Can anyone answer this question.

  • 908 Replies
  • 162992 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #330 on: October 18, 2013, 05:53:28 AM »
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
I don't even understand your theory, how can I be qualified for building tests on it ?
It's your duty, not mine. Don't ask people to prove your ideas. Your theory is built on common sense?
Wikipedia:
Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate

It should be easy to find and achieve such experiments.
The fact is that you are just throwing vague concepts. You never give some reality to it, but you easily dismiss all other experiments and findings.
Go a step further now, face reality, show experiments, the simpler the better.
If you don't understand my theory, why are you asking me to do an experiment that you obviously don't understand?
Stop rhetorics and start experiencing. You are claiming, let's face your writings.
Are you saying that you don't have any clue of any kind of experiment ? really ? for anything you are explaining here ?
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #331 on: October 18, 2013, 06:33:46 AM »
I don't even know what you are asking me to do.
He's asking you to provide some experimental evidence to support your "theory".  If you don't know how to do that, then that's your problem, not Antonio's.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #332 on: October 18, 2013, 07:11:07 AM »
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #333 on: October 18, 2013, 10:04:46 AM »
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #334 on: October 18, 2013, 12:59:06 PM »
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
All we're asking you to do is to provide some evidence to justify your denial.  Is that really too much to ask?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #335 on: October 18, 2013, 05:40:45 PM »
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
All we're asking you to do is to provide some evidence to justify your denial.  Is that really too much to ask?
Apparently.  ::)
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
How does it exist, then?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #336 on: October 19, 2013, 04:17:40 AM »
I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #337 on: October 19, 2013, 07:40:37 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo This threads good, you should read it Sceptimatic. You should post your opinion on Islam there.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #338 on: October 19, 2013, 07:48:15 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo This threads good, you should read it Sceptimatic. You should post your opinion on Islam there.
Why should I post anything on Islam?

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #339 on: October 19, 2013, 08:07:48 AM »
Quote
Why should I post anything on Islam?

Not knowing anything about the topic at hand hasn't stopped you from talking about science.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #340 on: October 19, 2013, 08:11:43 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #341 on: October 19, 2013, 08:33:59 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #342 on: October 19, 2013, 08:40:04 AM »
You've been proven to be wrong multiple times.

You just refuse to accept that you're wrong.

The stalemate exist for this reason.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #343 on: October 19, 2013, 09:14:29 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #344 on: October 19, 2013, 09:17:48 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #345 on: October 19, 2013, 09:39:40 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #346 on: October 19, 2013, 10:11:18 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #347 on: October 19, 2013, 10:17:44 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.

We are already talking about how you think it is pressure and electromagnestism in another thread. I'm asking you what you think the RE definition is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #348 on: October 19, 2013, 10:27:56 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.

We are already talking about how you think it is pressure and electromagnestism in another thread. I'm asking you what you think the RE definition is.
The round earth definition appears to be unknown magic, I can't explain it any other way.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #349 on: October 19, 2013, 10:36:46 AM »
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #350 on: October 19, 2013, 10:44:27 AM »
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #351 on: October 19, 2013, 10:47:16 AM »
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #352 on: October 19, 2013, 10:54:12 AM »
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.

Actually here it is.

"the principle that two particles attract each other with forces directly proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them."

Notice how obviously incomplete this definition is? It simply describes gravity as a force but it makes no attempt at explaining what the mechanisms are. This is actually not incompatible with your definition of gravity where you use phenomena like pressure and magnets.

Do you see why it is ridiculous to ridicule this? Newton isn't making any claims about what gravity is at all here. His definition is basically the same as saying "things fall" followed by some mathematically true statements about just how fast those things fall. If those things are falling because of pressure and magnetism then great, what Newton says here doesn't contradict that.

Now, if you look into another thread where you and I are discussing pressure you'll see that pressure and magnets don't seem to have any correlation to whatever is causing gravity. There is no evidence to support this, in fact evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this.

Moving on in history, Einstein came up with General Relativity and that theory actually does try to give a cause to whatever gravity is. We can go on from here but I already know you have difficulty with the concept of spacetime.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 10:59:21 AM by rottingroom »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #353 on: October 19, 2013, 10:55:04 AM »
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #354 on: October 19, 2013, 11:06:07 AM »
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.

Actually here it is.

"the principle that two particles attract each other with forces directly proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them."

Notice how obviously incomplete this definition is? It simply describes gravity as a force but it makes no attempt at explaining what the mechanisms are. This is actually not incompatible with your definition of gravity where you use phenomena like pressure and magnets.

