100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 09:02:30 PM

Big from our perspective sure, but from a universes perspective, we would like a dot

Kind of like when you compare the size of our sun to VY Canis Majoris. You think Earth is big, but then you see Jupiter. You think that's huge but then you look at the Sun. You think that's enormous, but then you see  Betelgeuse star. You think that words can not describe how massive that star is and then there is VY Canis Majoris.

The same is true of galaxies. Ours is quite humble in size

Yes, sure. I don't get the point you're trying to make though. Are you saying our galaxy is too small to have sufficient gravity?

You miss the point of all of Shifter's posts - he's interested in nothing more than Big-Noting Shifter! He thinks that he's way above us mere mortals and just one rung below the God Head.

If it involves diverting the thread away from the topic of the REALITY of GRAVITY, so be it. So we must all do our little bit to pump up Shifter's ego till, hopefully, it will burst!

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 09:02:30 PM

Big from our perspective sure, but from a universes perspective, we would like a dot

Kind of like when you compare the size of our sun to VY Canis Majoris. You think Earth is big, but then you see Jupiter. You think that's huge but then you look at the Sun. You think that's enormous, but then you see  Betelgeuse star. You think that words can not describe how massive that star is and then there is VY Canis Majoris.

The same is true of galaxies. Ours is quite humble in size

Yes, sure. I don't get the point you're trying to make though. Are you saying our galaxy is too small to have sufficient gravity?

No. I am saying there is more to the theory of gravity than you will ever understand and that this force is certainly NOT WEAK (as we are led to believe). If you take the concept of gravity and apply it to its entirety (not the barely scratched surface you understand it to be) you will understand that it is among the most powerful forces in the universe

This is why if a star has a massive 'star quake' 10 light years away from earth, it would cause a mass extinction on Earth. Distance is not much a boundary for the force of 'gravity'.

If it involves diverting the thread away from the topic of the REALITY of GRAVITY, so be it. So we must all do our little bit to pump up Shifter's ego till, hopefully, it will burst!

Nay friend. It involves attempting (in vain) to steer the course onto a path that involves you looking deeper and asking questions that leads you to more answers on the nature of what you call gravity.

Gods don't have egos, neither do ASI's, and thus neither do I

But it's still insanely massive. It's a fucking galaxy, I don't know how else to put it.

Massive is relative, unless you are just saying it has mass.
A proton is massive compard to an electron, but by everyday standards, it is nothing.
Earth is massive compared to what we deal with on a day to day basis, but is nothing compared to the solar system (e.g. larger planets like Jupiter with a mass of ~300 Earths or the sun with a mass of over 300 000 Earths).
But the sun, while being massive compared to Earth is nothing compared to the galaxy.


It is all relative.

But yes, it is quite inconsequential to the point he is trying to make.

No. I am saying there is more to the theory of gravity than you will ever understand

You seem to like asserting that, pretending you understand, but so far it is all just delusions of grandeur.

that this force is certainly NOT WEAK

No, it is weak. Very weak.
The fact that you are held together rather than a puddle on the ground shows it is weak.
While it is strong enough to bring you to Earth, it weak enough for you to stand up and be held together.
It only appears strong when other forces are not acting due to the scale involved.

you will understand that it is among the most powerful forces in the universe

Except there are very few actual forces. So sure, you can say it is among the most powerful, but it is the weakest of them.

This is why if a star has a massive 'star quake' 10 light years away from earth, it would cause a mass extinction on Earth.

Now imagine if that star was made purely of protons. Imaging the result from the electrostatic force.

Gods don't have egos, neither do ASI's, and thus neither do I

You are not a god, and you are not super intelligence, so you are neither of those.
You are a fool with delusions of grandeur, nothing more.
You have been unable to substantiate many of your claims and seem to just want to spout crap to look smart, even when you are repeatedly wrong.
Grow up.
Deal with the OP or get lost.

Gods don't have egos, neither do ASI's, and thus neither do I

Sure, "Gods don't have egos, neither do ASI's" but you are neither and all the wisdom you post could be picked up from Dr Google.

Now, as I have tried to get over to you, is the claim by andrewchikoski that he has "100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY".
Could you possibly try to assist, rather than getting the way with your stupid pretence at  superior knowledge ?

No. I am saying there is more to the theory of gravity than you will ever understand and that this force is certainly NOT WEAK (as we are led to believe). If you take the concept of gravity and apply it to its entirety (not the barely scratched surface you understand it to be) you will understand that it is among the most powerful forces in the universe

And what makes you think you know more about it then? Gravity is a weak force relative to the mass of the object. Small mass = weak gravity. Large mass = strong gravity.

