Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

General Relativity gives a simplified explanation of gravitation at the macroscopic level, from the motions of celestial bodies to the bending of light by intervening galaxies through the geometry of space-time. Though I agree that we still need more explanations on how gravitation works at the level where dark matter and galaxies come into play, I maintain that when we talk about macroscopic gravitation (large distances, large mass, large-scale phenomena), we use General Relativity.  However, General Relativity fails to explain gravitation at the microscopic level because its equations would approach zero (small distances, small mass), which seems to be vaguely explained by Quantum Mechanics using the graviton. That's why there needs to be a theory of Quantum Gravity.

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 04:22:12 PM

We've started on that, they are still using the filler of dark matter to explain why galaxies work the way they do. All evidence points to a lack of understanding of gravity on a macro level. (I'm talking galaxy sized macro, not solar system) I looked for the article on it yet when you type in the terms "flaw gravity and macro" up pops creationist websites refuting evolution.

The fact about dark matter is that the laws of gravitation (attraction between masses) still apply. Masses can still be observed in orbit. The difficulty comes in being unable to observe the matter itself. Its certainly a lot more consistent with the ideas on this site...

The fact that it relies on large amounts of unobserved unverified mass is a huge hole right now. We either need to find dark matter or find out how our theories are wrong.

The fact that it relies on large amounts of unobserved unverified mass is a huge hole right now. We either need to find dark matter or find out how our theories are wrong.

Your claim that dark matter points to a flaw in the theory of gravity shows a deep misunderstanding. The laws of gravity (as in attraction between matter) still apply, the only confusion is why we can't see the so called "dark" matter.

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2009, 05:00:51 PM

The fact that it relies on large amounts of unobserved unverified mass is a huge hole right now. We either need to find dark matter or find out how our theories are wrong.

Your claim that dark matter points to a flaw in the theory of gravity shows a deep misunderstanding. The laws of gravity (as in attraction between matter) still apply, the only confusion is why we can't see the so called "dark" matter.

We have never observed it. It was put in purely because it was the only solution withing the current understanding we had of gravity. I'm not saying there is no dark matter, I'm saying until it is verified there is a GIGANTIC hole in the theory. Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it. Does that not seem like the theory originially had a teensy eensy weensy hole?

We have never observed it. It was put in purely because it was the only solution withing the current understanding we had of gravity. I'm not saying there is no dark matter, I'm saying until it is verified there is a GIGANTIC hole in the theory. Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it. Does that not seem like the theory originially had a teensy eensy weensy hole?

Your mistake is believing that it creates a gigantic hole in the theory of gravity, and not that it creates a gigantic hole in our understanding of the matter which makes up our universe.

Try this: http://startswithabang.com/?p=828

Quote from: Raist on April 27, 2009, 02:39:38 PM

We have never observed it. It was put in purely because it was the only solution withing the current understanding we had of gravity. I'm not saying there is no dark matter, I'm saying until it is verified there is a GIGANTIC hole in the theory. Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it. Does that not seem like the theory originially had a teensy eensy weensy hole?

Your mistake is believing that it creates a gigantic hole in the theory of gravity, and not that it creates a gigantic hole in our understanding of the matter which makes up our universe.

Try this: http://startswithabang.com/?p=828

No, your mistake is you assume I think that.

I am simply saying that the theory is flawed until we can discover evidence of dark matter. I guess only believing in things that can be observed directly or indirectly is a trait that has been lost by over educated idiots that have never had to doubt anything their professors said. Now unless you are going to show me a link that says "and here we found some dark energy in john's closet while looking for the hubble telescope" I really don't give a fuck, and I guarantee you it won't be new.

No, your mistake is you assume I think that.

Oh OK so you don't think it creates a hole in the theory of gravity.

I am simply saying that the theory is flawed until we can discover evidence of dark matter.

Now you do think it creates a hole in the theory of gravity.[/quote]

Make your mind up sweetheart.

I guess only believing in things that can be observed directly or indirectly is a trait that has been lost by over educated idiots that have never had to doubt anything their professors said. Now unless you are going to show me a link that says "and here we found some dark energy in john's closet while looking for the hubble telescope" I really don't give a fuck, and I guarantee you it won't be new.

I'll take it from that big hunk of WAAAAH! you didn't read the link I gave above. Nice.

Quote from: Raist on April 27, 2009, 02:56:33 PM

No, your mistake is you assume I think that.

Oh OK so you don't think it creates a hole in the theory of gravity.