Do you see why it is ridiculous to ridicule this? Newton isn't making any claims about what gravity is at all here. His definition is basically the same as saying "things fall" followed by some mathematically true statements about just how fast those things fall. If those things are falling because of pressure and magnetism then great, what Newton says here doesn't contradict that.

Now, if you look into another thread where you and I are discussing pressure you'll see that pressure and magnets don't seem to have any correlation to whatever is causing gravity. There is no evidence to support this.

Moving on in history, Einstein came up with General Relativity and that theory actually does try to give a cause to whatever gravity is. We can go on from here but I already know you have difficulty with the concept of spacetime.
Here's what you are saying.
Newton is the man who thought up gravity but didn't know what it was, as he explained it far too  basically, as in, things fall due to mass/weight and a force that he does not know, acts upon this mass against mass.
His name is constantly used, but Einstein TRIED to make sense of it and came up with his dolly mixture bags of relativities, each time a problem arose.

Now you are telling me that I have difficulty getting to grips with space time.
I don't have any difficulty at all, it's 100% clear to me, it's just that you cannot accept that, because you believe you understand it and yet I'm basically telling you it's a load of crap and is simply made up like a lot of it is, to cater for what we are told happens up there.

Yes, I know I'm going to be labelled ignorant and uneducated and that's fine, but no matter what you say, you still cannot stake your life on what you have read into as being TRUE...it has to stay theoretical.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #355 on: October 19, 2013, 11:11:27 AM »
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #356 on: October 19, 2013, 11:18:59 AM »
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.
Only in the mainstream science world can a theory become a fact, which is basically what they are saying, in a nutshell...EXCEPT, they play a clever game, because by using it as their theory, cast off as virtually, fact, they leave the door open for it to be tweaked, just in case some clever clogs comes along and starts to take it apart, which gives scope for it to be altered.

This is what science is, in terms of sleight of hand type science, where the sheep can be forever confused and baffled to hell by the constant magic that gets bestowed upon their trance like wide eyes and amazed but damped down minds.

Proving gravity with a barometer makes no sense whatsoever, I just don't see how it can prove anything of the sort.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #357 on: October 19, 2013, 11:22:55 AM »
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.
Only in the mainstream science world can a theory become a fact, which is basically what they are saying, in a nutshell...EXCEPT, they play a clever game, because by using it as their theory, cast off as virtually, fact, they leave the door open for it to be tweaked, just in case some clever clogs comes along and starts to take it apart, which gives scope for it to be altered.

This is what science is, in terms of sleight of hand type science, where the sheep can be forever confused and baffled to hell by the constant magic that gets bestowed upon their trance like wide eyes and amazed but damped down minds.

Proving gravity with a barometer makes no sense whatsoever, I just don't see how it can prove anything of the sort.

Nobody says it is a fact. Nobody is calling it fact except for you.

As far as barometers, I am not trying to prove it with a barometer. Barometer's measure pressure. It is you who is insisting that gravity is caused by pressure. I would never try to "prove" gravity is caused by a barometer because I don't think it is the cause of it. It should be you who would undergo such an experiment because you are trying to match them together with correlation.

What the barometer can do for us in this instance is make us sure without much doubt, that gravity is not caused by air pressure.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #358 on: October 19, 2013, 11:27:39 AM »
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.

As much as it pains me, I'll be inclined to agree with scepti about general relativity.
General relativity fails to explain anything really.
It basically says that a theoretical conceptual analogy (space-time) is responsible for gravity.
I for one cannot force myself to subscribe to such a fallacy, for space-time is not physically manifested.
As for special relativity, Tesla pretty much disproved that as well.
The faster-than-light scalar or longitudinal waves Tesla used to magnify and wireless-ly transmit power were able to travel up to ((Pi/2)*(c)) through a solid medium or otherwise.
Einstein was treated and adorned as a celebrity, while the public and the media shunned Tesla and scrapped his ideas.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 11:34:22 AM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #359 on: October 19, 2013, 11:35:34 AM »
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.
It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.
Again, it's your duty to find an experiment to prove your "theory".  It's too easy to say, "there is none", you keep it in your safe zone.
...You are claiming that your "theory" is as valid as the gravitation one. That's not enough, prove it. Give the relationship between weight and mass. I may recall you that you said the weight was tightly related to atmospheric pressure. Find an experiment involving pressure changes and note the weight variation. Why don't you do this ?