Why do anti-science religionists never question the theory of gravity?

[Quantum Windbag]

Which theory of gravity are you talking about?

Is OohPooPahDoo baby talk for I am the world's biggest idiot?

Why do anti-science religionists never question the theory of gravity? Seriously, our current theory of gravity is far more God destroying than evolution or the big bang theory ever could have been! Einstein's gravity shows us that the concepts of an absolute time and space are false, that the measurement of these very basic quantities changes depending on how the observer's space-time is warped by matter - there is no preferred reference frame! Doens't that just blow God out of the water? Yet I rarely see the anti-scientist religionists attacking the theory of gravity!

why?

Einstein's gravity doesn't show any such thing. His General Theory of Relativity, of which his theory of gravity is a part, theorizes that space-time curves in a gravity field. Not sure how that would blow God out of the water, but feel free to make a fool out of yourself in trying to explain it.

In the meantime I will simply smirk because I can point to people who are a lot smarter than you, or even me, who have never tried to argue that this disproves God. One of them happens to be Albert Einstein.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Einstein's gravity shows us that the concepts of an absolute time and space are false, that the measurement of these very basic quantities changes depending on how the observer's space-time is warped by matter - there is no preferred reference frame! Doens't that just blow God out of the water?

How so, fool?

How so?

That's how. The RHS is the matter-energy stress tensor, the LHS is the Ricci tensor of the space-time geometry in which we exist (plus a cosmological constant term, the last term on the LHS, which can equally well bemoved to the RHS and considered a vaccuum energy). Matter and energy actually cause space-time to become not flat.

Do you even know what that means? Personally, I think the fact you can't even spell vacuum proves you are just quoting something you don't understand. Simple question here, what does RHS stand for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We can quantify, falsify and repeatedly test -in context- the theory of gravity, to the point that a high school freshman can understand it, even though it cannot be explained at the molecular level....

Are you kidding me? High school freshman can only understand gravity in the Newtonian limit - and in that limit space and time can be considered absolutes. I'm talking about Einstein's theory of gravity - and I guarantee you that there are a very small number of people who understand the math behind it. By einstein's gravity space and time are not absolute, they are warped by matter.

Nobody needs an exclusive group of gravity insiders to "peer review" one another and agree upon these things.

The group of scientists activiely publishing in matters of gravity is not terribly big, at least not on the theoretical side.

Are you telling me that high school students can't understand this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA]The curvature of Space-Time - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

great point.

they only believe sceince when it suits them.

all sceince is subject to political needs to them.

There is nothing they wont attack to retain their historically failed ideas

I always believe in science, unlike you.

 

[rightwinger]

Objects fall to earth because god wants them to

What else do you need to know?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gravity is not mentioned in the bible.

Neither am I, does that prove I don't exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that is the result of gravity. It did not mention why he would splatter if he stepped off the temple.

Splattering has nothing to do with gravity. It has to do with kinetic energy.

You might just want to give up now. You're in over your head.

and what creates that kinetic energy?

Actually the splattering has to do with the impact.
And human bodies being softer than the ground.
It is a bit more complex than you indicate.

Velocity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You only believe the science you like.

I like all science.

You like it because you think it proves you are smart for not believing in God, I like it because I understand it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do anti-science religionists never question the theory of gravity? Seriously, our current theory of gravity is far more God destroying than evolution or the big bang theory ever could have been! Einstein's gravity shows us that the concepts of an absolute time and space are false, that the measurement of these very basic quantities changes depending on how the observer's space-time is warped by matter - there is no preferred reference frame! Doens't that just blow God out of the water? Yet I rarely see the anti-scientist religionists attacking the theory of gravity!

why?

Why would people of faith be Anti-Science since God gave the science community plenty of homework. It is not his fault there are many bad theories put forth from the secularlist scientist.

 

[Avatar4321]

Two reasons:

1) There are no anti-science religionists
2) The laws of gravity prove there is an order to the universe and hence that there is an organizer.

 

[whitehall]

Who are "anti-science religionists"? Muslem jihadists who live in the 6th century? The assumption by truly ignorant anti-Christian bigots is that Christian religious leaders are anti-science because they believe in creation and think abortion is murder. There are hundreds of Christian affiliated institutes of higher learning who offer advanced science degrees.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Which theory of gravity are you talking about?

The current one. General relativity.

Einstein's gravity doesn't show any such thing. His General Theory of Relativity, of which his theory of gravity is a part, theorizes that space-time curves in a gravity field. Not sure how that would blow God out of the water, but feel free to make a fool out of yourself in trying to explain it.

If there is no preferred frame of reference would that not mean God's frame of reference isn't preferred?

In the meantime I will simply smirk because I can point to people who are a lot smarter than you, or even me, who have never tried to argue that this disproves God. One of them happens to be Albert Einstein.

And evolutionists will also say that evolution doesn't disprove God yet the anti-science religionists persist in their claims.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How so, fool?

How so?

That's how. The RHS is the matter-energy stress tensor, the LHS is the Ricci tensor of the space-time geometry in which we exist (plus a cosmological constant term, the last term on the LHS, which can equally well bemoved to the RHS and considered a vaccuum energy). Matter and energy actually cause space-time to become not flat.

