The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: bravimone on May 06, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
-
So the main evidence for the flat earth is "look out your window". Then when someone points out that ships sink below the horizon the explanation is that light bends.
So, assuming light does really bend, that invalidates your "look out your window" argument, because you cannot trust what you see anymore.
-
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...
-
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...
It is also ironic how flatters use the bending of light to explain their theories.
-
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
What is, then?
Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...
Like when, exactly? ::) Light is very well known to bend in some specific cases, none of which can account for the observations the FE hypothesis can't explain.
-
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...
Have you ever seen a ship sail away till it is gone?
-
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
What is, then?
Perspective.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all.
Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...
Have you ever seen a ship sail away till it is gone?
Yes ???
-
Light refraction in the air is negligible. Do you know what the refractive index of air is? It's 1.000277 (at 20° C and 1 atmosphere.) A vacuum is 1.0 and acrylic glass is around 1.5. Furthermore, the refractive index of air at 1.5 atmospheres and 20° C is 1.000407. The difference between 1.000277 and 1.000407 is negligible. Let's see if you can notice the difference in this image, generated using a Snell's Law refraction calculator.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZqABJJn.png)
I didn't think so. That is actually 10 times the observed effect, in that image.
It looks like your "Ferrari Effect" doesn't exist.
Q.E.D.
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
Did you see all the ship sail until it was gone? How far do you think it was?
-
Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe
Good luck with that.
Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.
Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
If it is not due to the bending of light what is it?
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe
Good luck with that.
Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.
Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.
Of course, because by raising your height you have raised the eye-line and the ships hull is no longer indiscernible as it does not rest as near the eye-line.
-
That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe
Good luck with that.
Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.
Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.
Of course, because by raising your height you have raised the eye-line and the ships hull is no longer indiscernible as it does not rest as near the eye-line.
Did you wait until it disappeared? If you did you see the bottom and top of the ship? By the way what type of ship was it?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KhQpUIA.jpg)
Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KhQpUIA.jpg)
Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KhQpUIA.jpg)
Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.
-
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
Having a background in maths and physics and experience in 3D effects, I am acutely aware of perspective, yes :D Whatever you're describing doesn't sound like perspective though...
For example: that skyline is clearly already being viewed through a telephoto lens and yet the rest of the city has not reappeared.
-
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
Yes, are you?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking.
No, that isn't what perspective laws say.
There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
Are there any photographs to support these accounts?
-
So a vanishing point isn't involved with perspective any longer? Damn, things change so quickly these days.
Or are you all just uneducated liars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point)
Educate yourselves.
Also, I tried to take a picture through my binoculars, but it didn't turn out so well...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Perspectivephoto.jpg)
This is the best I could do. This is what you're seeing when you see "ships go over the horizon". They are just getting smaller. (notice how there is a vanishing point? yeah, that's perspective. try again, RE'ers)
-
So a vanishing point isn't involved with perspective any longer? Damn, things change so quickly these days.
Or are you all just uneducated liars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point)
Educate yourselves.
Also, I tried to take a picture through my binoculars, but it didn't turn out so well...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Perspectivephoto.jpg)
This is the best I could do. This is what you're seeing when you see "ships go over the horizon". They are just getting smaller. (notice how there is a vanishing point? yeah, that's perspective. try again, RE'ers)
Yeah... except the bottom vanishes first. Educate yourself.
-
Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon
-
I'm unclear about how perspective would make one object occlude another when they're distant but not when they're close. Things' angular diameter will shrink and parallel lines will converge and so on, but nothing (like lake Michigan) is going to jump in front of something (like Chicago) just because they're far away. One will still be above the other, just smaller.
Also, you said that this effect disappears when you look through a telescope, that picture is obviously taken using a telephoto lens from some distance away, why is the bottom half of the city still below the horizon? The top half seems distinct enough.
-
A telephoto lens is not a telescope, now is it?
-
A telephoto lens is not a telescope, now is it?
