You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...
So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.
Considering:
- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.
- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)
Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.
"So far so good, but...
...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."
Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model
I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.
I'm looking for an answer not more questions, sorry. Nor am I cherry picking, guess your a round earther... What a surprise! Not..
Your contribution to the debate: 0
Go somewhere else.
You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...That is because all it takes for bullshit to triumph is for smart people to say nothing.
So why do you believe in Gravity?Because that is what all the evidence shows.
The most magical of bullshit.
- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)We have measured gravity.
Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.Because unlike FEers, they are honest and will admit when they don't have a complete understanding.
You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society"....If you can't stand debating your rubbish with others with contrary views, you might limit yourself to:
| Flat Earth Believers A board for debate and discussion among Flat Earth Believers. |
Anyways...Because it works and explains the way objects "fall down".
So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.[/b]Your statement would also imply that:
Considering:
- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.
Discovery of Photon
The photon is known as the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. In physics, a quantum is a basic indivisible unit or state that may be present or absent but never stronger or weaker.
In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper describing his discovery of the photoelectric effect where a photon acts like a particle.
- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)Completely untrue! Gravitation has been directly measured numerous times, the first being in 1798/99.
Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.And the "four fundamental forces" are:
Yes, number 4 is "Gravity". Gravitation is not omitted! It does not yet fit into the standard modej, but so what?Fundamental Forces
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor1.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor2.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor3.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor4.png)
From: Hyperphysics, Fundamental Forces (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html)
"So far so good, but...OK, the "Standard Model . . . . does not explain the complete picture." So what?
...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."
Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model
I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.Sure "the weak force is much stronger than gravity" but only over a very short range!
Energy and wavelengthIn other words, gravitons would have such a low energy that they may never be individually detected as photons can.
The report on the discovery of gravitational waves specified, in regard to gravitons, that "assuming a modified dispersion relation for gravitational waves, our observations constrain the Compton wavelength of the graviton to be λg > 1013 km, which could be interpreted as a bound on the graviton mass mg < 1.2 × 10−22 eV/c2." This relation between wavelength and energy is calculated with the Planck-Einstein relation, the same formula which relates electromagnetic wavelength to photon energy.
Incomplete, more in Graviton, Energy and wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Energy_and_wavelength)
Uhm maybe thats why ? gravity is Not just weaker, its several orders of magnitude weaker, there is a difference
"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. The gravitational attraction is approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong force, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter "
To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.
We have measured gravity.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.
What makes you think we can't?
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
Uhm maybe thats why ? gravity is Not just weaker, its several orders of magnitude weaker, there is a difference
"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. The gravitational attraction is approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong force, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter "
Yep throw it outside of the realm for normal people to measure it so you have to rely on "experts". That's pretty much everything RE relies on. Fucking retards, sorry I'm not passive aggressive like you yuppies.To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.
MOST EVIDENCE? LOL, such as? I doubt you can name more than 1 example that involves more than numbers and words, but rather physical proof.
We have measured gravity.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.
What makes you think we can't?
Your referring to the Cavendish Experiment? Seriously? That shit is a joke. CERN would not be omitting gravity from the standard model if it was so easy, you people are so daft.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.Care to elaborate? What is the mechanism behind it?
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time :D Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.
Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.
then the shrieking and shitposting starts.
DENSITY?
Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?
And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time :D Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.
Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.
then the shrieking and shitposting starts.
DENSITY?
Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?
And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....
Nah fuck your dumb ass equation. That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.
Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in this
experiment with a close eye you can see feather's lagging behind. Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it. Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.
Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time :D Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.
Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.
then the shrieking and shitposting starts.
DENSITY?
Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?
And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....
Nah fuck your dumb ass equation. That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.
Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in this
experiment with a close eye you can see feather's lagging behind. Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it. Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.
Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?
Your bully tactics dont work here sorry
If this is false you can refute it
f = G x m1 x m2 / d2
then do it.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.
