ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 07:52:04 AM

And dont give me your spelling error BS.  yeah I spelled apple wrong.  lets hear an answer.  do the apples discuss among each other?  or maybe just CUZ?

i feel unable to add to the varied and intelligent alternatives listed by you, to assist in the exciting activity of choice making that is mistaken for the act of thinking for oneself, by the thoroughly indoctrinated.

the presentation of lists giving the options inferred, at the very same moment of the completion of the question being asked, is indicative of the informed while unformed confused state of mind that is the goal of those that fear clear thinking people to increase in number.

your input would provide anyone who fears clear thinking with a sense of profound safety.

right, thanks for that and I'll keep that on the back burner for when I need a snooze.  Answer anyone?

You are on earth. You are rooted to...let's just say, we are the floor of the ...'what we know as the universe.'
Above us, is the ...what we know as, "the universe"..and because we are the floor of the known universe, we shall be known as the ground floor.
Now from there you can go "up" stairs and you can slide down the bannister and go back "down" if you want to. There is no magical gravity doing this as it's not needed to keep you on the earth, it's just crazy scientists making up anything they want to...to explain the mysteries  of what the hell this earth is about.

Some of you cannot get your head around the no gravity concept because it's been bulldozed into your head and you cannot think in simple terms.

So we are the ground of the universe. So why do things fall down and not up? If you're happy with "things fall down because they fall down and we are the ground of the universe" then ok. But keep in mind that this is no explanation at all. Also:

The thing that makes things fall is the weight of the object falling.

For instance. An apple on a tree on a thin branch will stay there until it starts to gain weight or grow, in which case, that weight will pull on the branch making it bend and so on and so on, until the apple is too heavy for the bud it's hanging from and eventually it's weight /mass makes it drop.
There is no force acting on it from outside of it, just it's own weight, which exerts it's own force on the branch and once it releases from the branch, the branch springs back up a little and the apple lays on the ground, exerting it's own weight/mass onto the ground.
The only force acting on the apple from tree to floor is it's own weight and wind speeds.

In a very simplistic and "kiddified" way you just described gravity making the apple fall down. Now stop saying there's no gravity, because even you don't believe that.

All of the examples you gave are completely invalid for this situation, as the only reason those examples exist is BECAUSE of this phenomenon.  Essentially, what you've said is "things go down because things go down."  That's circular, and doesn't actually mean anything.

All of the examples you gave are completely invalid for this situation, as the only reason those examples exist is BECAUSE of this phenomenon.  Essentially, what you've said is "things go down because things go down."  That's circular, and doesn't actually mean anything.

Don't bother Levi. You are incapable of penetrating the foggy haze of Scepti's brain. No one can. You will argue in circles until finally, inevitably you will want to die at his ignorance and stupidity.

I don't think you understand what a "force" is.  A force is any system that imparts acceleration on other bodies.  This is just how it's defined.  We note that objects accelerate down to the earth (or the earth up to objects) at 9.81 m/sē.  Thus, acceleration is being imparted on various bodies, which indicates by definition that there is a force acting on them.  There's nothing to argue here.  That's just how force is defined.

It's anyone guess what the source of this force is.  Physicists around the world, including Galileo and Newton, have been able to observe that the world and celestial bodies operate as if this force permeates the universe.  People had a really, really hard time explaining and predicting the motions of planets and other such bodies until Newton showed them how to do it (note: this is the "two body problem," not the "three body problem").  After that, predictions about the arrangement of celestial bodies and their observed predictions matched up ridiculously well.  If they didn't, then Newton probably wouldn't have become very famous.  Thus, we observe the force known as "gravity" to permeate the universe.

The only way you can claim that there is no force known as "gravity" is to reject, in addition to all of the historical evidence for it, the following:

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

If you do not believe this, then you can boldly state that the force known as "gravity" does not exist without contradicting yourself.  However, be warned, that you will be doing so without evidence, so don't expect people to take your claims very seriously.

Inertia is separate from Gravity. Correct.

I think common sense can tell anyone that an object in motion will stay in motion until a force acts upon it, as in friction of ground or air, etc.

OK, so if I throw a ball up into the air, it is now in motion, so I would expect it to keep going up unless it, like you said, is acted upon by another force.  We notice that it stops going up, coming to a brief halt, then falls back down.  It did not stay in uniform motion.  Therefore, another force acted on it.  You are exactly correct.  The air friction might slow it down, but it won't make it come back at me.  That requires, like you said, a force.  Please identify this force.

an object in motion will stay in motion until a force acts upon it

That doesn't explain why it comes back down.  That just explains (in part) why it slows down.  The air friction will eventually slow it down to a stop.  The object is now at rest, and requires a force to put it back in motion.  The object starts falling!  Based on what you just said, there must have been a force acting on it to change it from a state of rest to a state of motion.

