The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lon

Well-known member
Yes, and modern academia says it's not a force.
Pulling or pushing.
Incorrect. Gravity describes 'how' things interact. "How things interact" is the definition of 'force.' You can say Gravity isn't just a force ala https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/ If you read there, 'gravity warps' (a force). Also read here: Gravity 'is' a real force! https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2022/08/05/why-is-gravity-not-a-real-force/ Again, Gravity and General Relativity are considered the same thing. Think rather that "Gravity" is subsumed in the larger definition and understanding. It is an emergent force, an effect/force of something else. Newton didn't know that, thought 'gravity' was the initial power (the force that pulls objects toward each other).
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Volume is synonymous with containment.
OK so you said, "gas law states that gas pressure cannot occur without containment," and now you're saying gas pressure cannot occur without volume, but literally gas cannot even exist without volume. Zero volume is a point, and a point is even smaller than a gas molecule.

What was your point in all this? The atmosphere is a lot of volume.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
There's no way he can lay out the flat earther position.

Give him a chance.

It's unrebukable.

Do you mean unfalsifiable?

Not even Christianity claims to be unfalsifiable.

If something is unfalsifiable, that means it's not able to be falsified, as in, there's no way to test its claims.

Meaning it's unscientific. As in, you can believe whatever you want, and no one can challenge its premises or assertions, because it's not grounded in reality. It's a fantasy.

I'll watch the first one though.

Thank you. Seriously.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Volume is synonymous with containment.
You said "gas pressure cannot occur without containment [iow] without volume."

So I'm thinking about things with no volume, because the atmosphere is a big volume, and a pressurized gas cylinder is a much smaller volume but still a volume, and both the atmosphere and the cylinder have gas pressure.

What were you trying to say?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Incorrect. Gravity describes 'how' things interact. "How things interact" is the definition of 'force.' You can say Gravity isn't just a force ala https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/ If you read there, 'gravity warps' (a force). Also read here: Gravity 'is' a real force! https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2022/08/05/why-is-gravity-not-a-real-force/ Again, Gravity and General Relativity are considered the same thing. Think rather that "Gravity" is subsumed in the larger definition and understanding. It is an emergent force, an effect/force of something else. Newton didn't know that, thought 'gravity' was the initial power (the force that pulls objects toward each other).
It depends which metaphysic (metaphysical theory). In his theory, gravitation is an abduction of the God concept. Partially of course, but nonetheless in a real way it offends his concept of God, he is righteously indignant at the sacrilege.

Newton believed gravity is ontic, it is real, it has being, it exists. Einstein says no. It's geometry. So what's going on with the geometry of all the galaxies we see in all our telescopes that make zero sense unless we add in not one but two undetectable variables in order that our model of orbits works when we look at how much matter is circling how much other matter in all these galaxies, and what their movements look like.

They all look like, generally, on average, like there's way more mass in all the galaxies than meets the eye, and, everything is moving as if it's being pushed by a rocket. They say, "This much stuff is orbiting itself (it's a galaxy), and here are the detailed trajectories of all the objects," and the pattern is as if all the particles are being accelerated by rockets, outward. And that's even if they have zero mass. Like, even if they had zero mass (meaning all the stars are unconstrained by gravity), they still shouldn't be flying away from everything else as aggressively as this. There's more energy than just "no gravity."

So to make what our telescopes line up with Newton, you add in dark matter and dark energy to his equations, and voila, Newton explains everything, he just needs to propose that the Universe is over 95% INVISIBLE AND UNDETECTABLE meaning it's possible none of this stuff exists.

So rather than do all that, this fellow is saying how about we just ignore the idea that gravity exists, because it's just as likely God is in direct control of all motion except for free will like me and you. He quotes Einstein, saying in math that gravity is only geometry, so therefore gravity doesn't exist, but Einstein doesn't solve the problem of the galaxies which are all spiraling the way they do, and the Webb telescope is only revealing more and more of these objects in the night sky, they are all inexplicable on Newtonism (but not necessarily surprising on the idea that gravity is fictional) without 95% (19 parts out of 20) of the Universe being by definition invisible and undetectable. Oh, and the proposed mediating particle for gravity also happens to be so minuscule that we'll basically never be able to build a measurement detector massive enough for it to work. How convenient is that? It's Wizard of Oz pay no attention to the man behind the curtain wizardry.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Again, Gravity and General Relativity are considered the same thing. Think rather that "Gravity" is subsumed in the larger definition and understanding. It is an emergent force, an effect/force of something else. Newton didn't know that, thought 'gravity' was the initial power (the force that pulls objects toward each other).
Dude's an idiot.
Just can't handle the fact that gravity is not a force.
What part of gravity is not a force makes folks stick their fingers in their ears and try to reiterate into one?
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
It depends which metaphysic (metaphysical theory). In his theory, gravitation is an abduction of the God concept. Partially of course, but nonetheless in a real way it offends his concept of God, he is righteously indignant at the sacrilege.

Newton believed gravity is ontic, it is real, it has being, it exists. Einstein says no. It's geometry. So what's going on with the geometry of all the galaxies we see in all our telescopes that make zero sense unless we add in not one but two undetectable variables in order that our model of orbits works when we look at how much matter is circling how much other matter in all these galaxies, and what their movements look like.