How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.
You said things fall in a different rate, then how come the plane can generate weightlessness for every object no matter their density just by canceling ONE rate ?
Oh and you forget that on that video even when SOME of the feathers seems to lag behind their rate of fall is the same as the coins, they started later in the the turning process or whatever, just measure the rate pixel traveled by time, and you will see.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.
How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.
Then you perform the fucking experiment, ignorant prick. You flatheads always assume everything is faked because it is a logical explanation against your argument.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.
How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.
You said things fall in a different rate, then how come the plane can generate weightlessness for every object no matter their density just by canceling ONE rate ?
Oh and you forget that on that video even when SOME of the feathers seems to lag behind their rate of fall is the same as the coins, they started later in the the turning process or whatever, just measure the rate pixel traveled by time, and you will see.
The feathers lagging behind is clearly slower, who are you kidding?
Also I don't know, considering gravity is fake and you've yet to prove it, the variables are unknown. It's not cancelling gravity like you hope to claim that's for sure.
I'll find g myself. Here's the setup:
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/experiment_orig.png)
I roll a marble off of the edge of the table, and record the time it takes to hit the bottom.
To record the time, I use Audacity and locate the exact times the sound of the ball rolling stops, and the exact time when the sound of the ball hitting the floor starts. I subtract these times to get the total time in freefall.
I will then substitute the height and time into this formula:
Δh=½gt2
and solve for g.
Results:
Trial 1 time: .507
Trial 2 time: .508
Trial 3 time: .508
Trial 4 time: .508
Trial 5 time: .507
Average time: .5076
Substitution: 1.263=½g(.5076)2 g=9.8037m/s^2
Accepted value of g: 9.81
Error: .064% (really low)
There you go! I found g. Now you guys can do it yourself if you want to.
So are you saying things on Earth get lighter in a vacuum chamber?
And are you saying that pressure acts in a certain direction (I'm other words, a vector)?
No it looks like all you did was give what I didn't ask for, stupid equations that seem to work for your stupid theory.We are under no obligation to do what the Illuminati Pizza Spy orders!
This isn't proving gravity because again, if it was that easy CERN would not omit gravity,Once again! Gravitation is not omitted! How many times do I have to say the same thing?
Yes, number 4 is "Gravity". Gravitation is not omitted! It does not yet fit into the standard modej, but so what?Fundamental Forces
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor1.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor2.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor3.png)
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/imgfor/funfor4.png)
From: Hyperphysics, Fundamental Forces (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html)
it would be much easier to prove physically, thus there would be 1,000's of experiments proving gravity,Why "would be much easier to prove physically"?
but all we get are fail examples like this, bullshit experiments like the vacuum chamber ones or that one piss poor Cavendish one where they assume the motion was caused by gravity and disregarded the other large bodies of mass around the test.So the self-proclaimed expert on gravitational theory claims!
How many times do I have to tell you to go away? Your not helping.How many times do I have to tell you that I am under no obligation to follow your orders!
You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...
So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.
Considering:
- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.
- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)
SHOW PHYSICAL PROOF OF GRAVITY I don't want your theory or equations, they mean shit.
Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.
"So far so good, but...
...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."
Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model
I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.
I'm not really here to answer questions, I addressed this already. Provide physical proof or don't bother replying at all. Seeing as how no seems fit to answerWhy should we bother? If you have no better alternative, I guess Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation provides the best explanation of "things falling down".
it seems I'm probably correct in that you all believe in magical fairy tale bullshit because someone you think is superior to you said so.
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.
How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.
How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.
Shud up all you dum GEers! Gravity does'nt exist. This is obvius from the fact that you think you can proove it with equations. Equations can't prove nuthing. They nevar have and nevar will. And so it is obvius from this fact alone that your completly wrong about gravity. Also too, if you look really really close at videos of things falling in a vacum you can see the their is a we tiny littel difference in the timing! From this it is plane that you wud have to be completly stoopid to beleive in gravity!