... against the air pressure.
If you want to overcome the air pressure, then you need to power the object or use something lighter than air.

Actually, air pressure is greater at the bottom side of the object - pushing it upwards, not down. Pressure differential would be small and of little significance for a ball falling down, but it exists.

Another thing to think about would be what causes air pressure in the atmosphere, and why does the pressure change with altitude.

There's no fantasy force such as gravity.

In that case there must be another force that causes objects to fall (and massive objects such as planets and moons to be attracted to each other etc).

Okay, Scepti, hear this.

Basic Explanation of Earth.

Regardless of RE of FE, things fall, right? What makes them fall? Obviously, something gives them "weight". That thing is what Newton calls gravity. He said that something makes things fall down.

CHECKPOINT ONE

So far okay? Now. The UA says that the "earth-plane" is accelerating upwards. This accounts for the falling force. Gravity says that everything is attracted to everything. Thus the earth is pulled into a ball and every piece of matter is forced against the ball. Including you. This could also account for the falling force.

CHECKPOINT TWO

What does UA explain? It explains why there is a falling force mentioned above. Gravity also does that. HOWEVER, gravity also explains stars, moons, planets, asteroids, black hols, supernovae, elements...

CHECKPOINT THREE

Therefore, gravity is a better explanation than UA because it explains more.


If you have an objection (which you probably have), state which checkpoint you got to before a flaw in my logic occurred.

Okay, Scepti, hear this.

Basic Explanation of Earth.

Regardless of RE of FE, things fall, right? What makes them fall? Obviously, something gives them "weight". That thing is what Newton calls gravity. He said that something makes things fall down.

CHECKPOINT ONE

So far okay? Now. The UA says that the "earth-plane" is accelerating upwards. This accounts for the falling force. Gravity says that everything is attracted to everything. Thus the earth is pulled into a ball and every piece of matter is forced against the ball. Including you. This could also account for the falling force.

CHECKPOINT TWO

What does UA explain? It explains why there is a falling force mentioned above. Gravity also does that. HOWEVER, gravity also explains stars, moons, planets, asteroids, black hols, supernovae, elements...

CHECKPOINT THREE

Therefore, gravity is a better explanation than UA because it explains more.


If you have an objection (which you probably have), state which checkpoint you got to before a flaw in my logic occurred.

Clearly defined logical challenge from someone = not an FE advocate in sight.

To play the devil's advocate:

Checkpoint Three. Gravity is not a better explanation because it goes against the FE worldview.

Quote from: JiffyJuff on April 10, 2013, 04:54:45 AM

Okay, Scepti, hear this.

Basic Explanation of Earth.

Regardless of RE of FE, things fall, right? What makes them fall? Obviously, something gives them "weight". That thing is what Newton calls gravity. He said that something makes things fall down.

CHECKPOINT ONE

So far okay? Now. The UA says that the "earth-plane" is accelerating upwards. This accounts for the falling force. Gravity says that everything is attracted to everything. Thus the earth is pulled into a ball and every piece of matter is forced against the ball. Including you. This could also account for the falling force.

CHECKPOINT TWO

What does UA explain? It explains why there is a falling force mentioned above. Gravity also does that. HOWEVER, gravity also explains stars, moons, planets, asteroids, black hols, supernovae, elements...

CHECKPOINT THREE

Therefore, gravity is a better explanation than UA because it explains more.


If you have an objection (which you probably have), state which checkpoint you got to before a flaw in my logic occurred.

Clearly defined logical challenge from someone = not an FE advocate in sight.

To play the devil's advocate:

Checkpoint Three. Gravity is not a better explanation because it goes against the FE worldview.

FE spawned like many other conspiracy theories I hypothesis was created. Whenever new data or challenge arises they add something new to explain this thing even though the addition has no evidence (I.E Migrating shit on the moon) It is easy to spot a hypothesis not supported in scientific data by the reliability of the data and the consistency in agreement. When Three scientist do the same experiment they should get at the very least similar results.

It becomes clear then that FE is not based in scientific truths when nearly every FE follower has there own version of what is going on. There was no experimentation or proof to fix the holes poked in the theory by new data so each individual invented their own compensations.

So when there is a problem that NONE of them can explain or something that clearly explains everything together in a unified sense (Unlike the FE patchwork of trying to cover each piece of data individually to get the ridiculous theories (Pay attention to the plural on theories) that now exist) they will simply ignore it since they refuse to change their original hypothesis.

Which although they claim to use the so called zetetic method they have their initial hypothesis as FE ang go about never ever questioning it.

And that boys and girls is FE in a nutshell.