Gravitons... a discussion.

  • 131 Replies
  • 44395 Views
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2007, 03:41:35 PM »
For one, what of the Pioneer anomaly?

To see other reasons why general relativity isn't "proven" look up Quintessence, dark matter, and "magical faeries that move stuff around simply to justify GR".

Also, there seems to be alot of study in alternatives to GR ( rel. MOND, etc) due to its "issues".

Course I guess we can ignore that, and call it "proven."
Can I look up gravitational lensing?   Can I look up the other relativity, Special Relativity? 
No, but you can look up irrelevant.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2007, 04:05:14 PM »
For one, what of the Pioneer anomaly?

To see other reasons why general relativity isn't "proven" look up Quintessence, dark matter, and "magical faeries that move stuff around simply to justify GR".

Also, there seems to be alot of study in alternatives to GR ( rel. MOND, etc) due to its "issues".

Course I guess we can ignore that, and call it "proven."
For one, what about it?

For two, you may need a refresher in how science works. GR has proven its worth. It's one of the most successfully tested theories ever. Yes, science still faces challenges, but I hope that you realize that we'll always have more to explain. I also hope that you'll realize that just because we can't explain sometime now, doesn't mean that GR is wrong. I suspect that you're confusing incomplete with wrong.
I think you are confusing "incomplete" with "proven".

Edit: speaking of refreshers on how science works, things can be proven wrong - not right.
Nope.

On your edit: That's wrong, but you're welcome to try a third time.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2007, 04:10:47 PM »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65196
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2007, 01:20:45 AM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2007, 12:15:52 PM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

    Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2007, 12:20:56 PM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

    Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

I almost made it through that, I stopped at, "giant penis."

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2007, 12:28:02 PM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

    Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.
Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2007, 12:32:39 PM »
Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2007, 12:34:26 PM »
Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

Domains don't give credibility. edu vs com vs org is just a different checkbox when purchasing a domain.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2007, 12:34:41 PM »
Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."
I meant the root.  still my other statement stands.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2007, 12:40:31 PM by Username »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2007, 12:35:35 PM »
Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

Domains don't give credibility. edu vs com vs org is just a different checkbox when purchasing a domain.
I was under the impression you could not buy an edu without meeting certain measures?

Edit; yes, the must be accredited.  However, I was unaware of the practice of Non-US schools to not use .edu
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2007, 12:46:09 PM »
Edit; yes, the must be accredited.  However, I was unaware of the practice of Non-US schools to not use .edu

Yea, there aren't very many non-US sites that are permitted with .edu. Most just use their own country code with .edu if at all.

All Canadian universities as far as I know simply use .ca, for instance, www.yorku.ca
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2007, 12:58:04 PM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

    Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.
Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?
I don't hide from quotes that don't fully support me. I thought his work was well explained and balanced. I even sometimes post quotes that don't support my position. It's about respect. It's called fairness. I suppose that you don't understand the concept.

Of course, that wasn't my only point. But your reading comprehension is already suspect. Just like your reasoning is suspect, you ridiculously impugn a Canadian University choosing a ".ca" HLQ. You are sad.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2007, 01:06:27 PM »
I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

    Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.
Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?
I don't hide from quotes that don't fully support me. I thought his work was well explained and balanced. I even sometimes post quotes that don't support my position. It's about respect. It's called fairness. I suppose that you don't understand the concept.

Of course, that wasn't my only point. But your reading comprehension is already suspect. Just like your reasoning is suspect, you ridiculously impugn a Canadian University choosing a ".ca" HLQ. You are sad.

I'll believe that when I see it.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2007, 02:01:13 PM »
Strange, there are problems in it yet Relativity has been proven
Show me.
Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Gulliver, remember when you claimed wikipedia proves the Theory of Relativity? Yeah, that was awsome.

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2007, 04:39:34 PM »
Strange, there are problems in it yet Relativity has been proven
Show me.
Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Gulliver, remember when you claimed wikipedia proves the Theory of Relativity? Yeah, that was awsome.
Wikipedia is indeed awesome, but I think you really need a dictionary. Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2007, 04:41:22 PM »
If I claim to have levitated and mindwash you, the only witness that I have levitated, who can say that I can't levitate?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2007, 05:05:09 PM »
Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

Gulliver displaying glimpses of TE right here. Although, it is a factual statement.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2007, 05:12:22 PM »
Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

Gulliver displaying glimpses of TE right here. Although, it is a factual statement.
Okay, I challenge you to show dingleberry's claim is correct, or perhaps you're just that pathetic little child we've all come to know you as.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2007, 05:14:23 PM »
Um, your statement is to which I was referring as factual, not narc's.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65196
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2007, 04:23:56 AM »
If I claim to have levitated and mindwash you, the only witness that I have levitated, who can say that I can't levitate?

eh?
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM »
Once you think about it, the graviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2007, 05:07:52 PM by The Kommunist »
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2007, 02:05:51 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?
Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2007, 05:09:49 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

The potential energy (gravitons) is converted to friction and kinetic energy.  But since you are accerlarting to the earth, your mass slightly increases thus producing albeit negligible gravitons.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2007, 05:12:36 PM by The Kommunist »
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2007, 05:15:24 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?
Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.
No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments :P

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2007, 05:22:10 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?
Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.
No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments :P

If we prove the effects, does that constitute proof of existance?
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2007, 06:11:51 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?
Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.
No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments :P
Wrong, FE does believe in gravity. Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons. Wrong, I don't have to prove anything that dingleberry claims. Three strikes, you're outta here.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2007, 06:20:27 PM »
Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?
Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.
No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments :P
Wrong, FE does believe in gravity. Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons. Wrong, I don't have to prove anything that dingleberry claims. Three strikes, you're outta here.

And WE'RE the guys that cannot read?

Re: Gravitons... a discussion.
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2007, 07:08:18 PM »
Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons.
Since when? Forces without elementary particles? What happen with the wave-particle duality? de Broglie is turning in the grave  ::)