Shud up all you dum GEers! Gravity does'nt exist. This is obvius from the fact that you think you can proove it with equations. Equations can't prove nuthing. They nevar have and nevar will. And so it is obvius from this fact alone that your completly wrong about gravity. Also too, if you look really really close at videos of things falling in a vacum you can see the their is a we tiny littel difference in the timing! From this it is plane that you wud have to be completly stoopid to beleive in gravity!
Difference .....air resistance.
Do you think a parachute would work in a vacuum ?
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.Give me physical evidence that "Density is why things fall" as opposed to
Yep throw it outside of the realm for normal people to measure it so you have to rely on "experts". That's pretty much everything RE relies on. Fucking retards, sorry I'm not passive aggressive like you yuppies.No, it isn't.
Yes, most evidence, such as satellites in orbits, the way things fall (especially in a vacuum), the Cavendish experiment and similar experiments, and so on.To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.
MOST EVIDENCE? LOL, such as? I doubt you can name more than 1 example that involves more than numbers and words, but rather physical proof.
Yes, I am referring to Cavendish as well as numerous variations and some other experiments.We have measured gravity.Your referring to the Cavendish Experiment? Seriously? That shit is a joke. CERN would not be omitting gravity from the standard model if it was so easy, you people are so daft.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.
What makes you think we can't?
Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.No. It isn't.
That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.No, we have physical proof, proof which you ignore and dismiss.
Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in thisIn a perfect vacuum they will. As soon as there is some air it can provide air resistance and slow objects down.
Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it.Care to back up that baseless claim?
Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.They can simulate some aspects of space, not all.
Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?It behaves like that because everything is falling at the same rate.
How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.No, it wasn't scripted nonsense. Yes, it was scripted to some extent, but to show reality, reality you feel a need to hide from.
The feathers lagging behind is clearly slower, who are you kidding?No, they are not clearly slower. Go measure yourself.
Also I don't know, considering gravity is fake and you've yet to prove it, the variables are unknown. It's not cancelling gravity like you hope to claim that's for sure.
No it looks like all you did was give what I didn't ask for, stupid equations that seem to work for your stupid theory.That is exactly what real scientists do. They make models, quantitative models, and then test their predictive capability.
it would be much easier to prove physically, thus there would be 1,000's of experiments proving gravityIt is easy to prove. It has been proven, with numerous experiments.
or that one piss poor Cavendish one where they assume the motion was caused by gravity and disregarded the other large bodies of mass around the test.You mean good ones like Cavendish, which eliminates other possible sources meaning it must be gravity or something else based upon the mass, and ignore the much more distant masses elsewhere?
How many times do I have to tell you to go away? Your not helping.It doesn't matter how many times you tell people to go away. That wont stop them from pointing out all your bullshit.
Shud up all you dum GEers! Gravity does'nt exist. This is obvius from the fact that you think you can proove it with equations. Equations can't prove nuthing. They nevar have and nevar will. And so it is obvius from this fact alone that your completly wrong about gravity. Also too, if you look really really close at videos of things falling in a vacum you can see the their is a we tiny littel difference in the timing! From this it is plane that you wud have to be completly stoopid to beleive in gravity!
Difference .....air resistance.
Do you think a parachute would work in a vacuum ?
Hav you evar tried? No you have'nt. So what wud you no about it?
Your dum! Please be somewear where I amn't.
Your dum! Please be somewear where I amn't.
LOL OP was surpassed every way here by globers even in flattardism :D
Alt and/or troll detected. People are not dumb enough to think density causes objects to fall.Pretty sure there are some who do.
MOST EVIDENCE? LOL, such as? I doubt you can name more than 1 example that involves more than numbers and words, but rather physical proof.
Alt and/or troll detected. People are not dumb enough to think density causes objects to fall.Never doubt human stupidity.
