NewTheory

Dr. Bakerfield and CrimsonKing

I see we are fighting for the same thing,

good to have at least a few reasonable people around.

As I said in another post before, this whole FE theory seems constructed and designed to avoid proof. The conspiracy theory alone cannot be proven either false or true.
And in order to explain the FE model, so many theories that even the most intelligent brains of our generation only dare theorizing about have to actually add to the FE system to create all the effects we observe every day. The RE model can be explained way easier.

I don't know how else to put it, I always think/hope that any human brain could understand that...it can't be that hard...or am I too optimistic?

I don't know how else to put it, I always think/hope that any human brain could understand that...it can't be that hard...or am I too optimistic?

It's just that you don't make sense.

And in order to explain the FE model, so many theories that even the most intelligent brains of our generation only dare theorizing about have to actually add to the FE system to create all the effects we observe every day.

So are you saying that all theoretical physicists are FE'ers, since what they study only applies to the FE?

The RE model can be explained way easier.

Like without dark energy?  What is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe then?
Or without finding the graviton?  What exactly then causes gravity?
The RE is an incomplete theory without these things just like the FE is (with the exception of the graviton).

What do you always want with that dark enery and dark matter thing, what does that have to do with what I've said?
I still don't get how anyone can believe there is no such thing as gravity. The existance of gravity has been proven...scientifically. I myself tried an experiment to see if it works, it's not my experiment but I tried it. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

it's quite simple actually, you bring two masses close to each other and measure the force they are attracting each other with. Wikipedia uses metal balls i think, but it works with other material as well, there are no magnetic or electrostatic fields. You could connect the two balls to prevent any influence of electrostatic forces. It's easy. You put the masses together....the effect occurs, you take one away and the effect disappears.

Now tell me why you still think that gravity is something made up.

Scinetific proof of flat earthism

That right there is an oxymoron, my friend.

Let's not ignore the fact that the "earth is an accellerating plate" notion is smashed in the thread on the top of this forum.

What do you always want with that dark enery and dark matter thing, what does that have to do with what I've said?

Did you read my post?  It has to do with the fact that your post made no sense.

Now tell me why you still think that gravity is something made up.

I never said it was.  

However, I asked you to explain what gravity is not how it causes matter to interact.

You are trying to make him explain what gravity is, thats kind of funny.

which way would you propose he do that?

Gravitons?
String Theory?
God theory?

You are trying to make him explain what gravity is, thats kind of funny.

which way would you propose he do that?

That's exactly my point!  He stated that the RE can be expalined much easier and without all the theoretical physics.  So I asked him to explain what gravity is, using the simple RE.

Well it is the attractions between masses

From my original question:

What exactly then causes gravity?

I didn't ask what effects gravity has on objects, I asked what causes gravity.

I realize what you are asking, you just also asked a question that I can actually answer, so I went for it

Engineer,

sorry that I missed your question. But what causes gravity I can't tell you, nobody can because nobody has found out...YET!
But my post nethertheless shows that gravity occurs between masses. And it proves that gravity exists which was my intention to do.

And I said the RE can be explained much easier....but I did not say, that its possible to explain it without ALL theoretical physics.

And I said the RE can be explained much easier...

I would say that the FE version of 'gravity' is a much easier explanation of the force than the RE's gravity.  The RE relies on the interaction of extremely small messenger particles that can't be detected and most likely won't be for decades.  The FE's force is a simple interaction of Newton's three laws.

What do you always want with that dark enery and dark matter thing

Seeing as how the dark energy is required for the RE as well as the FE, that's why I bring it up.

Isn't gravity caused by mass and speed? Kind of like if you draw your hand in water, there will be currents following your hand. Gravitation.

Isn't gravity caused by mass and speed? Kind of like if you draw your hand in water, there will be currents following your hand. Gravitation.

No.

Update

"In general relativity, gravitation arises out of spacetime being curved by the presence of mass, and is not a force."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

"In general relativity, gravitation arises out of spacetime being curved by the presence of mass, and is not a force."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Had you read the entire article:

Gravity versus gravitation

It is important to note, in some contexts, that gravitation is not gravity, per se. Gravitation is a phenomenon independent of any particular cause. Some theorize that it is possible for gravitation to exist without a force; according to general relativity, that is indeed the case. In common usage "gravity" and "gravitation" are either used interchangeably, or the distinction is sometimes made that "gravity" is specifically the attractive force of the earth, while "gravitation" is the general property of mutual attraction between bodies of matter. In technical usage, "gravitation" is the tendency of bodies to accelerate towards one another, and "gravity" is the force that some theories use to explain this acceleration.

Gravity was rather poorly understood until Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation in the 17th century. Newton's theory is still widely used for many practical purposes, though for more advanced work it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity. While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of gravitation remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research.

Emphasis added by me.

The ultimate sources for anything are always open questions. I can't see the relevance of your question.

That's exactly my point!  He stated that the RE can be expalined much easier and without all the theoretical physics.  So I asked him to explain what gravity is, using the simple RE.

It's right there, on page 3.

The ultimate sources for anything are always open questions. I can't see the relevance of your question.

It wouldn't have been put in that article if it was for this reason.