So I was wondering, do you have a point?
-
Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon
Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.
-
Functionally? Yes, of course it is.
Is this seriously a claim from three people independently that if you magnify an image onto a film or a CCD then obviously half of Chicago will look like it's behind the horizon?
-
Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon
Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.
and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.
-
and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.
Pssh. Yeah.
From liars :D
-
Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon
Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.
and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.
You can perform the experiment yourself by going outside with binoculars. Stop being lazy and pedantic.
-
Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon
Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.
and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.
You can perform the experiment yourself by going outside with binoculars. Stop being lazy and pedantic.
Unfortunately, I live in a nice, rural area, in which my sight line is limited by trees, and not the actual horizon
-
It doesn't sound like you've done the experiment either, you've only talked about (but not provided) third hand accounts of this "totally happening". There's a picture right here in this thread which we were talking about specifically, until it became inconvenient, which seems to show a city half occluded by the horizon. What causes that?
-
It doesn't sound like you've not done the experiment either, you've only talked about (but not provided) third hand accounts of this "totally happening". There's a picture right here in this thread which we were talking about specifically, until it became inconvenient, which seems to show a city half occluded by the horizon. What causes that?
Please start reading my posts so that we can lower the number of "huh I can't read" posts taking up the upper fora.
Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.
-
I've made some seriously trivial videos in the past but I really don't want to have to push the bar even lower just to illustrate this :'(
I have read your posts, all of them, every word. Quite carefully, too, because I'm here specifically to see things from your and your cohorts' side(s) and how that point of view reacts to scrutiny. Please indulge me, take me through -slowly- why the bottom of Chicago isn't visible in that photo. Perhaps agreeing on where the vanishing point or horizon line in that picture is would be a good place to start.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KhQpUIA.jpg)
Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.
We had a couple of photographers do this here. Globularists both. Sil was one. I don't remember the second off hand. When/if I get a chance this wknd, perhaps I'll dig up a link for you. Very disingenuous to pretend you haven't seen them.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KhQpUIA.jpg)
Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.
Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.
We had a couple of photographers do this here. Globularists both. Sil was one. I don't remember the second off hand. When/if I get a chance this wknd, perhaps I'll dig up a link for you. Very disingenuous to pretend you haven't seen them.
I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.
Except water has a refractive index of 1.33 and air has a refractive index of 1.00015 to 1.00035 (negligible effect.)
-
For clarity purposes, I set up a simulation of a flat surface up against a curved one. The setup looked like this, as viewed from the top down:
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/flat-round-inner.jpg)
On the left is a round surface and on the right, a flat one. Both sides have three "buildings". The distances to the buildings are identical, and the cameras are also identical. Importantly, I added a distinctive white band to the bottom of the buildings, and a black one to the top so you can see where they are. Happy to upload the scene if anybody would like to play with it.
The output looks like this:
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/flat-curved-perspective.jpg)
Notice how the furthest back building is noticeably shorter on the left than the one on the right. The white band is also completely missing; the bottom of the building is being hidden by the curvature. On the right however, you can see the whole thing.
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/flat-round-inner-descrip.jpg)
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/flattie-zoomed.jpg)
Zooming both cameras (keeping them still identical) simply amplifies the effect. From this, a prediction can be made that zooming in reality maintains the missing bottom of the buildings too.
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.
if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal
-
I think the curve he meant was the curve due to gravity from general relativity.
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.
if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal
Congratulations, you have won the debate.
Based on UA we should be pretty close to this right now.
-
I think the curve he meant was the curve due to gravity from general relativity.
i EXPLICITLY explained that the curvature is due to upwards acceleration of the FE. ???
-
are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions
Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.
if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal
Congratulations, you have won the debate.
Based on UA we should be pretty close to this right now.
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aetheric winds.
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
if aether winds really do explain this, then im all ears. ill ignore the fact that aether isnt experimentally verified until after i determine if your aether wind idea works :p
could you explain?
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.
