small scale, via electromagnets, metal shavings, etc, demonstrating its property as a surrounding field of some kind.
Gravity, on the other hand, cannot be manipulated at measurable levels to demonstrate its field-like properties. Experiments like the Cavendish Experiment are discredited (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html), since there are forces stronger than the gravitational force not accounted for in the experiments, at the sensitivities necessary for the trials.
-
Magnetism "exists" in the sense that something is pulling metal together at a distance, but the mechanism is unknown. Magnetism can be manipulated on small scale, via electro-magnets metal shavings, etc, demonstrating its property as a field of some kind.
Gravity, on the other hand, cannot be manipulated at measurable levels to demonstrate its field-like properties. Experiments like the Cavendish Experiment are discredited (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html), since there are forces stronger than the gravitational force not accounted for in the experiments, at the sensitivities necessary for the trials.
Oh, so there's some other force that's bending light around galaxies? Huh. And I didn't know it was magnetism keeping the Moon at such a distance it takes light 2.58 seconds to get there and back. I learn so much in this forum!
-
I don't see why the optical effects of light which occur in the heavens should have anything to do with the phenomenon which keeps us on the ground.
Gravity doesn't even work in RET's model of the universe. For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.
See this quote from softpedia.com: (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml)
"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."
-
I don't see why the optical effects of light which occur in the heavens should have anything to do with the phenomenon which keeps us on the ground.
Gravity doesn't even work in RET's model of the universe. For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.
See this quote from softpedia.com: (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml)
"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."
Is there a particular reason why you do not list all the cases where gravitational theory works perfectly? Is it because it does not help your case?
-
Is there a particular reason why you do not list all the cases where gravitational theory works perfectly? Is it because it does not help your case?
Where does it work perfectly? All myths of gravity being applicable to the universe are false. Astronomers can't predict where bodies will be in the sky using gravity alone. Prediction in astronomy is done through looking at patterns in past events to predict future events. Aristotle, for example, could predict the lunar eclipse thousands of years into the future, using tables of past occurrences. This method of prediction via pattern is what is taught in college astronomy today, not any method to predict via gravity.
It is often popularly alleged that the discovery of Neptune is a proof of gravity, but we know today that Neptune's discovery is not because of gravity (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm).
-
There is a lot of things we don't know everything about, including gravity. Gravity is simply the apparent attraction of bodies to each other. Studying the phenomena and having difficulty measuring the exact value of G is not discrediting its existence. Nor is an anomaly in places we know little about. It just means there is a lot more to know. It doesn't mean we aren't being pulled into the earth and it sure as hell doesn't mean the earth is a plane accelerating upward.
-
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.
As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.
And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.
-
Tom, you are conflating a lack of precision in the two predictions, which requires estimations which will of course make room for error, with a falsification of the theory. Here is a lisylt of some areas gravity is very accurate in its description:
1. Kepler's laws work extremely well and accurately and you may recall being handled by Major Twang on this front last year.
2. Calculation of the tides, also works.
3. The successful prediction of the local gravity of the moon (I would not expect you to cite this, but I sure will).
4. Relativistic frame-dragging by the Earth's rotation.
5. The motion of all falling bodies.
I am sure I could go on if I wanted to.
-
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.
As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.
And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.
I have talked to Tom about magnetic photons (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_photon) before. If he would bother to look in to them, he would quickly realize they are not the hypothesized carrier of all magnetic fields. Magnetic photons are required for magnetic monopoles only and magnetic monopoles are also hypothetical!
Leave that red herring out of this discussion.
-
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.
As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.
And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.
I don't follow. I didn't say gravity was mysterious, but not non-existent.
-
Tom, you are conflating a lack of precision in the two predictions, which requires estimations which will of course make room for error, with a falsification of the theory. Here is a lisylt of some areas gravity is very accurate in its description:
1. Kepler's laws work extremely well and accurately and you may recall being handled by Major Twang on this front last year.
Kepler's theories involve the motion of planets around the sun. The Flat Earth model has planets revolving around the sun. His theories of planetary motion aren't totally inapplicable.
2. Calculation of the tides, also works.
Actually, Newton himself said that the tides was the least satisfactory portion of his theory of gravity.
The USGS makes predictions of the tides via current trending tides and tables of previous occurrences throughout the seasons, by the way.
3. The successful prediction of the local gravity of the moon (I would not expect you to cite this, but I sure will).
There is sure some funny gravity (http://#ws) on the moon.
4. Relativistic frame-dragging by the Earth's rotation.
Frame dragging is part of Special Relativity, which is not General Relativity. One is a theory of motion and the other is a theory of gravity.
5. The motion of all falling bodies.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle says that the motion of falling bodies would be the same on an upwardly accelerating platform and by "gravity".
-
2. Calculation of the tides, also works.
Actually, Newton himself said that tide prediction was the least satisfactory portion of his theory of gravity.
So you have a theory for why there are two high-tides on the Earth at all times, one opposite the other? Because gravity explains that perfectly.
Or why tides are higher when the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon are generally lined up than when they're not?
There is sure some funny gravity (http://#ws) on the moon.
Because this thread does indeed have to do with gravity, I'll disassemble your video. In the first clip, the selenaut posing for the salute just turned around. As he spins, notice he stays on his tip-toes. It's easier to turn around on your toes, especially if you're wearing a motion-restrictive suit. Is there a reason people on the moon wouldn't be able to stand on their toes?