Quote from: Raist on April 27, 2009, 02:56:33 PM

I am simply saying that the theory is flawed until we can discover evidence of dark matter.

Now you do think it creates a hole in the theory of gravity.

Make your mind up sweetheart.

I guess only believing in things that can be observed directly or indirectly is a trait that has been lost by over educated idiots that have never had to doubt anything their professors said. Now unless you are going to show me a link that says "and here we found some dark energy in john's closet while looking for the hubble telescope" I really don't give a fuck, and I guarantee you it won't be new.

I'll take it from that big hunk of WAAAAH! you didn't read the link I gave above. Nice.
[/quote]

I am 100% sure that GR will be completely revised within the next 100 years. Dark energy may or may not be a fact but you'd have to be retarded to think we fully understand gravity.

Quote from: Raist on April 27, 2009, 03:37:07 PM

I am 100% sure that GR will be completely revised within the next 100 years. Dark energy may or may not be a fact but you'd have to be retarded to think we fully understand gravity.

Nice backpedal! *waves* Bye bye!

backpedal? No. If it is going to be revised then it is obviously wrong. I simply stated my belief in a way that wouldn't cause you to have a gut jerk reaction.

Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:10:18 AM

Wow. Sounds like an inconsistent mess to me.

Yeah. RET is so much more consistent, what with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics being totally compatible with each other and everything.

Nice dodging. RE is very consistent with the shape of earth and how the big picture of solar system is. FET is inconsistent mess with the shape of the Earth(except being flat), Sun and moon eclipses, bendy light, universal accelerator and lot of other things. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are same in your model, so, you are in same mess with RE with these things.

Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it.

Wrong.  General Relativity does allow, and predicts, the existence of galaxies.  The discrepancy you are referring to is the fact that we have observed a few (not sure how many... possibly only one or two) galaxies so huge that they seem to indicate that over extremely large distances, gravity attenuates at a lesser exponent than -2.

And it is important to note that most anomalies we observe are based on lack of understanding of the makeup of the universe, instead of lack of understanding of fundamental theories.  There is a significant difference.  Furthermore, there are other indicators of the existence of dark matter than simply discrepancies in calculations of orbital velocities of edge stars in galaxies.  There is evidence such as gravitational lensing of distant starlight and analysis of immense gas clouds.

Quote

Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it.

Wrong.  General Relativity does allow, and predicts, the existence of galaxies.  The discrepancy you are referring to is the fact that we have observed a few (not sure how many... possibly only one or two) galaxies so huge that they seem to indicate that over extremely large distances, gravity attenuates at a lesser exponent than -2.

And it is important to note that most anomalies we observe are based on lack of understanding of the makeup of the universe, instead of lack of understanding of fundamental theories.  There is a significant difference.

No. You are an idiot and should seriously consider reading moar.

I was referring to the fact that stars orbit galaxies at a much faster pace than the mass of the galaxy should allow according to General Relativities formulas on gravity and orbit.

Reading moar... by that, do you mean I should have read your statement:

Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it.

to read "Galaxies can't exist" or "stars appear to travel faster than our current understanding says they should"?

Because they are NOT the same thing.  "Idiot".  Before you open your mouth and tell someone that they are an idiot, read your own statements, and try to make sense of them.

The fact is, Dark Matter makes perfect sense.  There are no laws of physics which say that Dark Matter can't exist, and there is a lot of evidence saying that it in fact does exist.  You say we either need to find dark matter, or revise our understanding of the laws of physics... the fact is, once we started searching for evidence of dark matter within the recorded anomalies of cosmology, it became clearer and clearer that Dark Matter is indeed a very plausible and viable solution to the anomalies.  But of course, you will refute all that evidence as part of the conspiracy, or will write it off as inconclusive because we can't directly observe it.  Guess what?  Neptune and Pluto were both discovered through anomalies which couldn't be explained in any other way except for the existence of a massive object disrupting observed orbits.  The predictions of Dark Matter are just as viable as the predictions of distant planets in our solar system, and those predictions turned out to be accurate.  Unfortunately, by the nature of the prediction, it can't be directly verified, so we will have to wait for some new technique before the theory is widely accepted.

Name for me a single law of physics which states that Dark Matter shouldn't, or can't exist?  Or name a single piece of evidence that states that Dark Matter in fact doesn't exist?  Or are you simply trying to refute a hypothesis resulting from of years of research simply because you don't like the answer?

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 08:20:11 AM

I was referring to the fact that stars orbit galaxies at a much faster pace than the mass of the galaxy should allow according to General Relativities formulas on gravity and orbit.