-
LOL your model is flawed. simply because it hasn't calculated colour similarity pixel count. reflection of light visualised is colour variant dependent. to dumb it down for you in real life . one colour will absorb more light were anther will reflect more light. camouflage is a good example of how to make things appear to disappear. Take the op photo. open it in say simple paint.Then invert the colours, then do a comparison match of the building & water, buildings & sky. those of a more closely knit colour will blend over distance to those that substantially stand out.
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.
Except aetheric winds don't work like that at all. You're comparing literal wind to something that equates to dark matter.
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.
Ether is a completely different thing entirely. Please refer to it as aether.
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
That sounds awful. Have you tried these:
(http://www.betterchemist.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/5/0/5038483005033.jpg)
-
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.
Except aetheric winds don't work like that at all. You're comparing literal wind to something that equates to dark matter.
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.
Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.
Ether is a completely different thing entirely. Please refer to it as aether.
Fluid mechanics are still applicable though; essentially if you get a large number of independent particles, each one will have very slight differences in their direction. Once vast amounts of those particles collide with a surface, the energy transferred is completely randomised (resulting in what we know as vibration). One way of reducing it's effects are to get the surface to help gradually nudge those directions into a more common one - aka streamlining - and if this were the case, then the underside of Earth would have to be a giant cone. Streamlined objects still feel turbulence though. Jroa describes the Aether as experiencing eddying, thus turbulence and fluid mechanics are definitely in action there.
The alternative is if you're meaning to describe aether as something more like magnetism or gravity, where the "particles" (simplification) follow a strict direction defined by the interacting objects, preventing vibration. In this case though, there is an inherent issue with how you describe it's formation process; i.e. one common blob of stuff forming into aether and phlogiston, as they are fundamentally different substances.
A major hole though is what's the source of the energy in the first place; if the aetheral winds are causing Earth to constantly accelerate, where is that energy coming from? The only explanation I can think of is if flat Earth is actually moving in a circle; it's still accelerating, but it's not gaining any speed/ energy. That resolves the "what happens when the flat Earth hits c" problem, because it never would, but then there's a whole new set of holes; how does it go in a circle, for example.
-
Where is gravity coming from? Mass? If so, why?
unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame
Aethric winds.
That sounds awful. Have you tried these:
(http://www.betterchemist.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/5/0/5038483005033.jpg)
Those don't work.
-
Where is gravity coming from?
Mass?
Yes.
If so, why?
Don't know.
Next.
-
I'm sure you've heard all the explanations before, but for clarity, mass is believed to distort space-time. The larger the mass, the bigger the distortion. The simplicity of that model is what makes it so powerful; it has not yet failed to describe something in the known Universe (unlike the Newton model before it). Planet formation becomes clear; the pattern planets follow around their host star becomes even clearer. Predictions based on that model have been applied in reality with the expected outcomes being seen, further verifying it. For example, black holes were predicted and have been observed. Clocks on GPS satellites must be constantly re-synced in order to prevent "location drift"; that's where the GPS network gradually looses accuracy over time and can result in a GPS receiver believing it's in completely the wrong location, simply because the GPS satellites are travelling fast enough to be moving through time differently.
The point is though, can Aether describe any of those things; planet and star formation, for example, without gravity there to clump matter together. Or for that matter, can it describe why Earth isn't vibrating itself apart, or where it's energy is even coming from - these are all things which make Aether much less likely as a theory as they all need to be feasibly filled in to compete with the accepted gravitational model.
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy. Yet, you people lap it up anyway. Double standard much?
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.
In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.
In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
-
Where is gravity coming from?
Mass?
Yes.
If so, why?
Don't know.
Next.
And this is an acceptable answer while aether is not? ???
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.
In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?
Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above :)
-
I will admit that universal acceleration and aether do not explain time dialation. But that doesn't mean gravity does.
Your post doesn't even answer my question, which is: why?
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.
In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?
Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above :)
As markjo already pointed out, you people are confusing yourselves about the meanings of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
-
Where is gravity coming from?
Mass?
Yes.
If so, why?
Don't know.
Next.
And this is an acceptable answer while aether is not? ???
It better fits our observations. Believe it or not, there are more detailed explanations out there and lots of well developed hypothesis on why mass causes gravity. For the sake of brevity, and not to use any more of the internets up with our inane prattle, I summarised the position.
You will thank me for it, maybe not now, but when you are a little older and wiser. Though you might not. I don't know for sure.
-
I will admit that universal acceleration and aether do not explain time dialation. But that doesn't mean gravity does.
Your post doesn't even answer my question, which is: why?
Sure, that's understandable. Getting into the "why" though is in reality right at the forefront of science, so there is no universally accepted answer, yet there are many theories behind it. It's the same as asking why do two magnets actually attract each other; we know it happens - we can see it - but the actual cause is still mysterious. My personal belief is that magnetism and gravitation are related; i.e. a magnet has the ability to concentrate the force because of it's "flexible" (simplification) atomic structure. I would hazard a guess at the strong/weak nuclear forces being the root cause (the forces which hold atoms together). The key point is though, as theories go, a theory which describes the most of something is the generally accepted one, and the FE theories have many more holes and exceptions than the RE one does.
-
Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.
In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?
Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above :)
As markjo already pointed out, you people are confusing yourselves about the meanings of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Why do you keep saying "you people"? Are you trying to be discriminative through generalising over 7 billion unique people? I also asked a question which you missed :)
-
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Incorrect. Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale. Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.
-
markjo, the only things outside of our solar system that we can directly observe are stars and similarly large objects, up to but not including black holes. Are you claiming that everything else in the universe is dark matter?
-
I suppose that depends on how you define "everything else". According to the current standard model of cosmology, the universe is thought to be made up of 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. But if you're talking just mass, then the estimate is that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is dark matter.
-
I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you simply haven't seen them. I can't imagine that you haven't seen sil's photos any of the times they have come up, ergo ...
-
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Incorrect. Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale. Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.
Because without this imaginary mass which is completely unobservable, gravity does not work "just fine". ::)
-
Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale. That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.
Incorrect. Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale. Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.
Because without this imaginary mass which is completely unobservable, gravity does not work "just fine". ::)
Actually, dark matter is observable by its gravitational interaction within and between galaxies.
-
That is true only if we assume that globularist's models of gravitation are correct. Since this is the very thing in doubt, I hope you can see why your assertion is silly.
Inversely, "Gravity" only works on the galactic scale if we assume large amounts of hypothetical and otherwise unobserved and unpredicted matter. Just as jroa stated.
-
Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, right up until we hit that scale (which is pretty big), at which point they need a single, simple assumption: "There's something we can't see which otherwise acts like matter, just there." before the predictions are accurate again.
There's no formulation of FE that's in the same ballpark for predictive power, none that's even playing the same sport. In fact, to my knowledge, there are no FE ideas that have any predictive power whatsoever. If there are, I would love to hear about them.
-
Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...
Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?
Explain yawning.
-
Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...
Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?
Explain yawning.
Nice job in cutting that quote. Anyway, dark matter is the only working theory we have to explain gravity at galactic scales, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here. There are no other answers.
-
How does that explain yawning?
-
They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.
-
Nice job in cutting that quote. Anyway, dark matter is the only working theory we have to explain gravity at galactic scales, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here. There are no other answers.
I cut your post as a convenience for others who read my posts. I don't like looking at quote pyramids. Do you?
Anyways, this doesn't explain yawning and it certainly doesn't explain how your theory "explains everything".
-
I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you simply haven't seen them. I can't imagine that you haven't seen sil's photos any of the times they have come up, ergo ...
You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.
Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...
Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?
Explain yawning.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/)
Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/)
Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.
I read the article. It gives no evidence for any of the ideas presented. The article actually refers to the "you yawn because your brain is hot" as an "idea" not a "proven theory".
