Occam's Razor

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

Occam's Razor would also avoid any nonsense about conspiracy.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 04, 2007, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

{Sigh} Not the gravity argument again.  Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.  I think you are denying this apparent attraction. 

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.  He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Your amusement only shows up your ignorance.  In some ways I suppose it is better to be ignorant.  At least you appear to be happy!

Quote from: Roundylicious on November 04, 2007, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 04, 2007, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

{Sigh} Not the gravity argument again.  Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") attractive force between two masses.  I think you are denying this apparent attraction. 

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.  He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations that Newton.

Your amusement only shows up your ignorance.  In some ways I suppose it is better to be ignorant.  At least you appear to be happy!

Someone who believes that the earth is flat is calling someone ignorant!  That is the 2nd most ironic thing I have ever seen.  1st being the guy who played superman being paralyzed.

Someone who believes that the earth is flat is calling someone ignorant!  That is the 2nd most ironic thing I have ever seen.  1st being the guy who played superman being paralyzed.

No!...no!.  I do not believe the earth is flat!  Please refer to earlier in the thread.

yes, but RE is the majority, not FE!

Fallacy.

Someone who believes that the earth is flat is calling someone ignorant!

Apparently so are you.

Quote from: Roundylicious on November 04, 2007, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 04, 2007, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

{Sigh} Not the gravity argument again.  Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.  I think you are denying this apparent attraction. 

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.  He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Your amusement only shows up your ignorance.  In some ways I suppose it is better to be ignorant.  At least you appear to be happy!

LOL, gravity doesn't exist. Newton got pwned, and so did you.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 01:47:38 AM

Quote from: Roundylicious on November 04, 2007, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 04, 2007, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

{Sigh} Not the gravity argument again.  Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.  I think you are denying this apparent attraction. 

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.  He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Your amusement only shows up your ignorance.  In some ways I suppose it is better to be ignorant.  At least you appear to be happy!

LOL, gravity doesn't exist. Newton got pwned, and so did you.

No I didn't.  Gravity does exist.  What planet are you on?  Obviously one with no gravity.  Remember, gravity describes the apparent attraction between two masses, not what lies behind that apparent attraction.  How many more times!!!!

I cannot get you Americans.  You are either a "winner" or a "looser".  Newton must be a complete looser because Einstein's equations explain more about the universe, even though Newton got you to the moon and back!!  What a looser Newton was!

Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.   

Right.

I think you are denying this apparent attraction.

No, I'm denying that it is a force.

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.

Yes, he did.

He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Right, he explained that gravity as a force did not exist.

Quote from: Agent Z on November 05, 2007, 06:17:39 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 01:47:38 AM

Quote from: Roundylicious on November 04, 2007, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 04, 2007, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 04, 2007, 11:36:50 AM

If you are denying the existence of gravity (which I think you are) then there is a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Einstein won it already...

ROFL

{Sigh} Not the gravity argument again.  Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.  I think you are denying this apparent attraction. 

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.  He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Your amusement only shows up your ignorance.  In some ways I suppose it is better to be ignorant.  At least you appear to be happy!

LOL, gravity doesn't exist. Newton got pwned, and so did you.

No I didn't.  Gravity does exist.  What planet are you on?  Obviously one with no gravity.  Remember, gravity describes the apparent attraction between two masses, not what lies behind that apparent attraction.  How many more times!!!!

I cannot get you Americans.  You are either a "winner" or a "looser".  Newton must be a complete looser because Einstein's equations explain more about the universe, even though Newton got you to the moon and back!!  What a looser Newton was!