3rd eye is probably the alt for 'arealhumanbeing'. The amount of times he went on about the pineal gland being the 3rd eye and other rubbish
From the shit being spewed I'd say 3rd eye is nothing more than a 'brown eye'. Gross
I've conducted experiments on attractive forces between masses, from a skeptical FE perspective.
I have physical evidence I have found for myself. That is why I believe in gravity, even though I may not believe in a round earth.
I've conducted experiments on attractive forces between masses, from a skeptical FE perspective.
I have physical evidence I have found for myself. That is why I believe in gravity, even though I may not believe in a round earth.
Love your avatar, Lamprey's are cool as fuck c:
Nope. Though the organ related to the third eye is the pineal gland, that's just basic knowledge regarding chakra's.You mean basic delusional bullshit?
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.Except we did address it properly.
GG
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
I've conducted experiments on attractive forces between masses, from a skeptical FE perspective.
I have physical evidence I have found for myself. That is why I believe in gravity, even though I may not believe in a round earth.
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Damn, you really showed us ::)
Don't forget to take some homeopathic medicine before you center your chakras or read the future!
No, they have been educated in proper nutrition and prevention of disease. They haven't been in alternative medicine because it either has no evidence that it works or there is evidence that it doesn't work.Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Damn, you really showed us ::)
Don't forget to take some homeopathic medicine before you center your chakras or read the future!
Lol and don't forget to die of cancer because you place all your trust in "experts" that were never educated in proper nutrition, prevention of disease, or alternative medicine because it's not patentable or profitable.
Pathetic.
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Damn, you really showed us ::)
Don't forget to take some homeopathic medicine before you center your chakras or read the future!
Lol and don't forget to die of cancer because you place all your trust in "experts" that were never educated in proper nutrition, prevention of disease, or alternative medicine because it's not patentable or profitable.
Pathetic.
Anyways I'm done here, have fun circle jerking each other over bullshit and not answering the OP properly. You have all these physical proof's but are unable to source any.
GG
Damn, you really showed us ::)
Don't forget to take some homeopathic medicine before you center your chakras or read the future!
Lol and don't forget to die of cancer because you place all your trust in "experts" that were never educated in proper nutrition, prevention of disease, or alternative medicine because it's not patentable or profitable.
Pathetic.
Mate if you had a treatable cancer would you rather put your faith in a doctor who will likely cure you orI did (still have) "a treatable cancer". Found 10 years ago and I am still here and look like having "normal life expectancy".
Much on apricot kernels and graviola because you read on the net they cure cancer
Option 1 near guarantees you a long life
Option 2 near guarantees you the cancer progresses to the point it kills youMy brother's cancer now has riddled his bones and looks like having 18 months if he's "lucky".
The only time I would go 'all in' for alternative medicine is if the doctors said "the cancer was untreatable, but spend the rest of your life savings on this drug that will not only destroy your quality of life but only extend it by a few months at best".I too believe that alternative treatments can help symptoms and the "Placebo effect" is genuine and effective at times.
Everything has their place, but shutting out doctors advice because you think there is a huge conspiracy in the medical industry is just stupid
Mate if you had a treatable cancer would you rather put your faith in a doctor who will likely cure you orEspecially considering the fructose in fruits will help the cancer progress.
Much on apricot kernels and graviola because you read on the net they cure cancer
Option 1 near guarantees you a long life
Option 2 near guarantees you the cancer progresses to the point it kills you
The only time I would go 'all in' for alternative medicine is if the doctors said "the cancer was untreatable, but spend the rest of your life savings on this drug that will not only destroy your quality of life but only extend it by a few months at best".
Everything has their place, but shutting out doctors advice because you think there is a huge conspiracy in the medical industry is just stupid
The theory behind apricot kernels is interesting. But you can just as sure have fun eating them because they contain cyanide. Which health nuts say is unique (vitamin b17) and is only released in the presence of cancer cells.
