how gravity works

[james bond]

Colin norris

You're not smart enough to know the difference between evidence and BS. You're on the side with nothing. You're the type that believes in invisible dark energy.

 

[Hollie]

Colin norris

You're not smart enough to know the difference between evidence and BS. You're on the side with nothing. You're the type that believes in invisible dark energy.

As opposed to believing in invisible men floating in the clouds with fat, naked babies playing harps and invisible demons.

 

[Hollie]

The threat is that of science to you because YOU have little knowledge of it. Did you present anything, but your usual beotching?

We have a theory of how it works. What do you have?

You have no theory of anything. You have tales and fables you believe are literally true. “The Bible says….’’ is not a theory.

 

[james bond]

As opposed to believing in invisible men floating in the clouds with fat, naked babies playing harps and invisible demons.

You don't know Christianity, creation science, nor science. You don't know how the universe, Earth, and everything in it came into existence.

What do you know? Nothing. You don't belong in S&T. Maybe they should have religious stereotypes and prejudices section for you or know nothing forum.

 

[Hollie]

You don't know Christianity, creation science, nor science. You don't know how the universe, Earth, and everything in it came into existence.

What do you know? Nothing. You don't belong in S&T. Maybe they should have religious stereotypes and prejudices section for you or know nothing forum.

So... you agree that "the Bible says….’’ is not a theory. You're just suffering from hurt feelings because the obvious was pointed out.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The bible doesn't read like butter, there could be a wide array of incorrect interpretations of things you read in the bible.

 

[toobfreak]

Natural selection or microevolution happens. I don't buy the macroevolution which the majority refers to as a new species are formed from a common ancestor.

There is good reason to feel that way. Many times in our history did new forms of life appear in the historical and stratographic record seemingly out of nowhere, rather than slowly evolve from something else similar and science is loathe to explain it:

1. The appearance of prokaryotes from underwater smokers.
2. Cyanobacteria.
3. The emergence of Eukaryotes.
4. The appearance of Plants, Animals and Fungi.
5. The Avalon explosion.
6. The Cambrian explosion of diversification.
7. The appearances of grasses on land, conifer trees and flowering planets and insects.
8. Placental mammals.
9. The appearance of primates and hominids.
10. The emergence of Paranthropus.

This is just the short list of places where life made leaps and bounds with no clear direct evolutionary step.

As for dark matter, it's a hypothetical term to explain when astronomers see that the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect.

More than theory, it has been tested and proven. Dark matter is the predominant "stuff" and the ordinary baryonic matter we see around us and interact with just a very minor player.

Dark energy is supposed to make up the majority of the universe, but since no one has seen or measured it, it does sound ridiculous.

Like I said, dark energy is pure conjecture invented to fill a void in observations of the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. There is absolutely NO REAL BASIS for believing it is really out there.

 

[james bond]

So... you agree that "the Bible says….’’ is not a theory. You're just suffering from hurt feelings because the obvious was pointed out.

The creation science parts are scientific theories. How many times have I said science backs up the Bible. We should teach creation science in public schools because of it. It's why I'm here in S&T and an advocate of teaching creation science.

OTOH, you are nothing in S&T forums since you present nothing new, but more beotching.

 

[james bond]

More than theory, it has been tested and proven. Dark matter is the predominant "stuff" and the ordinary baryonic matter we see around us and interact with just a very minor player.

I explained my position on dark matter in the last post and stated what it actually was. Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.

 

[Colin norris]

I explained my position on dark matter in the last post and stated what it actually was. Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.

You explained dark matter in contradiction to the best science available in the world!!!
Atheism is not challenging any science findings apart from the fact Religion has nothing connected to science. It's the Jesus junkies who won't accept anything but the hideous filthy bible.

 

[toobfreak]

Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.

I've missed that part as there are few people in this thread I usually bother reading. They are trying to REPLACE the BBT? Would it be worth asking why? AND generally, with what lies? Anyone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is less resolved is that just because species evolve and adapt over time doesn't preclude the distance of God.

Of course not. Not one person has ever claimed that it does. Ever. Bond does not seem to get this. He likes to pull this bait and switch, and pit evolution against theism. When, really, his idiotic behavior is due to evolution colliding with his childish dogma. Not with theism.