I'll give you one more chance to explain yawning, but either way... we are talking about Clown's "theory of everything", his mumbo-jumbo theoretical physics that somehow explain everything in our universe. This "Yawn because your brain is hot" theory does not fit into that at all.
They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.
Predict? That's the wrong word.
Regardless, your crackpot theory of everything works provided you add made up shit like dark matter and dark energy into the equation. There is no tangible evidence, no proof at all, for dark matter or dark energy. Until your theory doesn't have to make things up to explain "everything", then it really explains nothing.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/)
Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.
I read the article. It gives no evidence for any of the ideas presented. The article actually refers to the "you yawn because your brain is hot" as an "idea" not a "proven theory".
I'll give you one more chance to explain yawning, but either way... we are talking about Clown's "theory of everything", his mumbo-jumbo theoretical physics that somehow explain everything in our universe. This "Yawn because your brain is hot" theory does not fit into that at all.
You have to read the actual study. What I linked to was just an article about the study.
I thought you would know this.
-
They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.
We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.
-
They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.
We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.
Did you post on the wrong alt again?
-
They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.
We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.
Did you post on the wrong alt again?
Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?
-
Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?
Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.
-
Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?
Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.
There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784)
Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?
-
Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?
I'm sorry, are you upset about something?
Have you read the entire study? I don't see anything about theoretical physics explaining why we yawn.
-
Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?
I'm sorry, are you upset about something?
I'm not upset. I just figure, since you wanted a link to a study when you were already given a link to the study, that science may be tough for you. It's ok.
Have you read the entire study? ::)
No.
-
Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?
Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.
There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784)
Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?
According to that paper, would not a sigh "cool the brain" better than a yawn? Sounds to me that someone had some extra grant money that they needed to justify.
-
Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?
Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.
There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784)
Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?
According to that paper, would not a sigh "cool the brain" better than a yawn? Sounds to me that someone had some extra grant money that they needed to justify.
I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't
-
I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't
So you've read the study now?
-
I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't
So you've read the study now?
Some of it. Why do you ask?
-
So, just to sum up for clarity:
- Gravity doesn't act as expected at galactic scales. so why take it seriously?
- It works perfectly up to those scales and only requires a simple step to work even there.
- Does it explain yawning?
- No, it only works for things related to gravity.
- How does that explain yawning? It doesn't. Good, thought so. Moving on.
That about right?
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
Gravity was repulsive in the first few moments of the universe, it is called inflation.
Scientists do not yet know why gravity is so weak. Do you know what caused the big bang?
Gravity does apply to electrons. I have no idea where you got that.
-
That is true only if we assume that globularist's models of gravitation are correct. Since this is the very thing in doubt, I hope you can see why your assertion is silly.
Inversely, "Gravity" only works on the galactic scale if we assume large amounts of hypothetical and otherwise unobserved and unpredicted matter. Just as jroa stated.
That's the beauty of a good working model, it helps you discover things that you didn't know before. Case in point, gravity (GR) works well enough for scientists to realize that there is a great deal of matter out there that we didn't know about. We know that the matter must be out there because the effects of gravitational lensing can be observed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/ (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/)
-
You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.
Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg)
Rig Navigator with another:
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2w4wgw6.jpg)
29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):
(http://imageshack.com/a/img703/3804/2j4l.jpg)
I may be missing some, but those are the ones whose img location I have saved on file. I'm sure you can search their post history if you believe me to be lying for some reason.
-
You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.
Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg)
Mirage. Plus they seem to be the same size.
Rig Navigator with another:
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2w4wgw6.jpg)
Still behind the horizon, unless you think oil rigs sit on the water. Plus getting bigger doesn't mean you see more.
29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):
(http://imageshack.com/a/img703/3804/2j4l.jpg)
Which has nothing to do with this thread.
I may be missing some, but those are the ones whose img location I have saved on file. I'm sure you can search their post history if you believe me to be lying for some reason.