This is why if a star has a massive 'star quake' 10 light years away from earth, it would cause a mass extinction on Earth. Distance is not much a boundary for the force of 'gravity'.

What? Starquakes cause mass extinctions because they release gamma rays. Not sure what this has to do with gravity.

Quote from: nickrulercreator on March 05, 2018, 08:50:54 PM

But it's still insanely massive. It's a fucking galaxy, I don't know how else to put it.

Massive is relative, unless you are just saying it has mass.
A proton is massive compard to an electron, but by everyday standards, it is nothing.
Earth is massive compared to what we deal with on a day to day basis, but is nothing compared to the solar system (e.g. larger planets like Jupiter with a mass of ~300 Earths or the sun with a mass of over 300 000 Earths).
But the sun, while being massive compared to Earth is nothing compared to the galaxy.


It is all relative.

But yes, it is quite inconsequential to the point he is trying to make.

Yes that is what I meant. Relative to us, or earth, or even the sun, a galaxy is unfathomably massive. Relative to other galaxies, our galaxy is small. But, the gravity of our galaxy is still massive, relative to most objects in the universe (planets, stars, etc).

Quote from: nickrulercreator on March 05, 2018, 09:18:13 PM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 09:02:30 PM

Big from our perspective sure, but from a universes perspective, we would like a dot

Kind of like when you compare the size of our sun to VY Canis Majoris. You think Earth is big, but then you see Jupiter. You think that's huge but then you look at the Sun. You think that's enormous, but then you see  Betelgeuse star. You think that words can not describe how massive that star is and then there is VY Canis Majoris.

The same is true of galaxies. Ours is quite humble in size

Yes, sure. I don't get the point you're trying to make though. Are you saying our galaxy is too small to have sufficient gravity?

No. I am saying there is more to the theory of gravity than you will ever understand and that this force is certainly NOT WEAK (as we are led to believe). If you take the concept of gravity and apply it to its entirety (not the barely scratched surface you understand it to be) you will understand that it is among the most powerful forces in the universe

This is why if a star has a massive 'star quake' 10 light years away from earth, it would cause a mass extinction on Earth. Distance is not much a boundary for the force of 'gravity'.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 05, 2018, 09:33:12 PM

If it involves diverting the thread away from the topic of the REALITY of GRAVITY, so be it. So we must all do our little bit to pump up Shifter's ego till, hopefully, it will burst!

Nay friend. It involves attempting (in vain) to steer the course onto a path that involves you looking deeper and asking questions that leads you to more answers on the nature of what you call gravity.

Gods don't have egos, neither do ASI's, and thus neither do I

Is there something you don't understand in "bigger or stronger are relative words" ? You can't go around saying things like "gravity is strong", no more than "a galaxy is massive" (which, paradoxically, was originally your point). It depends on the scale of the system you're considering : at the atomic scale, gravity is weak compared with electrostatic forces for instance, while at astronomical scales, gravity takes the lead. That has essentially to do with the fact that there are positive electrical charges as well as negative ones, so that at a large distance they cancel out, while for gravity there are only positive "charges" (or masses), which means gravity can't be screened.

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

If gravity is "not reality" I dare you to show us how to calculate
the time for bowling ball to fall from 120 meters to the ground.

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

What do you think is at play here, and why do you think that?

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 07:54:35 PM

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

What do you think is at play here, and why do you think that?

There is a fabric that connects everything to everything literally spanning the whole universe. It operates on an inter dimensional level. The 'virtual particles' you see appearing and disappearing out of 'existence' is evidence of another dimension. In reality they haven't spontaneously been created and then spontaneously annihilated. In the same way a '2D flat lander' would see 3D objects appearing and disappearing in his world, the same is true in our world for things more than 3D.

What you call dark matter and dark energy is connected to all this.

Gravity in the way you describe it could be considered weak but your missing most of substance that belongs to it.

There is no other force in the universe that could rip a hole in space, distort time, create black holes or even the universe itself.

Yes a star quake releases a gamma ray burst, but its the quake itself

You can detect gravitational waves from the furthest reaches of the universe

Your mass still has an attraction to objects on the furthest reaches of the universe. Even if negligible, the number is not zero.