They all look like, generally, on average, like there's way more mass in all the galaxies than meets the eye, and, everything is moving as if it's being pushed by a rocket. They say, "This much stuff is orbiting itself (it's a galaxy), and here are the detailed trajectories of all the objects," and the pattern is as if all the particles are being accelerated by rockets, outward. And that's even if they have zero mass. Like, even if they had zero mass (meaning all the stars are unconstrained by gravity), they still shouldn't be flying away from everything else as aggressively as this. There's more energy than just "no gravity."

So to make what our telescopes line up with Newton, you add in dark matter and dark energy to his equations, and voila, Newton explains everything, he just needs to propose that the Universe is over 95% INVISIBLE AND UNDETECTABLE meaning it's possible none of this stuff exists.

So rather than do all that, this fellow is saying how about we just ignore the idea that gravity exists, because it's just as likely God is in direct control of all motion except for free will like me and you. He quotes Einstein, saying in math that gravity is only geometry, so therefore gravity doesn't exist, but Einstein doesn't solve the problem of the galaxies which are all spiraling the way they do, and the Webb telescope is only revealing more and more of these objects in the night sky, they are all inexplicable on Newtonism (but not necessarily surprising on the idea that gravity is fictional) without 95% (19 parts out of 20) of the Universe being by definition invisible and undetectable. Oh, and the proposed mediating particle for gravity also happens to be so minuscule that we'll basically never be able to build a measurement detector massive enough for it to work. How convenient is that? It's Wizard of Oz pay no attention to the man behind the curtain wizardry.
Yep, both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is wizardry.
Well done.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Dude's an idiot.
Just can't handle the fact that gravity is not a force.
What part of gravity is not a force makes folks stick their fingers in their ears and try to reiterate into one?
Who, the guys the wrote those articles? Idolater who acquiesced? Me supporting 'emergent' force?

What made you the expert? How did you get this brilliant? Can you prove the point? Can you put it in laymen's language that anybody can get it? If not, then you need to rework the above to more accurately reflect the reality.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Every instance I've read that suggest gravity is not a force, also says gravitational fields don't exist (no such thing as gravity). If scientists were word-masters, they'd expedite learning and accuracy by cutting out the superfluous and simply saying "Gravity doesn't exist therefore is not a force/has no force."
That said, we still use the word 'gravity' and 'relativity' interchangeably. If that then makes 'idiots' (doesn't when the describer/teacher/scientist is the one actually confusing the poor idiot in the first place), it would expediate him from being one simply by being very clear in the first place. He created his/her own confusion and then blamed the poor idiot for not getting it!
 

Lon

Well-known member
Who, the guys the wrote those articles? Idolater who acquiesced? Me supporting 'emergent' force?

What made you the expert? How did you get this brilliant? Can you prove the point? Can you put it in laymen's language that anybody can get it? If not, then you need to rework the above to more accurately reflect the reality.
Or did you mean Newton? I think he did really well with the limitations of observation. I suppose a lot of outdated stuff makes the ancients look idiotic compared to today's innovations?
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Who, the guys the wrote those articles? Idolater who acquiesced? Me supporting 'emergent' force?
D all of the above.
What made you the expert? How did you get this brilliant? Can you prove the point? Can you put it in laymen's language that anybody can get it? If not, then you need to rework the above to more accurately reflect the reality.
One doesn't have to be brilliant to understand that not a force means not a force.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Do you mean unfalsifiable?

Not even Christianity claims to be unfalsifiable.

If something is unfalsifiable, that means it's not able to be falsified, as in, there's no way to test its claims.
No, I'm saying flat earth proofs are unrebukable.
Not merely a belief.
Meaning it's unscientific. As in, you can believe whatever you want, and no one can challenge its premises or assertions, because it's not grounded in reality. It's a fantasy.
That would be like the belief in gravity as a force...


It seems to me farther, that these Particles have not only a Vis inertiae, accompanied with such passive Laws of Motion as naturally result from that Force, but also that they are moved by certain active Principles, such as that of Gravity, and that which causes Fermentation, and the Cohesion of Bodies. These Principles I consider, not as occult Qualities, supposed to result from the specifick Forms of Things, but as general Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves are form'd; their Truth appearing to us by Phaenomena, though their Causes be not yet discover'd. For these are manifest Qualities, and their Causes only are occult.
— Sir Isaac Newton
 

Lon

Well-known member
D all of the above.
LOL, you are not going to be making friends. It'd be WAY better if you said clearly: "Gravity doesn't exist, therefore has no power" (nobody ever says that :Z).
One doesn't have to be brilliant to understand that not a force means not a force.
So follow: I tell you gravity exists but is not a force. I tell you gravity and general relativity are the same thing (I actually said the former is subsumed by the latter or replaced altogether). then further, today I tell you gravity exists (in all kinds of scientific literature). Are all the poor kids that don't understand this idiots? Why didn't anyone just tell them gravity is an observation of the bending of space/time?
 

Lon

Well-known member
We were all booger eatin' morons when first told about the heliocentric cult.

Occult ring any bells?
Not until I watched the first video Judge sent in thread *one has to know all the ins/outs of discussion so a lot of people on this particular aren't going to be 'all caught up.' I'd have been lost if I hadn't watched that first video, had no idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top