Ok i'll look it up.
Ok I looked it up. From this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.U3bjb_ldXT8 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.U3bjb_ldXT8)
The picture you spliced together are from two different altitudes. Way to be dishonest, although I'm not surprised.
For the others reading. Check that thread out. Quite a good one.
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
Gravity was repulsive in the first few moments of the universe, it is called inflation.
Scientists do not yet know why gravity is so weak. Do you know what caused the big bang?
Gravity does apply to electrons. I have no idea where you got that.
Link me to an experiment that shows gravity acting on electrons. Good luck.
-
You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
! Actually, EM is the only one with a repulsive force, so if anything, that's the odd ball. Plot hole filled.
my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.
Gravity doesn't work on the small scale because gravity requires mass. Those small particles are virtually mass-less, thus, no gravity.
-
my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.
You don't need a power source to have an EM field. An electron creates a field which has an infinite range, just like a massive object creates a gravitational one with an infinite range.
-
my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.
You don't need a power source to have an EM field. An electron creates a field which has an infinite range, just like a massive object creates a gravitational one with an infinite range.
Mmm, I will defer to you then. Thats why it was a "thought"
-
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.
I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.
-
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.
I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.
You claim that gravity acts on electrons and other small particles. Where is the proof of this? Certainly there's a paper or something out there that details this interaction. I have looked, however, and there is not. No experiments or tests have been done to determine whether gravity acts on electrons.
Also, you're wrong about the forces. Why does it seem like I know more about RE science than you? Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)... don't just say "you're wrong" (like you did here) because you can spend 5 seconds of your time finding this information on wikipedia.
Like so many RE'ers tell me, "show me some graphs or numbers". Science is not about making statements with no supporting evidence (which was your entire post, btw). You claimed that your theory explains everything, but my questions still stand because you have not provided any evidence other than "this is this because this".
Another thing I don't understanding about gravity: why is it so precise? If your force of gravity was any stronger it would tear the universe apart. The chances of something like gravity popping up, using just the right amount of force to support life across the universe (assumption, but my personal belief), is ridiculous. It's almost as if (like you said) "God did it". I personally believe it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the fact that "gravity" is a made up force that tries to explain some things in the universe, but can't explain nearly enough. Its existence poses more questions than it answers.
-
I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.
I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.
Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.
All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.
Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?
An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.
Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?
It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.
There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.
The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.
I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.
You claim that gravity acts on electrons and other small particles. Where is the proof of this? Certainly there's a paper or something out there that details this interaction. I have looked, however, and there is not. No experiments or tests have been done to determine whether gravity acts on electrons.
Also, you're wrong about the forces. Why does it seem like I know more about RE science than you? Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)... don't just say "you're wrong" (like you did here) because you can spend 5 seconds of your time finding this information on wikipedia.
Like so many RE'ers tell me, "show me some graphs or numbers". Science is not about making statements with no supporting evidence (which was your entire post, btw). You claimed that your theory explains everything, but my questions still stand because you have not provided any evidence other than "this is this because this".
Strong and weak nuclear aren't "opposites" any more than "wet" and "damp" are.
British physicist James Chadwick discovered that the nucleus of atoms contain neutrons in 1932. Soon after this Hungarian-American physicist Eugene Wigner suggested that the electromagnetic force was not involved in holding the nucleus together and that there are two different nuclear forces. The strong nuclear force is the nuclear binding force, the force that provides the attraction between protons and protons, proton and neutrons and neutrons and neutrons, keeping the nucleus of atoms together. The weak nuclear force causes beta decay. It was reasoned that the weak force was weaker than the strong force because beta decay is relatively common within atoms, yet it requires a lot of energy to split the nucleus of an atom. - See more at: http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Strong.html#sthash.NMdIieF4.dpuf (http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Strong.html#sthash.NMdIieF4.dpuf)
Another thing I don't understanding about gravity: why is it so precise? If your force of gravity was any stronger it would tear the universe apart. The chances of something like gravity popping up, using just the right amount of force to support life across the universe (assumption, but my personal belief), is ridiculous. It's almost as if (like you said) "God did it". I personally believe it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the fact that "gravity" is a made up force that tries to explain some things in the universe, but can't explain nearly enough. Its existence poses more questions than it answers.