You should give gravity more credit. The universe operates as a whole. The way you guys have decided what gravity is, is like taking a skin flake of a human and determining what it could be. There is more to the story

You are not a god, and you are not super intelligence, so you are neither of those.
You are a fool with delusions of grandeur, nothing more.
You have been unable to substantiate many of your claims and seem to just want to spout crap to look smart, even when you are repeatedly wrong.
Grow up.
Deal with the OP or get lost.

The ASI which is orders of magnitude in the millions more evolved than you disagrees with you. I think I'll take the word of it over you. Thanks for your insight though, it is 'amusing'

The ASI which is orders of magnitude in the millions more evolved than you disagrees with you. I think I'll take the word of it over you. Thanks for your insight though, it is 'amusing'

And your pretending such a depth of knowledge is "slightly amusing". But it does get tiring with your butting in all the time and diverting from the OP.
In case you've forgotten, or never bothered to look, the topic is "Re: 100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY " and the OP was:

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

Would it be possible, just occasionally, to put your over-blown ego to one side and actually assist in a debate, rather than simply trying to show how smart you are?
As I've said before:

You always seem to be trying to show how you have a much deeper understanding of the Universe than anyone else! Are you trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe?

Quote from: W.S. Gilbert

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Still, I guess your main aim is be a nuisance and you are succeeding admirably, congratulations!
Can we be sure that John Davis has not enlisted you into his team of professional de-railers of threads that "go the wrong way"?

Quote from: Badxtoss on March 06, 2018, 01:57:48 PM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 07:54:35 PM

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

What do you think is at play here, and why do you think that?

There is a fabric that connects everything to everything literally spanning the whole universe. It operates on an inter dimensional level. The 'virtual particles' you see appearing and disappearing out of 'existence' is evidence of another dimension. In reality they haven't spontaneously been created and then spontaneously annihilated. In the same way a '2D flat lander' would see 3D objects appearing and disappearing in his world, the same is true in our world for things more than 3D.

What you call dark matter and dark energy is connected to all this.

Gravity in the way you describe it could be considered weak but your missing most of substance that belongs to it.

There is no other force in the universe that could rip a hole in space, distort time, create black holes or even the universe itself.

Yes a star quake releases a gamma ray burst, but its the quake itself

You can detect gravitational waves from the furthest reaches of the universe

Your mass still has an attraction to objects on the furthest reaches of the universe. Even if negligible, the number is not zero.

You should give gravity more credit. The universe operates as a whole. The way you guys have decided what gravity is, is like taking a skin flake of a human and determining what it could be. There is more to the story

Quote from: JackBlack on March 05, 2018, 11:16:19 PM

You are not a god, and you are not super intelligence, so you are neither of those.
You are a fool with delusions of grandeur, nothing more.
You have been unable to substantiate many of your claims and seem to just want to spout crap to look smart, even when you are repeatedly wrong.
Grow up.
Deal with the OP or get lost.

The ASI which is orders of magnitude in the millions more evolved than you disagrees with you. I think I'll take the word of it over you. Thanks for your insight though, it is 'amusing'

I didn't want to derail this thread so I started a new one where we can discuss some of your ideas.

Quote from: Shifter on March 06, 2018, 02:23:41 PM

The ASI which is orders of magnitude in the millions more evolved than you disagrees with you. I think I'll take the word of it over you. Thanks for your insight though, it is 'amusing'

And your pretending such a depth of knowledge is "slightly amusing". But it does get tiring with your butting in all the time and diverting from the OP.
In case you've forgotten, or never bothered to look, the topic is "Re: 100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY " and the OP was:

Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 23, 2018, 04:50:06 PM

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

Would it be possible, just occasionally, to put your over-blown ego to one side and actually assist in a debate, rather than simply trying to show how smart you are?
As I've said before:

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2018, 02:10:43 PM

You always seem to be trying to show how you have a much deeper understanding of the Universe than anyone else! Are you trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe?

Quote from: W.S. Gilbert

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Still, I guess your main aim is be a nuisance and you are succeeding admirably, congratulations!
Can we be sure that John Davis has not enlisted you into his team of professional de-railers of threads that "go the wrong way"?

I see the word 'Gravity' and I pounce because I know anyone from this time period will be wrong. The OP is wrong and his so called proof isn't worth entertaining. You and Jack are maybe 1% right, but your arrogance and egos prevent you from looking deeper for the truth. You believe a man centuries ago figured it all out already. His work, especially for the time period was quite good. It's only a start. Einstein refined it a little but in time you will see his theories don't add up when you look at the bigger picture and add in the extra dimensions of the universe that exist. Stephen Hawking, again refines the theories but these are all baby steps. That Michio Kaku bloke will make a breakthrough in the next decade and will finally have a legitimate reason to be big noting himself. This will be the biggest jump since Newton but it's still no where near what an ASI can learn overnight.