Maybe you should have said that then.

Also... stars... in galaxies... orbitting... does this mean flat earthers recognise an attraction between masses?

I did. Maybe if you would read more than one god damn post you ignorant mother fucker you would know that. As for the rest, I was talking about RE theory, and within that context everything I said is valid. I wish you RE'ers would make your theory more coherent.

You never mentioned anything about star velocity in this thread.  You aren't even aware of what youre previous posts have said, are you?  Not to mention that you, despite your status as mod, have admitted to trolling with self-admittedly false information.  Good job, you fail at being a mod AND an FEer.  Ignorant mother fucker.

I did. Maybe if you would read more than one god damn post you ignorant mother fucker you would know that. As for the rest, I was talking about RE theory, and within that context everything I said is valid. I wish you RE'ers would make your theory more coherent.

Temper, temper Raist.  Mods are supposed to keep the discussions civil, not escalate the flaming.

You never mentioned anything about star velocity in this thread.  You aren't even aware of what youre previous posts have said, are you?  Not to mention that you, despite your status as mod, have admitted to trolling with self-admittedly false information.  Good job, you fail at being a mod AND an FEer.  Ignorant mother fucker.

Do you have no idea at all why dark matter was proposed? Were you unaware of the fact that stars travel at a velocity much too high to be contained by matter's gravitation alone in RE theory?

Here's something, if you are too stupid to keep up with everyone else, you should ask questions instead of making assumptions, and finally what is trolling? Trolling is posting in a manner as to draw a response. A debate is simply a series of trolling. Finally the information was completely true.

As for failing at being an FE'er, who said I was one? Oh yeah, assumptions again, you really should stop that.


@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your duties as a mod seeing as you don't always seem to understand them.

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:42:41 PM

@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your duties as a mod seeing as you don't always seem to understand them.

My duty as a mod is to keep topics in the correct forum. Make sure the rules are being followed, and ban users that show a complete disregard for said rules. There are no special rules for mods that say "and you must act like jesus" I was given this position without being told to change my behavior and when noobs catch me on a bad day this is the response they get. Maybe they should try not being idiots. idk.

Quote from: markjo on May 05, 2009, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:42:41 PM

@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your duties as a mod seeing as you don't always seem to understand them.

My duty as a mod is to keep topics in the correct forum. Make sure the rules are being followed, and ban users that show a complete disregard for said rules. There are no special rules for mods that say "and you must act like jesus" I was given this position without being told to change my behavior and when noobs catch me on a bad day this is the response they get. Maybe they should try not being idiots. idk.

Since being a mod is a position of authority, I believe that they should require a higher standard of behavior.  Not Jesus, but at least civil.  But, then again this is Daniel's site, not mine so...   

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 05, 2009, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:42:41 PM

@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your duties as a mod seeing as you don't always seem to understand them.

My duty as a mod is to keep topics in the correct forum. Make sure the rules are being followed, and ban users that show a complete disregard for said rules. There are no special rules for mods that say "and you must act like jesus" I was given this position without being told to change my behavior and when noobs catch me on a bad day this is the response they get. Maybe they should try not being idiots. idk.

Since being a mod is a position of authority, I believe that they should require a higher standard of behavior.  But, then again this is Daniel's site, not mine so...   

Higher than?

I'm 100% aware of the reasons for the theory of dark matter.  But you explicitly state that you mentioned star velocity at some point in this thread, which is false.  If you did, point to it.  I wrote more about dark matter in a different thread.  My point was that dark matter is an acceptable solution to the problem, and there is other evidence that supports it.  The theorization of dark matter is not some random fix proposed because there was no other choice... it is a sound theory supported by more than one type of evidence.

And as for your responsibilities on the forum... if this were my forum, I would be ashamed of your actions.  Your role as a mod is to ensure that the rules of the forum are followed, and unless I'm mistaken, providing knowingly false information is not allowed.  And on that note, what the fuck?  You admitted that your claim of a discrepancy between the mass of the earth as predicted by the theories of GR and QFT was totally baseless.  Ergo, not "completely true". 

And do you really believe that debating is a series of back-and-forth trolls?  Really?  Trolling is not simply posting to draw a response... if that were true, then every single post asking a real question is a post.  Use logic, if that part of your brain hasn't atrophed by now.

Quote from: markjo on May 05, 2009, 07:43:11 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 05, 2009, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:42:41 PM

@markjo, please stay on topic, this is flat earth questions and clarification, not discussion of duties of a mod on a forum.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your duties as a mod seeing as you don't always seem to understand them.