According to whom? Jupiter has a gravitational field 2.5 times as strong as the earth, it, we and the universe, are still here. A black hole has a gravitational field nearly infinitely strong, strong enough to prevent light or any other matter from escaping, and yet here we are.
-
In a universe with stronger gravity; galaxies, planets, and stars would all be smaller. Planets would oftentimes be pulled out of orbit by passing stars, and stars themselves would burn for less time. "Life" as we know it would probably not exist because of the chaotic nature of the universe if gravity was even just a smidgen stronger. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable "planetary" orbits.
Blackholes and other large masses don't conflict with this theory. They work because the equation relating to mass and gravity works out (I'm not a physicist, keep in mind. and this is according to RE science). Jupiter is not pulling other heavenly bodies out of orbit, and black holes are rare and localized. However, if a black hole were to pop up in our solar system we'd be doomed. However, black holes haven't even been observed. There's no evidence that black holes even exist. Your science just assumes that they must exist (to fill in one of your plot holes, again).
Your RE theory of gravity is finely tuned, I'll give you that. Any variation in the strength of gravity itself relating to mass would have catastrophic consequences for the universe, though. To deny this would just be admitting your ignorance.
-
In a universe with stronger gravity; galaxies, planets, and stars would all be smaller. Planets would oftentimes be pulled out of orbit by passing stars, and stars themselves would burn for less time. "Life" as we know it would probably not exist because of the chaotic nature of the universe if gravity was even just a smidgen stronger. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable "planetary" orbits.
Blackholes and other large masses don't conflict with this theory. They work because the equation relating to mass and gravity works out (I'm not a physicist, keep in mind. and this is according to RE science). Jupiter is not pulling other heavenly bodies out of orbit, and black holes are rare and localized. However, if a black hole were to pop up in our solar system we'd be doomed. However, black holes haven't even been observed. There's no evidence that black holes even exist. Your science just assumes that they must exist (to fill in one of your plot holes, again).
Your RE theory of gravity is finely tuned, I'll give you that. Any variation in the strength of gravity itself relating to mass would have catastrophic consequences for the universe, though. To deny this would just be admitting your ignorance.
This is true for any other force. If the fine structure constant was different, the universe would be completely different from what we see.
-
A lot of that was you not reading my post. Here:
-Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles~"
-It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction.
-~and electrons?
-I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.
-Also, you're wrong about the forces. Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)
-All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism.
My particle physics is beyond rusty, and it is actually the case that the electroweak interaction manifests as both electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and it is attractive/repulsive depending on unlike/like charge and spin.
However, I stand by what I said:
-That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.
I'm not certain what your third paragraph is asking for, if you want me to teach you modern physics from scratch "with graphs and numbers" when you already have a conclusion in mind, then you are out of luck. Fortunately, because this is reality, there are many places you can learn these things (even whole buildings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)!), not just from a handful of forum posters. I've heard good things about this place (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics) but I've not used it.
As for the question "why is the universe so finely tuned for life?", it's an old question, but the anthropic principle gives one answer: if it weren't, we wouldn't be here asking. Also, would life be impossible if the physical constants were a little different, or would the universe and any life in it simply be different? I've heard various answers, but while it's a (vaguely) interesting philosophical distraction it's not exactly an experiment we can run at this time and I'd refer you to my earlier point: all these things are simply what we observe, if you think they're weird, take it up with God.
/edit: a black hole "popping up" in our solar system wouldn't doom anyone if it was in a stable orbit. Or at least, it wouldn't doom them any more than something else with the same mass "popping up" would. They aren't all powerful devourers, just very steep gravity wells.