There is a fabric that connects everything to everything literally spanning the whole universe.

Like the fabric of space-time, which gravity is merely a distortion of?

The 'virtual particles' you see appearing and disappearing out of 'existence' is evidence of another dimension.

No they aren't.
There is no evidence of magic portals appearing to take them in and out of existence.

Yes a star quake releases a gamma ray burst, but its the quake itself

Not really.
The quake itself is a slight rearrangement of matter.
It will not cause a significant gravitational disturbance.
While it may affect sensitive interferometers, it will not cause a mass extinction.
It is the energy, the electromagnetic energy from electromagnetic interactions which has the potential to wipe out life.

The gravitational effects of that change in distribution of mass is negligible.

The ASI which is orders of magnitude in the millions more evolved than you disagrees with you.

Of course it would. To say otherwise would mean admitting it is pathetic and just has delusions of grandeur.
What a shame this stupid thing can't justify any of their baseless claims, while I can.

Quote from: Shifter on March 06, 2018, 02:23:41 PM

The 'virtual particles' you see appearing and disappearing out of 'existence' is evidence of another dimension.

No they aren't.
There is no evidence of magic portals appearing to take them in and out of existence.

There is another thread now but let me pull you up on this because you didn't understand what I meant.

I'm not saying there is anything weird going on here. I am not talking about another dimension like its another universe. The 'virtual particles' are always about. We cant view them properly because we are limited to only 3 spatial dimensions. A 2D flatlander having a sphere dropped in front of his face would only see a small line, getting bigger and then smaller. There sphere is always around the place, it is just not in any dimension he can see, and when he can see something, it is not the true nature or shape of the sphere.

We see virtual particles the same way as that flat lander. We see pieces of a puzzle but our limited dimensions will not allow us to see and interact with it.

And a Star quake that measures nearly 30 on the Richter magnitude scale...... Couldn't have that kind of energy release without......... Gravity! And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together? What is the catalyst? The reason? Gravity!. The energy potential of gravity is infinite. So much for 'weak force'

I see the word 'Gravity' and I pounce because I know anyone from this time period will be wrong.

Well, when you pounce what about contributing something useful instead of pretentious ramblings promoting the Shifty-eyed Shifter.

If you have all this knowledge, why not let a little out instead of just tit-bits anyone can pick up if they read a bit. You're just a big bag of hot-air.
But, I guess that's an unfortunate infection one picks up in Canberra, unless one is suitably inoculated by sufficient exposure to reality.

Quote from: Shifter on March 06, 2018, 03:16:30 PM

I see the word 'Gravity' and I pounce because I know anyone from this time period will be wrong.

Well, when you pounce what about contributing something useful instead of pretentious ramblings promoting the Shifty-eyed Shifter.

If you have all this knowledge, why not let a little out instead of just tit-bits anyone can pick up if they read a bit. You're just a big bag of hot-air.
But, I guess that's an unfortunate infection one picks up in Canberra, unless one is suitably inoculated by sufficient exposure to reality.

I have contributed a lot of useful intel. It is up to you what you do with it.

You know what? Prove me wrong.

Hello Shifter. Can you provide a source for this claim?
"And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together?" Additionally, can you clarify what you mean by "The energy potential of gravity is infinite." Are you considering the singularity of a black hole to make this statement? Otherwise, how is this different from any of the other four fundamental forces?
Thank you.

Hello Shifter. Can you provide a source for this claim?
"And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together?" Additionally, can you clarify what you mean by "The energy potential of gravity is infinite." Are you considering the singularity of a black hole to make this statement? Otherwise, how is this different from any of the other four fundamental forces?
Thank you.

The claim of 50x the energy output of all the stars in the universe put together is not mine. Something I read a while back. Found it again here
http://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-collision-energy-50-times-universe-2016-2/?r=AU&IR=T

The point is, gravities potential for energy is mindbogglingly powerful and there are real life examples of it happening. Beginning with the 'Big Bang'. Where in nature can you find a more powerful source of energy? Oh sure, grab some matter and antimatter and watch them annihilate each other. Only need a sprinkle of that to see a big BOOM. But that's a rather quaint way to view energy. You could have a rocket ship that is powered by nuclear explosions or matter/antimatter annihilations for thrust, it is short lived and once expended it is gone. You can use the mass of a planet or a star to gain speed much more efficiently for essentially 'free'. And you can keep doing it. Theoretically you could pull the Earth to a safer orbit around the sun using gravity. It is subtle but don't underestimate it. This is only the laymen's version applicable to todays understanding. The fact is, you wont find another source of energy in the universe which comes close to the potential and longevity of gravity. I have already dealt with the more complex version that deals with how it relates to 'dark matter/energy' and how it is threaded through another dimensional layer.