My duty as a mod is to keep topics in the correct forum. Make sure the rules are being followed, and ban users that show a complete disregard for said rules. There are no special rules for mods that say "and you must act like jesus" I was given this position without being told to change my behavior and when noobs catch me on a bad day this is the response they get. Maybe they should try not being idiots. idk.

Since being a mod is a position of authority, I believe that they should require a higher standard of behavior.  But, then again this is Daniel's site, not mine so...   

Higher than?

Higher than the angry noobs.

You are what you emulate.

I'm 100% aware of the reasons for the theory of dark matter.  But you explicitly state that you mentioned star velocity at some point in this thread, which is false.  If you did, point to it.  I wrote more about dark matter in a different thread.  My point was that dark matter is an acceptable solution to the problem, and there is other evidence that supports it.  The theorization of dark matter is not some random fix proposed because there was no other choice... it is a sound theory supported by more than one type of evidence.

And as for your responsibilities on the forum... if this were my forum, I would be ashamed of your actions.  Your role as a mod is to ensure that the rules of the forum are followed, and unless I'm mistaken, providing knowingly false information is not allowed.  And on that note, what the fuck?  You admitted that your claim of a discrepancy between the mass of the earth as predicted by the theories of GR and QFT was totally baseless.  Ergo, not "completely true". 

And do you really believe that debating is a series of back-and-forth trolls?  Really?  Trolling is not simply posting to draw a response... if that were true, then every single post asking a real question is a post.  Use logic, if that part of your brain hasn't atrophed by now.

blah blah blah. The tram moves at 10 km/h, if you can not keep up at this pace, please do not attempt to board the tram. Thank you for riding Raist Lines, any butthurt is to be expected.

Since gravity

Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:14:49 AM

I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

Since when is the attraction between masses "easily observable all around us"?

Quote from: munkirench on May 06, 2009, 07:49:45 AM

I'm 100% aware of the reasons for the theory of dark matter.  But you explicitly state that you mentioned star velocity at some point in this thread, which is false.  If you did, point to it.  I wrote more about dark matter in a different thread.  My point was that dark matter is an acceptable solution to the problem, and there is other evidence that supports it.  The theorization of dark matter is not some random fix proposed because there was no other choice... it is a sound theory supported by more than one type of evidence.

And as for your responsibilities on the forum... if this were my forum, I would be ashamed of your actions.  Your role as a mod is to ensure that the rules of the forum are followed, and unless I'm mistaken, providing knowingly false information is not allowed.  And on that note, what the fuck?  You admitted that your claim of a discrepancy between the mass of the earth as predicted by the theories of GR and QFT was totally baseless.  Ergo, not "completely true". 

And do you really believe that debating is a series of back-and-forth trolls?  Really?  Trolling is not simply posting to draw a response... if that were true, then every single post asking a real question is a post.  Use logic, if that part of your brain hasn't atrophed by now.

blah blah blah. The tram moves at 10 km/h, if you can not keep up at this pace, please do not attempt to board the tram. Thank you for riding Raist Lines, any butthurt is to be expected.

So now that you've finished acting like you're 12, are you going to answer my assertion regarding dark matter?  Because it is legitimate.  Or how about my previous question asking for a single law of physics which states that dark matter can't exist?  And don't feed me some bullshit about how "well the laws of physics don't state that things like the shadow object can't exist!" because the laws of physics do indeed state that the shadow object can't exist.  So just answer the question.  Without acting like a child.

Or how about my previous question asking for a single law of physics which states that dark matter can't exist?

There is none, and I doubt Raist is saying that the laws of physics state that dark matter can't exist.  The problem is that dark matter might as well be fairy dust for all we understand about it.  Its hypothesized existence is based entirely on the observation that standard laws of physics just don't explain everything we observe about galaxies.  How does one dispute the existence of a phantasm whose hypothesized existence is basically short-hand for saying "We don't understand this?"

You seem to see dark matter as a concretely defined fact of our universe.  It ain't that way.

The laws of physics don't state that an intelligent creator can't exist either, but it's considered silly and unscientific to say that "God" is behind something we don't understand.  Dark matter has the same sort of quality about it.

Um. You do know that there's direct evidence for dark matter right? It's not hypothetical at all.

Um. You do know that there's direct evidence for dark matter right? It's not hypothetical at all.

So there is direct evidence for matter that is defined as being impossible to directly observe?

If you are going to talk about gravitational effects then you mean indirect evidence.