I'm not American, you lose again.

that reminds me: in a book by Scott Adams (the guy who draws Dilbert) he told about an even weirder explanation for gravity:

everything in the universe is constantly getting BIGGER, producing a "false" attraction!

it's really silly, but actually less silly than "universal accelleration".

which has 2 contradictions in the NAME, buy the way:

1) the word "universal" implies it affects EVERYTHING, yet FErs claim it works TOTALLY differently on the sun and moon, at the same time it keeps us on the ground!
2) the word "accelleration" implies the earth is not only MOVING, it must be SPEEDING UP!
so if the earth was accellerating at, say, 1G, how long would it take to acheive 50% of the speed of light? can someone tell me how to calculate that?

a book i read about how relativity would affect space travel talked about the "redshift/blueshift" phenemenon, similar to the doppler effect.
to paraphrase: if the earth was really moving "down" at a substantial % of light speed, the North Star would appear more reddish than other stars: and if it was over 50%, the North Star would ONLY be visible on INFRARED cameras!

but it IS visible to the "mark 1 eyeball", so...

everything in the universe is constantly getting BIGGER, producing a "false" attraction!
it's really silly, but actually less silly than "universal accelleration".

If everything was getting bigger, then relative to us, nothing would change.

1) the word "universal" implies it affects EVERYTHING, yet FErs claim it works TOTALLY differently on the sun and moon, at the same time it keeps us on the ground!

Dark Energy (the preferred term) acts on the sun and the moon the same way.  It does not keep us on the ground, it's the earth's movement that does that.

2) the word "accelleration" implies the earth is not only MOVING, it must be SPEEDING UP!
so if the earth was accellerating at, say, 1G, how long would it take to acheive 50% of the speed of light?

It would take just about a year to achieve .5c. 

a book i read about how relativity would affect space travel talked about the "redshift/blueshift" phenemenon, similar to the doppler effect.
but it IS visible to the "mark 1 eyeball", so...

...that must mean it is accelerating also.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 01:47:38 AM

Look, gravity is the apparent (i.e. "phenomenon of" / "observed") measurable force between two masses.   

Right.

Quote

I think you are denying this apparent attraction.

No, I'm denying that it is a force.

Quote

Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force.

Yes, he did.

Quote

He merely explained the phenomenon in a completely different context, which explained and predicted more observations than Newton.

Right, he explained that gravity as a force did not exist.

No, Einstein did not disproved that two masses appear to exert an attractive force (Note the bold text).

Secondly, yes you didn't deny this apparent attraction.  I was originally arguing with Roundylicious, who believes everything is down to dark energy:

Gravity

RE explanation: Gravity is a force with a completely unknown mechanism that somehow pulls two objects with mass together.  This is achieved both with relativity which bends space-time, and somehow also with a subatomic particle called the graviton, a theoretical "virtual" particle that mediates the force of gravity.  Why such a particle would be necessary is unknown if mass bends space-time, but quantum mechanics predicts that it exists.

FE explanation: The earth and the universe are propelled upwards by dark energy.

Which is simpler?

Einstein's theory of general relativity unified special relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation.

Gravity as a force does definitely exist. It is one of the four fundamental forces in modern physics. You are just misusing the word in the context of Einstein.

Einstein's theory of general relativity unified special relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation.

No, General Relativity incorporated accelerating frames of reference into Special Relativity.  Newton's Theory of Gravitation was dismantled by GR.

Gravity as a force does definitely exist.

It is only a force in Newtonian mechanics.  Those of us living in modern times know it is not a force, as explained by General Relativity.

you missed my point about "UA" affecting the sun and moon differently: FErs claim the sun, moon, and their "shadow object" move in a big circle around the north pole.
what keeps them from simply shooting straight off the edge?

the earth's MOVEMENT? i just said the earth would be accelerating DOWN, not UP!

i forgot: who was it that first dropped heavy and light objects at the same time and saw them hit the ground at the same time?

and now you claim that "dark energy" is making the ENTIRE UNIVERSE accelerate "down"? and you think THAT'S more plausible than einstein and newton?

I'm not American, you lose again.

Absolute BS!  LOL

Quote from: Agent Z on November 05, 2007, 07:39:50 AM

I'm not American, you lose again.

Absolute BS!  LOL

LOL. what makes you think I'm an American. I'm offended by your assumption.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 08:13:36 AM

Einstein's theory of general relativity unified special relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation.