Hello Shifter. Can you provide a source for this claim?
"And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together?" Additionally, can you clarify what you mean by "The energy potential of gravity is infinite." Are you considering the singularity of a black hole to make this statement? Otherwise, how is this different from any of the other four fundamental forces?
Thank you.

Why do you ask the monkey about things like, "And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together"?
When you can go to the Organ grinder

This collision was 50 times more powerful than all the stars in the universe combined
"The storm was brief — 20 milliseconds — very brief, but very powerful," Thorne said. "The total power output during the collision was 50 times greater than all the power of all the stars in the universe put together."

From: Business Insider, This collision was 50 times more powerful than all the stars in the universe combined.

I do believe that Shifter's ASI is possibly also sometimes called Prof Google.

And Shifter's "infinitely dense black hole" is probably quite false no more than a singularity where GR breaks down.
Possibly the solution is quantum loop gravity:

Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense
Theoretical physicists had previously shown that with loop quantum gravity, they could eliminate the singularity that past research suggested existed at the Big Bang. Instead of emerging from a point of infinite density, their work proposed the cosmos was born from a "Big Bounce," expanding outward after a prior universe collapsed.

From: Inside Science, Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense.

Quote from: Abelian3Folds on March 06, 2018, 06:27:14 PM

Hello Shifter. Can you provide a source for this claim?
"And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together?" Additionally, can you clarify what you mean by "The energy potential of gravity is infinite." Are you considering the singularity of a black hole to make this statement? Otherwise, how is this different from any of the other four fundamental forces?
Thank you.

Why do you ask the monkey about things like, "And in infinitely dense black hole smashing into another outputting energy more than 50 times the energy of every star in the universe put together"?
When you can go to the Organ grinder

Quote from: Sarah Kramer

This collision was 50 times more powerful than all the stars in the universe combined
"The storm was brief — 20 milliseconds — very brief, but very powerful," Thorne said. "The total power output during the collision was 50 times greater than all the power of all the stars in the universe put together."

From: Business Insider, This collision was 50 times more powerful than all the stars in the universe combined.

I do believe that Shifter's ASI is possibly also sometimes called Prof Google.

And Shifter's "infinitely dense black hole" is probably quite false no more than a singularity where GR breaks down.
Possibly the solution is quantum loop gravity:

Quote from: Charles Q. Choi

Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense
Theoretical physicists had previously shown that with loop quantum gravity, they could eliminate the singularity that past research suggested existed at the Big Bang. Instead of emerging from a point of infinite density, their work proposed the cosmos was born from a "Big Bounce," expanding outward after a prior universe collapsed.

From: Inside Science, Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense.

Sounds like you cherry pick Google hits of your own. The Big bounce is not accepted as fact and it has been concluded the most likely outcome by a LONG margin is a slow heat death of the universe. No bouncing or crunching, just a slow cold, dark death. Quantum tunnelling is predicted to be able to give birth to a new universe. Its not impossible, just improbable. But given infinite time.....

I have already dealt with the more complex version that deals with how it relates to 'dark matter/energy' and how it is threaded through another dimensional layer.

And where is your quote from Prof Google on that one.
Aren't you the smart one, Prof Shifter, but most knowledgeable people don't spend all their time blowing their own trumpet.
Nor pretending that they are smarter than us mere mortals.

Quote from: Shifter on March 06, 2018, 08:36:34 PM

I have already dealt with the more complex version that deals with how it relates to 'dark matter/energy' and how it is threaded through another dimensional layer.

And where is your quote from Prof Google on that one.
Aren't you the smart one, Prof Shifter, but most knowledgeable people don't spend all their time blowing their own trumpet.
Nor pretending that they are smarter than us mere mortals.

In fairness rab, I'm only overly obnoxious to you and JackBlack.

In fairness rab, I'm only overly obnoxious to you and JackBlack.

So, what about being a normal person and discussing/debating this sort of topic in suitable thread.
Possibly in Technology, Science & Alt Science as it's hardly debating material - it's not that we can decide, unless you happen to be physicist working in some relevant area.

