The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

Planet Pizzaz says:

"RE'ers claim their model explains gravity. Wikipedia shows it doesn't. A direct contradiction with the facts is, by definition, a disproof."

Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?

Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?

I'm not. Could you help me verify it?
I think that this is Wikipedia.

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Some contradictions, yes.

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 19, 2011, 01:25:59 PM

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum. Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 03:55:10 PM

Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?

I'm not. Could you help me verify it?
I think that this is Wikipedia.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 19, 2011, 01:25:59 PM

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

This will be helpful.

jraffield1, good luck getting him to back his claim up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory [link edited to spare us having to cope with the shitty mobile version of Wikipedia]

This will be helpful.

Very helpful, indeed! It brings us to my conclusion - that gravitation not a theory, and not a "scientifically proven fact", as many here seem to claim.
Thanks!

Some contradictions, yes.

I appreciate that you've finally conceded.

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?

An incredibly unscientific approach, that. We're not throwing the entire theory down the drain for the sake of another theory. We're throwing gravitation down the drain, because it doesn't work. This doesn't make UA automatically work. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.

I don't know what a "discutable" is, but assuming my guess is correct, here's a response:
The truth has no expiry date.

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum.

Like I said before, no one (except for you) is talking about angular momentum here. We're talking about the anomalous expansion of orbits, which angular momentum is supposed to counteract.

Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.

Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.

Few questons:

1) How planets and stars were created if not by gravity?
2) How do planet revolve around the Sun if not with gravity?
3) How are the tides created if not by gravity?

Just to name a few.

Gravity is a flawed theory, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomenons.

None of these questions apply. I'm not disputing the existence of gravitation (Which is a different thing from gravity, too - look it up!). I'm disputing the RE model of gravitation.

Gravity is a flawed theory, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomenons.

The Greek mythology is flawed, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomena.

If you want to live the domain of science and go to silliness, it is up to you, but since you don't have anything scientific or elevant to say, I suggest you go to children's websites  and leave us.

Quote from: sokarul on October 22, 2011, 02:05:53 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory [link edited to spare us having to cope with the shitty mobile version of Wikipedia]

This will be helpful.

Very helpful, indeed! It brings us to my conclusion - that gravitation not a theory, and not a "scientifically proven fact", as many here seem to claim.
Thanks!

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 21, 2011, 01:00:18 PM

Some contradictions, yes.

I appreciate that you've finally conceded.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 21, 2011, 01:00:18 PM

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?

An incredibly unscientific approach, that. We're not throwing the entire theory down the drain for the sake of another theory. We're throwing gravitation down the drain, because it doesn't work. This doesn't make UA automatically work. Don't put words in my mouth.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 21, 2011, 01:00:18 PM

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.

I don't know what a "discutable" is, but assuming my guess is correct, here's a response:
The truth has no expiry date.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 22, 2011, 12:58:26 AM

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum.

Like I said before, no one (except for you) is talking about angular momentum here. We're talking about the anomalous expansion of orbits, which angular momentum is supposed to counteract.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 22, 2011, 12:58:26 AM

Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.

Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.

Earlier you said that the RE theory of gravity would predict that planets would crash into the sun. My goal was to enlighten you as to why that is not true.

Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.

Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.

Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.

As I said, I'm not denying the existence of gravitation. I'm merely saying that RET lacks a working model.

Earlier you said that the RE theory of gravity would predict that planets would crash into the sun. My goal was to enlighten you as to why that is not true.

But you have yet to start talking about it.

If you want to live the domain of science and go to silliness, it is up to you, but since you don't have anything scientific or elevant to say, I suggest you go to children's websites  and leave us.

I'm sorry, but I strongly doubt anyone will listen to a noob's opinion about who should stay or leave the Flat Earth Society. It might take you a while, but you'll learn how this place works.
For a quick tip: Saying that something has no "science nor logic" to it doesn't render it false. If you'd like to point out why something is false, feel free to. Unfortunately, you will have to back up your claims, which isn't always easy. Good luck!

Ok, carry on making a fool of yourself here or wherever.

To the others: can someone try to convince Planet Pizzaz (the guy who worked for NASA!!!) that he should study a little bit more physics and logic.

Ok, carry on making a fool of yourself here or wherever.
[...] he should study a little bit more physics and logic.

If you'd like to point out why something is false, feel free to. Unfortunately, you will have to back up your claims, which isn't always easy. Good luck!

Planet Pizzaz (the guy who worked for NASA!!!)

Now this is just intellectually dishonest.
What makes you "think" I worked for NASA?

You said that, I believe:
"I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another."

I've already responded to that post in the other thread you've made it in.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 05:54:00 AM

I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.

You said that, i believe?

Have you tried reading the whole post?

No.

No.

That explains it.

So stick with your brillaint analogy of a planet and a chair.

So there are minute differences between theory and observation.
That is why there are people working on better theories.

However, whatever new theory that explains the anomalies won't significantly change predictions, and will likely contain many components of GR.

In the mean time, GR does the best at explaining motions in the sky.
It, along with particle physics, explains how stars are powered, and how brightly they will shine.
It explains the variations in measured g at various points on the earth.
It explains why clocks run at different speeds at different altitudes.
It explains why starlight gets slightly bent when passing massive objects.
it explains the cavendish experiment.

(Not that you will believe this one because it involves spacecraft, but Gravity Probe B directly observed earths gravity well and gravitomagnetic field.)

So yes its imperfect, but it is very accurate, and new theories can't toss out the notion of gravity (something that pulls masses together, some thing that causes masses to change the nature of space-time around them, something that keeps the planets in orbit, etc...). The effect is independent of the ways we try to quantify it, and will retain properties that the new theory will still have to be able to predict.

When you come up with FE physics more accurate than GR, tell me. Because that would be really cool.

Or at least FE physics that had some math. You have to start somewhere. 

Quote from: markjo on October 22, 2011, 09:28:21 AM

Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.

As I said, I'm not denying the existence of gravitation. I'm merely saying that RET lacks a working model.

I suppose that depends on your requirements for a "working model".  If you demand an absolutely complete model with no flaws whatsoever, then you're probably right.  But if you can get by with a model that reflects reality with a high degree of accuracy and precision. then you would be mistaken.

You can build a bridge engineered for Newtonian physics and have it work.  Newtonian physics is therefore a working model.