If you import the kernels they can and likely will be seized by customs (which feeds I to conspiracy theories). But you can buy whole apricots and extract the kerneld yourself. I've eaten 1, hardly enough to do any damage, except to your taste buds because it is so hideously bitter. Probably a good sign it's not something your body wants to eat!
To be fair, that is a simple cancer "cure".
You have a nice toxin which resembles sugar (or are a form of sugar).
The cancer, a rapidly growing cell, will be taking in lots of sugar and thus take in lots of these toxins which resemble sugar.
It then gets killed by this toxin.
The idea is to have more of the cancer killed than healthy cells.
Unfortunately, your brain also needs lots of sugar.
Thus a better option is to target rapidly dividing cells such as by using DNA intercalators which disrupt the DNA replication process (and thus can also cause cancer).
And thus it is better for a somewhat different path which is what most research is focused on now.
To be fair, that is a simple cancer "cure".
You have a nice toxin which resembles sugar (or are a form of sugar).
The cancer, a rapidly growing cell, will be taking in lots of sugar and thus take in lots of these toxins which resemble sugar.
It then gets killed by this toxin.
The idea is to have more of the cancer killed than healthy cells.
Unfortunately, your brain also needs lots of sugar.
Thus a better option is to target rapidly dividing cells such as by using DNA intercalators which disrupt the DNA replication process (and thus can also cause cancer).
And thus it is better for a somewhat different path which is what most research is focused on now.
The brain can function quite well on ketone fuel.
When I diet I usually do a ketogenic and severe calorie restriction. (arthritis in hip makes aerobics difficult - easier to just eat less). The calorie restriction is easy because no carbs = no appetite and your body burns it's existing fat for fuel rather than needing an continuous external supply.
The body has ways to convert protein to glucose so eating a diet that is devoid of carbs and sugars isn't normally a problem. I certainly survived more than a month where my carb intake was probably less than 10g a day and added sugars was 0. By the end I certainly didn't feel any different. (apart from awesome weight loss). Many people go much longer if not indefinitely this way (but carbs probably higher as you can't sustain a calorie deficit forever)
And then you run into the same problem, you have a bunch of glucose powering your brain which can also power the cancer.
The body has ways to convert protein to glucose so eating a diet that is devoid of carbs and sugars isn't normally a problem. I certainly survived more than a month where my carb intake was probably less than 10g a day and added sugars was 0. By the end I certainly didn't feel any different. (apart from awesome weight loss). Many people go much longer if not indefinitely this way (but carbs probably higher as you can't sustain a calorie deficit forever)
The process is called gluconeogenesis (new glucose production), and underlies the starvation state and ketotic diets. Preferential metabolism of broken down fats and proteins by most of the bodies cells allows rapid weight loss with the low carb diets you mention. Although the fat loss can be impressive, the protein breakdown can decondition muscles.
The body has ways to convert protein to glucose so eating a diet that is devoid of carbs and sugars isn't normally a problem. I certainly survived more than a month where my carb intake was probably less than 10g a day and added sugars was 0. By the end I certainly didn't feel any different. (apart from awesome weight loss). Many people go much longer if not indefinitely this way (but carbs probably higher as you can't sustain a calorie deficit forever)
The process is called gluconeogenesis (new glucose production), and underlies the starvation state and ketotic diets. Preferential metabolism of broken down fats and proteins by most of the bodies cells allows rapid weight loss with the low carb diets you mention. Although the fat loss can be impressive, the protein breakdown can decondition muscles.
It would take an extended period of time and inadequate protein in the diet to get to the point your body breaks down its muscles for energy. I doubt it would do this in the presence of an abundance of fat it could utilise and an adequate intake of protein a day.
Half wits that do a month long 'water fasts' would certainly be at risk of atrophy, as well as flushing out their bodies electrolytes which I cant see is helpful for muscles which depend on them