-
Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg)
Mirage. Plus they seem to be the same size.
Light travels the same path to the lens regardless of magnification. They are the same size because i made them so, as to highlight the restoration for you.
Rig Navigator with another:
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2w4wgw6.jpg)
Still behind the horizon, unless you think oil rigs sit on the water. Plus getting bigger doesn't mean you see more.
No, but unless I'm really bad at math, the object gained more height than it did width under magnification. Curious, no doubt for you -- no such restoration has ever been seen, according to you afterall, but it again confirms the predictive power of Dr. Rowbotham's perspective.
29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):
(http://imageshack.com/a/img703/3804/2j4l.jpg)
Which has nothing to do with this thread.
Odd, I thought the true nature of perspective and the effects of magnification were completely on topic...
The picture you spliced together are from two different altitudes. Way to be dishonest, although I'm not surprised.
Yes, after several posts arguing that the restoration was due to a mirage, the poster finally realized that this is impossible and changed his story about the pictures being taken from the same height. You can see the date/time the post was altered.
-
No, but unless I'm really bad at math, the object gained more height than it did width under magnification. Curious, no doubt for you -- no such restoration has ever been seen, according to you afterall, but it again confirms the predictive power of Dr. Rowbotham's perspective.
Not by an incredibly large amount though. By my math, there is a 2.67x increase horizontally, and a 2.76..., vertically. However, you're trying to cut through a lot of haze, with a highly pix-elated image, trying to determine where exactly an object begins and ends.
-
A lot of that was you not reading my post. Here:
-Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles~"
-It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction.
-~and electrons?
-I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.
-Also, you're wrong about the forces. Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)
-All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism.
My particle physics is beyond rusty, and it is actually the case that the electroweak interaction manifests as both electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and it is attractive/repulsive depending on unlike/like charge and spin.
However, I stand by what I said:
-That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.
I'm not certain what your third paragraph is asking for, if you want me to teach you modern physics from scratch "with graphs and numbers" when you already have a conclusion in mind, then you are out of luck. Fortunately, because this is reality, there are many places you can learn these things (even whole buildings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)!), not just from a handful of forum posters. I've heard good things about this place (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics) but I've not used it.
As for the question "why is the universe so finely tuned for life?", it's an old question, but the anthropic principle gives one answer: if it weren't, we wouldn't be here asking. Also, would life be impossible if the physical constants were a little different, or would the universe and any life in it simply be different? I've heard various answers, but while it's a (vaguely) interesting philosophical distraction it's not exactly an experiment we can run at this time and I'd refer you to my earlier point: all these things are simply what we observe, if you think they're weird, take it up with God.
/edit: a black hole "popping up" in our solar system wouldn't doom anyone if it was in a stable orbit. Or at least, it wouldn't doom them any more than something else with the same mass "popping up" would. They aren't all powerful devourers, just very steep gravity wells.
You didn't understand my questions. Of course you can make statemnts that "gravity works on electrons" but you can't even prove that electrons or gravity exist in the first place. If you can't demonstrate an experiment that proves gravity working on electrons then all you're doing is talking out of your ass.
Please bring something factual to the table, with evidence. This is typical of you Clown. Stop spouting nonsense as fact without proof. I have reported you again.
-
You've reported me again? To the authorities? :D
So specifically, this one phenomena that's not (to my knowledge) been observed, that of electrons being affected by gravity, that one thing is your problem with all of natural science? Because other particles are known to be affected, as I told you. So is it that you just don't like the conclusions, so any gap or lack or uncertainty is clung to for dear life?
For example, are you claiming that the entire electronics industry is mistaken about the existence of electrons?
You've misquoted me twice in a row about electrons (which is impressive with the text right there). I've said twice that they've not (afaik) been observed to be affected by gravity. In what way didn't I understand your questions? What particular evidence would you like me to google and then spoonfeed you, exactly?