 

[Hollie]

The creation science parts are scientific theories. How many times have I said science backs up the Bible. We should teach creation science in public schools because of it. It's why I'm here in S&T and an advocate of teaching creation science.

OTOH, you are nothing in S&T forums since you present nothing new, but more beotching.

There are no “creation science” theories because ‘’creation science’’ is not science at all. It is a term used by fundamentalist Christians who have spent decades attempting to press their religious dogma into the public schools. They have spent decades fraudulently rebranding their dogma from "Biblical Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism," to "Intelligent Design'' to ''Intelligent Design Creationism'' to ''Creation Science''.

It’s a laughable joke that represents a truly spectacular failure to convince anyone that fundamentalist Christianity has any place in a science curriculum.

From the “about” page at AIG:
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

 

[HaShev]

 

[abu afak]

There is good reason to feel that way. Many times in our history did new forms of life appear in the historical and stratographic record seemingly out of nowhere, rather than slowly evolve from something else similar and science is loathe to explain it:

You were refuted by BOTH myself and Hollie on the last page: Untouched/Undisputed.
You were caught Lying, Fudging, and full of illogic.
NO answer to either of us.

Unphased, as you are in a Blind Cult (faith), you 'see no evil.'
100% Lying for Haysoos.

I guess the 100% culter James Bond is the only one you can debate or agree with.

On the last page you claimed 'Neither science nor religion waved a magic wand'...

Yet on THIS page they Did appear: "seemingly out of nowhere' to agree with your fellow creationist!!

1. The appearance of prokaryotes from underwater smokers.
2. Cyanobacteria.
3. The emergence of Eukaryotes.
4. The appearance of Plants, Animals and Fungi.
5. The Avalon explosion.
6. The Cambrian explosion of diversification.
7. The appearances of grasses on land, conifer trees and flowering planets and insects.
8. Placental mammals.
9. The appearance of primates and hominids.
10. The emergence of Paranthropus.

This is just the short list of places where life made leaps and bounds with no clear direct evolutionary step.[/quote[

"seemingly out of nowhere" is a QUALIFIED FIGURE OF SPEECH that acknowledges it is NOT out of nowhere.
Science routinely fill in the gaps in evo Every Year and Decade.

ie, and easily researched.
Evolution of Cyanobacteria
Wiki

Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're a complete Fraud who can't even keep his creation story straight.
You can't resolve the truth and what you know without Twisting every single sentence.
You're a Fraud.

And of course 100% God of the Gaps for as yet filled in ones.
And
NO EVIDENCE of god except the illogical Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity.

`
`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's #1 of a series explaining how Einstein's bumbling "thought experiments" reduced physics to a never ending loop of confirmation bias driven silliness that even he didn't believe in anymore.. "Oh man, if only we had an accelerator ten times bigger!"



I've only watched this one so far, so can't endorse the rest yet.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Here's #1 of a series explaining how Einstein's bumbling "thought experiments" reduced physics to a never ending loop of confirmation bias driven silliness that even he didn't believe in anymore.. "Oh man, if only we had an accelerator ten times bigger!"



I've only watched this one so far, so can't endorse the rest yet.

Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?

The acceleration due to gravity at any point in space is independent of the masses of the objects on which it acts. It is measured in terms of (meters per second)squared. As you can see, there is no deference there to mass.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The acceleration due to gravity at any point in space is independent of the masses of the objects on which it acts. It is measured in terms of (meters per second)squared. As you can see, there is no deference there to mass.

The answer is so obvious but I don't want to say it to see if anyone can get it. This is a really old question I'm surprised the real answer hasn't been solved yet and it remains a phenomena.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?

They don't necessarily, but use of the term "falling" implies we're talking about insignificantly small masses "accelerating" toward a large origin such as Earth's "center of gravity." In such cases, neglecting air resistance (i.e. in a "vacuum"), at sea level, and "at a geodetic latitude of 45°", "g" can generally be presumed a constant so neither their weights nor masses affect their rate of "fall," the Earth's mass so dominating the question (M vs. m). Thus we commonly use "F=mg" for weight even though it's damn near never exact.

Isaac Physics

Isaac Physics is a project designed to offer support and activities in physics problem solving to teachers and students from GCSE level through to university.

isaacphysics.org