Do you even know what that means?

Yes.

Personally, I think the fact you can't even spell vacuum proves you are just quoting something you don't understand.

That's a silly metric. I'm sure there's a couple of mispelled words or grammatical errors somewhere in my dissertation as well.

Simple question here, what does RHS stand for?

Its the right hand side smart ass.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We can quantify, falsify and repeatedly test -in context- the theory of gravity, to the point that a high school freshman can understand it, even though it cannot be explained at the molecular level....

Are you kidding me? High school freshman can only understand gravity in the Newtonian limit - and in that limit space and time can be considered absolutes. I'm talking about Einstein's theory of gravity - and I guarantee you that there are a very small number of people who understand the math behind it. By einstein's gravity space and time are not absolute, they are warped by matter.

Nobody needs an exclusive group of gravity insiders to "peer review" one another and agree upon these things.

The group of scientists activiely publishing in matters of gravity is not terribly big, at least not on the theoretical side.

Are you telling me that high school students can't understand this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA]The curvature of Space-Time - YouTube[/ame]

That's not general relativity. (If it were life would be easier for so many graduate students) Its a conceptual approximation of general relativity. Its like saying you can understand the trajectory of a baseball without Newton's laws just because you can conceive of how a baseball might be set on a given trajectory.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You only believe the science you like.

I like all science.

You like it because you think it proves you are smart for not believing in God, I like it because I understand it.

I don't not believe in God.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Two reasons:

1) There are no anti-science religionists
2) The laws of gravity prove there is an order to the universe and hence that there is an organizer.

The laws of gravity do not prove there is a creator, sorry.

 

[amrchaos]

Two reasons:

1) There are no anti-science religionists
2) The laws of gravity prove there is an order to the universe and hence that there is an organizer.

1)But there are religious inspired people that are anti-science. From the Christian scientists that denounce certain medical treatments based on thier beliefs to truly fringe nuts that believe they can drink poison and not die(recall Jonestown for example.)

No, scientists do not know everything, but the dedicated ones do try to verify what is true and what is false in order not endange people.

2)Gravity, despite OPD's opinion, neither proves nor disprove a god.


The best way to disprove a god as claimed by some religion is to:

a)Clarify the definition of god(or gods) by the group

b)Use the definition of their god, plus the claims of that group to show inconsistancy.

c) Argue that the inconsistancy is either due to i)there is no god(as defined by the group) or ii)The religion is false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The current one. General relativity.

General Relativity is not the current theory of gravity, it is the geometric explanation for the effect of gravity on space time. It doesn't do anything to explain what gravity actually is or how it works, which any theory of gravity would have to do.

If there is no preferred frame of reference would that not mean God's frame of reference isn't preferred?

Einstein did not say there is no preferred frame of reference, what he said is thta we, being part of the universe, cannot tell the difference between being in an elevator and being in a gravity field. Since Einstein was working in 4 dimensions, and current scientific theory is pretty sure that there are at least 10. How do we know there is not a preferential refernce frame we can't see if we only look at 4 dimensions?

And evolutionists will also say that evolution doesn't disprove God yet the anti-science religionists persist in their claims.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, all it proves is that people who think that the world is 6000 years old are wrong. Since the people that actually believe that are irrelevant you trumpeting them is a sign of laziness.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The current one. General relativity.

General Relativity is not the current theory of gravity

Yes it is. There are others (scalar-tensor theory, for instance), but GR is the most recent generally accepted theory of gravity.

, it is the geometric explanation for the effect of gravity on space time.

Yeah. A theory of gravity. Duh.

It doesn't do anything to explain what gravity actually is or how it works, which any theory of gravity would have to do.

Sure it does. Gravity is a bending of space-time by matter.

Einstein did not say there is no preferred frame of reference,

No, right, he didn't say that, he just published a generally covariant theory of gravity. Sure thing bud.

what he said is thta we, being part of the universe, cannot tell the difference between being in an elevator and being in a gravity field.

Hence no preferred frame of reference. why do you insist on contradicting yourself over and over again?

Since Einstein was working in 4 dimensions, and current scientific theory is pretty sure that there are at least 10.

No it isn't. You're consfusing string theory with GR. GR does not require more than 4 dimensions. And string theory hasn't been experimentally proven.

How do we know there is not a preferential refernce frame we can't see if we only look at 4 dimensions?

We know that the theory of general relativity is generally covariant. It prefers no frame over another as it can be expressed with equal correctness in any frame.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How so?

That's how. The RHS is the matter-energy stress tensor, the LHS is the Ricci tensor of the space-time geometry in which we exist (plus a cosmological constant term, the last term on the LHS, which can equally well bemoved to the RHS and considered a vaccuum energy). Matter and energy actually cause space-time to become not flat.

Do you even know what that means?

Yes.

Personally, I think the fact you can't even spell vacuum proves you are just quoting something you don't understand.

That's a silly metric. I'm sure there's a couple of mispelled words or grammatical errors somewhere in my dissertation as well.

Simple question here, what does RHS stand for?

Its the right hand side smart ass.

There were no misspellings in any dissertation I ever turned in, and I did them before spell check even existed. There was a grammatical error,

RHS belongs to the right hand side? The right hand side of what?