A question for the REers.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 16, 2008, 05:47:23 PM

Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 16, 2008, 05:50:02 PM

The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.

I love the FE arguments " you do not know the mechanism to explain the results of your experiments, so therefore our untested explanations are more correct"

We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.

We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.

we have experiments based upon theories you have a story

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 06:09:26 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 16, 2008, 05:47:23 PM

Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 16, 2008, 05:50:02 PM

The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.

I love the FE arguments " you do not know the mechanism to explain the results of your experiments, so therefore our untested explanations are more correct"

Please reread what you quoted.I explicitly said we can only submit to the mathematical equations of General Relativity. From where did you extract that "our explanations are more correct?". This forum, RE'ers and FE'ers alike, acknowledge GR which, for the record, is not untested.

We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments.

The experiments are certainly not baseless. I can point you to one that you can conduct in your own living room: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22247.0.

Theories are better.

Are you questioning the validness of developing theories based on experiments?

It requires me to have a somewhat powerful computer, a considerable talent in coding, and enough money to buy a highly expensive software that, in the end, will produce numbers that will mean nothing to me. If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?

Fair enough.

If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?

I can do that: http://www.kaspermarstal.com/scm.pdf. This document explains the physics of everything incorporated in the model: albedo and albedo feedback, heat transport, radiation flux gradient and global warming feedback. It explains the idea and framework of the code and it presents results from toying around with the model.

It requires me to have a somewhat powerful computer, a considerable talent in coding, and enough money to buy a highly expensive software that, in the end, will produce numbers that will mean nothing to me. If it's so easy, why don't you carry it out and post your results?

Sure it means something to you... Its a tool. NAM (ETA), GFS, RUC... here are some weather models google them. Every single one of these models has had MILLIONS of dollars invested in to them. Guess what they are pretty good, not perfect. Most of them can do a pretty good job forecasting out 12 hours, but once you get past the 72 hour point your screwed unless its high pressure.

Your model deals with way more things than just weather so I would find it very hard to believe that it's perfect. Weather models take years to go operational and when they do they are still considered test models until they iron out any major problems. oh I forgot to mention that it takes about 6 hours for super computers to run the 3+ day forecast... it would take your Mac years to run a 3+ day forecast... even just a 1 day forecast.

My point here is that all the data needed to compute your model is crazy and its impossible that you have it all there. You have a few selected things that you chose to put there (or whoever created the model) that support your ideas, anything that doesn't support gets left out. If someone points out a missing item your quick to disprove it with a stupid fact that isn't a fact.

Also does your model support the smaller details like in the 2 posts i made? NOPE... and my details are facts not theorys.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/gravity/

this was an interesting documentary that you might find somewhere on the interweb to watch

It looks good, but I can't find it on any sites. If it involved one of the biggest discoveries in the history of physics, I probably would have heard about it though.

It didn't involve any discoveries. He merely tries to ascertain what causes gravity. Hope you can find it somewhere, fe or re it was very good.

P.S Not that i condone such behaviour but if you had a friend of a friend that was naughty they might go to mininova and find it. I do not condone the naughtiness.

Torrents?! You're a monster.

Don't be tedious.

It's a name for the experienced manifestation of gravitation on Earth.
You are playing with semantics

Spectacular re-rail. And it wasn't me who got into semantics, I still just want an explanation of magic gravity.

Well you won't find it. Become a scientist and find out yourself, it'll probably give you the Nobel price of physics.

The thing is we can't describe it (yet) but we can point towards several factors that shows that this kind of force would explain mainly everything we can see happening around us, the earths orbit around the sun, the moons orbit around the earth, and, mainly us sticking to the ground.

Yet you're the only REer that says this. In all honesty, I already knew that, and this was an experiment of sorts into REers on this site. The fact that it took six pages before someone was big enough to admit that they didn't know doesn't say much for RE on the whole.

We have very good theories which explain gravity, and the initial assumption you call "magic", which, as everything else, started as a hypothesis, has later been backed up by enormous amounts of facts. Maybe not as much as evolution or RE in general, but still, a lot. Every single stellar object in the solar system which we have observed, have we also predicted where it is going to go, and where it is coming from, using Newton's law of universal gravitation, and general relativity. We have also done this for most other stellar objects, and those predictions and calculations also fit perfectly with the observations. This is why we can predict solar and lunar eclipses, why we can predict where all the planets is going to be on the night sky, why we can predict the paths of comets and asteroids, and so on. And what are you going to say if CERN detects the "gravity particle", which is the elementary particle predicted by the standard model, which transfers gravity? Are you going to refuse that too?