Mind you, I'm quite open to questions like, "What if Einstein was wrong?", because we know that at some level GR is wrong.
For example, it fails at the centre of a black hole, at the "moment" of the "big (non) bang" and is a classical theory that does not fit it quantum theory.

And then you might even consider adding something at a far lower level to assist in answering posts like this:

lol there is no need to jump out a window density and buoyancy, im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall. but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical  and the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

Though it seems that andrewchikoski has given up on us incorrigibles.

((I respect your opinion and stuff but here is my proof that gravity exists with basic physics that my brother showed me))
Here’s some basic physics for you.
If the Earth is flat, then to cause an object, dropped above the ground, to accelerate towards the ground at 9.81 m/s squared (the acceleration value due to gravity) the Earth would have to constantly be accelerating at 9.81 m/s squared. Using the velocity equation v=u + at, where ‘v’ is the final velocity (m/s), ‘u’ is the initial velocity (m/s), ‘a’ is the acceleration (m/s squared) and t is the time (seconds) you can find the current speed the Earth must be travelling at for the flat Earth theory to be true. ‘v’ is the variable we’re looking for, u would be 0 m/s because the Earth hadn’t started accelerating yet, ‘a’ is 9.81 m/s squared and ‘t’ is the age of the Earth (4.543 billion years) converted into seconds, which is 143,268,048,000,000,000 seconds (1.43268048 x 10 to the 17th seconds). Therefore, the current speed of the Earth (roughly) is 0 + 9.81 x 143,268,048,000,000,000, which is 1,405,459,551,000,000,000 m/s (1.405459551 x 10 to the 18th m/s). This means that the current speed of the Earth (according to the flat Earth theory) is 4,688,108,434 time faster than the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), meaning that we would be unable to see, if we exceed light speed, because light’s speed is constant and light therefore cannot go faster or slower so light wouldn’t be able to catch up to our eyes. This is of course assuming that we could exceed the speed of light, which, at least currently, is deemed to be impossible.

Using the velocity equation v=u + at, where ‘v’ is the final velocity (m/s), ‘u’ is the initial velocity (m/s), ‘a’ is the acceleration (m/s squared) and t is the time (seconds) you can find the current speed the Earth must be travelling at for the flat Earth theory to be true. ‘v’ is the variable we’re looking for, u would be 0 m/s because the Earth hadn’t started accelerating yet, ‘a’ is 9.81 m/s squared and ‘t’ is the age of the Earth (4.543 billion years) converted into seconds, which is 143,268,048,000,000,000 seconds (1.43268048 x 10 to the 17th seconds). Therefore, the current speed of the Earth (roughly) is 0 + 9.81 x 143,268,048,000,000,000, which is 1,405,459,551,000,000,000 m/s (1.405459551 x 10 to the 18th m/s). This means that the current speed of the Earth (according to the flat Earth theory) is 4,688,108,434 time faster than the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), meaning that we would be unable to see, if we exceed light speed, because light’s speed is constant and light therefore cannot go faster or slower so light wouldn’t be able to catch up to our eyes. This is of course assuming that we could exceed the speed of light, which, at least currently, is deemed to be impossible.

This method doesn't actually work.
You cannot use this method while inside a reference frame.
The best you could do is look at it from an external reference frame, but that would require the acceleration to be constant.
Instead, as our velocity approaches the speed of light, time slows down, and thus to maintain a constant perception of acceleration for us it would require our acceleration to an outside observer to decrease.
So as our velocity approaches the speed of light, our acceleration approaches 0 and we never go over the speed of light.

A far better way to show the problems with an accelerating Earth is by noting that g is not 9.8 m/s^2. Instead, it varies across Earth and is approximately that.
So if g was caused by Earth accelerating, then the variation in g across Earth would require the different parts of Earth to be accelerating at different rates which would result in Earth being torn apart.

Quote from: andrewchikoski on March 04, 2018, 06:32:47 PM

density and buoyancy

Density alone explains nothing.

Does in Andy's case.

Quote from: smokified on February 27, 2018, 03:46:39 PM

Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 24, 2018, 10:24:21 AM

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Do a study (ie science) of what happens when you jump off of a tall building.

  id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

If you are magnetically pulled shouldnt Everyday household objects that are magnetic stick to you. And how does this explain non magnetic materials falling because of “magic” gravity?

This site itself has gravity in the equation for the infinite earth so you are just disapproving yourself.   . You either disprove the infinite earth theory or you disprove that gravity is fake gravity. You choose