What has FE science given to the world?

Gravity is caused by a displacement in space by an object. The larger the object, the larger the displacement. If I recall, that was recorded officially a number of years ago, might have been more recent. If I have remembered details incorrectly, please correct me

In simple terms: the effect is similar to placing objects on a trampoline. Not bouncing them, just placing them. The more mass (not weight, that would be pretty circular), the more the trampoline is displaced. Imagine that same effect in a 3d space, and that is how gravity works.

This is pseudoscience of the worst variety. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that gravitation is caused by this bizarre function - it's just another unverified claim. Believing in this abstract "trampoline" model is as sensible as believing in Dianetics.

Besides, a trampoline is a clear disanalogy - the surface of a trampoline is (for the sake of argument) two dimensional, physical space is three dimensional - it's debatable whether the mechanics can translate from one to the other.

Anyway, show me evidence that this is how matter interacts with space.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:06:21 AM

Gravity is caused by a displacement in space by an object. The larger the object, the larger the displacement. If I recall, that was recorded officially a number of years ago, might have been more recent. If I have remembered details incorrectly, please correct me

In simple terms: the effect is similar to placing objects on a trampoline. Not bouncing them, just placing them. The more mass (not weight, that would be pretty circular), the more the trampoline is displaced. Imagine that same effect in a 3d space, and that is how gravity works.

This is pseudoscience of the worst variety. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that gravitation is caused by this bizarre function - it's just another unverified claim. Believing in this abstract "trampoline" model is as sensible as believing in Dianetics.

Besides, a trampoline is a clear disanalogy - the surface of a trampoline is (for the sake of argument) two dimensional, physical space is three dimensional - it's debatable whether the mechanics can translate from one to the other.

Anyway, show me evidence that this is how matter interacts with space.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html

The trampoline analogy is accurate in a 2d representation. If you can think of that in a 3d space, with the object affecting space around it in a similar way, that is the purpose of the analogy.

Quote

Compared to something as impossible as magic, yes. They make much more sense to me.

How do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make sense when the two theories are completely and absolutely contradictory?

For example; is Gravity a bending of space-time or is Gravity a Sub Atomic particle called a Graviton?

When Modern Science cannot even tell us what gravity is, if time exists, or even be certain of my velocity and position in the universe; it's safe to say that Modern Science is completely hypothetical and is simply waiting to be replaced.

How does FE and reality exist? The two are completely, absolutely and undeniably contradictory.
Yes, science is waiting to be replaced, by better theories, not bullshit.

Quote from: Dogplatter on November 18, 2007, 05:46:08 AM

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:06:21 AM

Gravity is caused by a displacement in space by an object. The larger the object, the larger the displacement. If I recall, that was recorded officially a number of years ago, might have been more recent. If I have remembered details incorrectly, please correct me

In simple terms: the effect is similar to placing objects on a trampoline. Not bouncing them, just placing them. The more mass (not weight, that would be pretty circular), the more the trampoline is displaced. Imagine that same effect in a 3d space, and that is how gravity works.

This is pseudoscience of the worst variety. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that gravitation is caused by this bizarre function - it's just another unverified claim. Believing in this abstract "trampoline" model is as sensible as believing in Dianetics.

Besides, a trampoline is a clear disanalogy - the surface of a trampoline is (for the sake of argument) two dimensional, physical space is three dimensional - it's debatable whether the mechanics can translate from one to the other.

Anyway, show me evidence that this is how matter interacts with space.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html

The trampoline analogy is accurate in a 2d representation. If you can think of that in a 3d space, with the object affecting space around it in a similar way, that is the purpose of the analogy.

No actually it isn't an accurate representation of non-euclidean space.  However, it is the most common and its probably good enough.   Also you don't seem to realize that a trampoline is a 3d representation not a 2d one.

Ok, in answer to the first question, read up on how Anaximander and Anaximenes pioneered the theory of evolution, 2000 years before Darwin. Anaximander posited that man could trace his ancestral roots to the sea, citing the common features of fish, reptiles and mammals and the existence of vestigal organs.

Anaximander also drew one of the first maps of the Flat Earth.

Quote

Compared to something as impossible as magic, yes. They make much more sense to me.

How do Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make sense when the two theories are completely and absolutely contradictory?

For example; is Gravity a bending of space-time or is Gravity a Sub Atomic particle called a Graviton?

When Modern Science cannot even tell us what gravity is, if time exists, or even be certain of my velocity and position in the universe; it's safe to say that Modern Science is completely hypothetical and is simply waiting to be replaced.