In the second clip, the one selenaut is on the ground, with the other standing beside him. The uploader cut the audio from that clip, but if you hear the original, the one standing beside says, "Let me help you up," or something to that affect. Regardless of whether you believe that, you can clearly see the standing person taking in his right hand the left hand of the person on the ground.
-
Kepler's theories involve the motion of planets around the sun. The Flat Earth model has planets revolving around the sun. His theories of planetary motion aren't totally inapplicable.
Kepler's Laws are equivalent to Newton's Laws.
Actually, Newton himself said that the tides was the least satisfactory portion of his theory of gravity.
The USGS makes predictions of the tides via current trending tides and tables of previous occurrences throughout the seasons, by the way.
Least satisfactory is not the same as not working.
There is sure some funny gravity (http://#ws) on the moon.
Those apollo debunking videos are the worst.
Frame dragging is part of Special Relativity, which is not General Relativity. One is a theory of motion and the other is a theory of gravity.
Frame-dragging is an effect of general relativity. Do your homework.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle says that the motion of falling bodies would be the same on an upwardly accelerating platform and by "gravity".
Quote the entirety of the Equivalence Principle please. Pretty please.
-
This is a new trend amongst FEer. They start to believe in gravity to explain phenomena that can't be catered for just by UA. muggsy hasn't joined the train though
-
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.
As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.
And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.
I don't follow. I didn't say gravity was mysterious, but not non-existent.
So, you are saying that gravity has every mysterious quality that magnetism has, but that gravity does not exist and magnetism does. Should we help you count the logical fallacies you are making, or do you want to count them by yourself?
PS. Of course, if something is clearly non-existent it is also non-mysterious. Like the dragons, once you are sure they do not exist (and never did) the only remaining mystery is... why some people were so superstitious that they believed they exist?
-
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.
I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.
Saying that scientists cannot measure the exact value of G is not the same as saying that scientists can not measure G at all or that the value of G measured is not useful.
Furthermore, we do not know any physical constant exactly. The whole charade about G being "inaccurate" without saying what is considered "accurate" is just a sophism of distraction. If we were incapable of finding G to a precision better than 50% or so we could ask ourselves if it exists at all, but when we have known G to a precision better than 0.01% for more than 200 years we can safely declare that it exists and has a value close to 6.67 x 10-11 in mks units.
And while we are critiquing constants, do you know what value the Bishop Constant has? Maybe somebody can give a value with better than 1000% accuracy? In fact, does anyone have an actual formula that we can use to calculate it at all? I didn't think so.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Except that we would be able to measure such a collossal pressure difference.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
Scepti thinks that scientists are lying about how air pressure works.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
It doesn't act equally in all directions though.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
It doesn't act equally in all directions though.
Incorrect.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
It doesn't act equally in all directions though.
Incorrect.
No. It's absolutely correct.
-
You can try this at home scepti
Can Crushed by Air Pressure (http://#)
-
You can try this at home scepti
Can Crushed by Air Pressure (http://#)
What are you proving here?
-
It shows air pressure at least acts side ways
-
It shows air pressure at least acts side ways
It acts all ways, but that wasn't what I was on about, was it.
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
Totally different scenario.
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
Totally different scenario.
Explain
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
Totally different scenario.
Explain
We are talking about sea level atmospheric pressure.
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
Totally different scenario.
Explain
We are talking about sea level atmospheric pressure.
What about people not living at sea level? Explain in detail
-
If it is caused by air pressure, we become lighter as we go higher (less air pressure) and heavier as we go lower. Is that what you're saying.
Totally different scenario.
Explain
We are talking about sea level atmospheric pressure.
What about people not living at sea level? Explain in detail
We are talking about pressures and you are saying they are equal all round. I'm saying they are not equal, all round.
-
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.
Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
It doesn't act equally in all directions though.
Incorrect.
Please do not feed the trolls. We have dozens of threads with no more than "yes, it is atmospheric pressure"... "no, it is not"... "yes, it is"... "no, it is not"....
We are not just inundated with inane threads where only sceptimatic "comments" (a.k.a. trolls) the FE side, but we now have these threads with sceptimatic's comments deleted.
-
He deleted his posts from my thread too. But are you sure he's a troll? Or is he just ... ignorant?
-
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/)
For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.
If a 0.024% error is enough to be a major challenge to the idea of gravity. Imagine what people must feel like when FE can't even agree on what the map of the Earth looks like... or why the moon glows... or how far away the sun is... ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC...
-
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/)
For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.
If a 0.024% error is enough to be a major challenge to the idea of gravity. Imagine what people must feel like when FE can't even agree on what the map of the Earth looks like... or why the moon glows... or how far away the sun is... ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC...
This wasn't always the error though. Gravity has been championed for quite a while, so their error in its measurement has been refined. But take a more recent theory, say modern FE theory, which has no scientific funding, it really is no surprise that the development is slow. This doesn't mean its wrong, right? All theories are poor in their infancy.
To give you a hilarious (but true) example: The bible gives the value of pi to be 3. Precisely. In all of recorded history this is the WORST calculation of this constant. But what if we had thrown the idea of pi away just because it was measured poorly? A few thousand years later....and we know pi to millions of decimal places.