No, General Relativity incorporated accelerating frames of reference into Special Relativity.  Newton's Theory of Gravitation was dismantled by GR.

Quote

Gravity as a force does definitely exist.

It is only a force in Newtonian mechanics.  Those of us living in modern times know it is not a force, as explained by General Relativity.

By "unify" we mean the General Relativity model includes all the predictions of Newtonian Gravitation, plus those of Special Relativity, plus a few more.  Newton gave us equations that describe the behaviour of masses perfectly if you exclude the extreme conditions of space-time.  Remember, "Unify" is different from "disprove" or "discredit".  See the following link for a description of GR as a unifying theory:

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

On the second point, again you are sadly misusing "gravity".  Gravity is an observed force.  See the following for a description of "g":

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 08:21:50 AM

Quote from: Agent Z on November 05, 2007, 07:39:50 AM

I'm not American, you lose again.

Absolute BS!  LOL

LOL. what makes you think I'm an American. I'm offended by your assumption.

Nothing apart from your posting times.  It's just a wild guess!

[By "unify" we mean the General Relativity model includes all the predictions of Newtonian Gravitation, plus those of Special Relativity, plus a few more.  Newton gave us equations that describe the behaviour of masses perfectly if you exclude the extreme conditions of space-time.  Remember, "Unify" is different from "disprove" or "discredit".  See the following link for a description of GR as a unifying theory:

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

On the second point, again you are sadly misusing "gravity".  Gravity is an observed force.  See the following for a description of "g":

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

Oh my god I'm turning into Tom Bishop! 

My posting times?

The board has a set time on it. The time it's running on is not anywhere near the time I'm looking at on my screen.


see?

My posting times?
see?

Mmmm.  Proof, if ever there was proof.

well, I could have changed the clock, took a screenshot, and then posted it up here, but it would be a waste of my time, and far too much effort. My local time is now 17:13, you still think I'm American?

well, I could have changed the clock, took a screenshot, and then posted it up here, but it would be a waste of my time, and far too much effort. My local time is now 17:13, you still think I'm American?

Now who's been pwned, big boy?

Quote from: Agent Z on November 05, 2007, 09:14:18 AM

well, I could have changed the clock, took a screenshot, and then posted it up here, but it would be a waste of my time, and far too much effort. My local time is now 17:13, you still think I'm American?

Now who's been pwned, big boy?

And don't go replying "I'm actually a girl, how dare you!".

I'm not a girl. And I'm still not American. In fact I only went there for the first time in my life in June this year. I laugh at you for thinking that I am. Consider how patriotic Americans can be: why would I deny being an American if I was an American?

you missed my point about "UA" affecting the sun and moon differently: FErs claim the sun, moon, and their "shadow object" move in a big circle around the north pole.

The DE is accelerating them too.  That's how it acts on them in the same fashion.

the earth's MOVEMENT? i just said the earth would be accelerating DOWN, not UP!

Why would it be accelerating down? 

i forgot: who was it that first dropped heavy and light objects at the same time and saw them hit the ground at the same time?

What is your point?  It would happen the same way on the FE.

and now you claim that "dark energy" is making the ENTIRE UNIVERSE accelerate "down"? and you think THAT'S more plausible than einstein and newton?

No, I'm claiming it is accelerating everything IN the universe up.

whoops! you got me, i misread the UA101 thread. so the earth is actually accelerating UP at 1G? in which case the North star should be Blue-shifted into ultra-violet.

you still haven't explained why the moon and sun don't fall off the edge.

By "unify" we mean the General Relativity model includes all the predictions of Newtonian Gravitation

If, by 'includes' you mean 'does not agree with' then I agree with you.  General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation are mutually exclusive.

On the second point, again you are sadly misusing "gravity".

Gravity: A pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.
That sure seems to be the way I am using it.

Gravity is an observed force. 

There is an experiment that observes gravity?  Please tell us about it.

See the following for a description of "g":

g:  The local acceleration due to gravitation. 
How is that going to help?