Modern science makes to pretence as to knowing what exactly mediates in gravitation.   Using the logic "Sciences doesn't know causes gravitation, therefore ALL MODERN *SCIENCE* IS WORTHLESS" is naive and infantile.

Science is self-correcting and will therefore be replaced by....More modern science!

I think the "hypothetical" science you are aluding to is "theoretical physics".

Is this the same theoretical physics which came up with Dark Matter and Dark Energy I wonder?  Mmmm.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:06:21 AM

Gravity is caused by a displacement in space by an object. The larger the object, the larger the displacement. If I recall, that was recorded officially a number of years ago, might have been more recent. If I have remembered details incorrectly, please correct me

In simple terms: the effect is similar to placing objects on a trampoline. Not bouncing them, just placing them. The more mass (not weight, that would be pretty circular), the more the trampoline is displaced. Imagine that same effect in a 3d space, and that is how gravity works.

This is pseudoscience of the worst variety. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that gravitation is caused by this bizarre function - it's just another unverified claim. Believing in this abstract "trampoline" model is as sensible as believing in Dianetics.

Besides, a trampoline is a clear disanalogy - the surface of a trampoline is (for the sake of argument) two dimensional, physical space is three dimensional - it's debatable whether the mechanics can translate from one to the other.

Anyway, show me evidence that this is how matter interacts with space.

Sadly the only "pseudoscience" comes from FE'ers.  The sun is theorised to bend the light of background stars, and this effect was measured by Arthur Eddington, decades later; Light has no mass, therefore space-time must be bend. 

Quote

Science depends on finding the simplest and most logical explanation for anything. If God or Flat Earth made sense in ANY situation, they perhaps they could be included in real science.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has created and developed the multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis and wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

copy/paste.

Rocket science is actually quite simple. I learned how to make a rocket in high school.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:39:01 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on November 18, 2007, 05:46:08 AM

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:06:21 AM

Gravity is caused by a displacement in space by an object. The larger the object, the larger the displacement. If I recall, that was recorded officially a number of years ago, might have been more recent. If I have remembered details incorrectly, please correct me

In simple terms: the effect is similar to placing objects on a trampoline. Not bouncing them, just placing them. The more mass (not weight, that would be pretty circular), the more the trampoline is displaced. Imagine that same effect in a 3d space, and that is how gravity works.

This is pseudoscience of the worst variety. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that gravitation is caused by this bizarre function - it's just another unverified claim. Believing in this abstract "trampoline" model is as sensible as believing in Dianetics.

Besides, a trampoline is a clear disanalogy - the surface of a trampoline is (for the sake of argument) two dimensional, physical space is three dimensional - it's debatable whether the mechanics can translate from one to the other.

Anyway, show me evidence that this is how matter interacts with space.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html

The trampoline analogy is accurate in a 2d representation. If you can think of that in a 3d space, with the object affecting space around it in a similar way, that is the purpose of the analogy.

No actually it isn't an accurate representation of non-euclidean space.  However, it is the most common and its probably good enough.   Also you don't seem to realize that a trampoline is a 3d representation not a 2d one.

It's the best I could do in simple terms. I know it's really not too great, especially as it is a 3d representation that has to then be imagined in a completely different way, but the distortion of the trampoline using earth's gravity and objects of different mass does sort of give someone a basic idea. More mass, more distortion of space.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/grwarp.gif
That's pretty much what I meant with the trampoline, if it was a bit confusing for anyone. The more mass, the more it distorts the space around it. Weight has no meaning in this equation, which is why the high mass star has more distortion than the low mass star.

It would be much trickier to try and explain how time passes slower for an object in motion... Unless you just said 'watch The Matrix. He's moving fast, but time is passing slowly for him!!'. But that would be horrible.

Rocket science is actually quite simple. I learned how to make a rocket in high school.

Rocket science doesn't equate to sending things into space. Sending a rocket into the sky is fairly rudimentary science.

Quote

Science depends on finding the simplest and most logical explanation for anything. If God or Flat Earth made sense in ANY situation, they perhaps they could be included in real science.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has created and developed the multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis and wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

Firstly, its multi-million.

Secondly, everything you said 'that man has....robotic rovers to mars' is a simple explanation. Saying 'its a conspiracy' isn't. Why? Because a conspiracy is a bunch of simple things made complicated. Think of a conspiracy as a ball of string. At first glance the ball of string is, non other than, a ball of string. But after unwinding it you'll soon realize that string is LONG. What I am trying to say is, a conspiracy is anything but simple.