I would also like to add this: YES!, there has been many assumptions in science, but this is how science works. You observe something, create a hypothesis, and test this hypothesis. Then you work on it, to make it fit better, and so on. If it has, for a substantial period, stood up, and "beaten" (in lack of a better word) every attempt to falsify it, you have a theory. The difference between all the hypotheses which FEH rests on, and this one which the RET partly relies on, is that the theory(ies) of gravity, has been confirmed by observations, and stood up against every attempt to falsify it, which cannot be said for the FE hypotheses.

If you still don't accept it, or believe me, read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


Satisfied?

Yet you're the only REer that says this. In all honesty, I already knew that, and this was an experiment of sorts into REers on this site. The fact that it took six pages before someone was big enough to admit that they didn't know doesn't say much for RE on the whole.

I think you missed my acknowledgment a few pages back GeneralD.

Fifth page, not even an attempt to actually answer the question.

Sixth page and not even an attempt to understand the scientific method. If I want, I can create an explanation of gravity just as you have created explanations of dark energy, universal accelerators, light bending and much more. But check the definition of the scientific method, something so basic that my 8 year old son is already learning at school. Science is not about explanations, it is about predictions.

Let's say there is a fourth spatial dimension, one that makes all matter on the Universe millions of times closer than what we think. Gravitons travel through this dimension, but all the other energy travels only through the usual three spatial dimensions. The Sun is really a few meters away from Earth, so gravitational pull is not harder to explain than electromagnetic forces. And every experiment that shows corroborating evidence is being suppressed by a governmental conspiracy. Prove me wrong.

We have theories and you have baseless, random experiments. Theories are better.

As I said, you do not have even a hint of what the scientific method is. What you call "theories" is not even what science considers a tentative hypothesis.

If you declare yourself independent of or anti science, I will stop the hassle and let you use whatever word you want for whatever you can pull out of your brain.

A theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up. We have both, so  to you.

A theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up. We have both, so  to you.

And the source for your definition is... your own head?

Just to mention one place, here you can see what the scientific method is.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Lets say your definition holds some water. Then I can make my own theory: there is no gravity, and what we see as gravity is electromagnetism. I have my experiment: I drop my cup of coffee and it crashes into the floor. Evidently the cup has a positive charge and the floor has a negative charge. And I see how opposite charges attract and how things fall, and they look the same. Therefore I have an idea, evidence and experiments to back it up, so back to you!

See how, when you eliminate the requirements of the scientific method, especially the requirement for predictions, the whole scientific process unravels?

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."  Only I added evidence, I made it harder for myself. As for your crackpot theory, it would only take a mildly powerful magnet to prove it wrong, so your analogy isn't actually an analogy at all, just another brick in an ever growing tower of RE fail. And even ignoring that, seeing it happen and seeing something like it isn't what I was referring to.

I'm sorry I just caught the end of that there - how does a strong magnet disprove RET??

Someone said that they could just make up a theory about (thing wot keeps us on the ground) based around magnetism, based on the theory that shit falls, and said shit might have an electrical charge, so they're right. I said no, you would only need a powerful magnet, though I meant to say electromagnet, and you could make everything float in your theory and then they left. It was a hypothetical theory, beginning with an analogy and ending with its failure.

Someone said that they could just make up a theory about (thing wot keeps us on the ground) based around magnetism, based on the theory that shit falls, and said shit might have an electrical charge, so they're right. I said no, you would only need a powerful magnet, though I meant to say electromagnet, and you could make everything float in your theory and then they left. It was a hypothetical theory, beginning with an analogy and ending with its failure.

Ya he was wrong but that doesn't make you right. You still haven't proven what the magic that pushes earth forward is, and you haven't proven gravity wrong (I am not saying that guy was even close to beiong right).

Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.

Ahh ok, with you now on the crazy magnets thing.

As for expanding from the centre of the Universe... do you subscribe to the Big Bang model of cosmology? If so, you are aware that there is no centre of the Universe, by definition, right? (Or equivalently, that everywhere is the centre)

By centre I meant the point from which the Universe began to expand.

That's my point - if the Universe began as a point and then expanded, then everywhere is at the centre of expansion.  That is why galaxies appear to be receding in all directions you observe, at least in the RE model.