Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity

[007]

Evolution and gravity are facts. A theory of evolution or a theory of gravity are plausible explanations for such facts.

You contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. First you claim evolution is a fact. Then you say "a theory of evolution...".

Evolution is, and plausibly always will be, a THEORY.

 

[miketx]

Like we have been saying evolution and gravity is just a theory...


Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next


ISAAC NEWTON is rightly regarded as the greatest scientist of all time. However, groundbreaking black hole research has now disproved Newton’s theory of gravity – and even Albert Einstein’s theories are “starting to fray around the edges”, a scientist has warned.
By TOM FISH
12:00, Sat, Jul 27, 2019 | UPDATED: 12:00, Sat, Jul 27, 2019

Newton's theory was proven when Sir Edmund Halley used his theory to successfully predict the return of the comet named for him.

 

[007]

How Does Gravity Bend Light?

 

[james bond]

I see everyone is ignorant as to the real meaning "theory" and "law" in the scientific sense. Here's a hint, Newton never had a theory of gravity.

His "law" of universal gravitation turned out not be applicable everywhere as pointed out earlier. Some people call this a theory. It was replaced over hundred years ago, but his mathematical equation still is applicable everywhere except in quantum mechanics and for very large masses such as the black hole.

Newton's theory was proven when Sir Edmund Halley used his theory to successfully predict the return of the comet named for him.

Not proven, but used successfully by Halley. Again, his theory/law of universal gravitation was replaced over 100 years ago as pointed out by other posters.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution is a fact. The or a theory of evolution is a plausible explanation for this fact. And I do not discuss anything in context "creation vs evoution". A totally superflous discussion, which has specially absolutelly nothing to do with Christians. Catholics never had a problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution.

Haha. No use continuing this discussion as you are not being scientific at all. ...

Okay. Another question: When I see it the right way then you feel predestined to go to heaven while you think the same time I and Stephen Hawking will go to hell. I, because I'm a Catholic, who says evolution is a fact - and Stephen Hakwing, because he was an atheist. Is this interpretation correct?

 

[martybegan]

Newton’s gravity theory may be wrong, but Newtonian physics still works perfectly here on earth.

And current physics also works for orbital calculations needed to send ships to other planets or celestial bodies.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution is a fact. The or a theory of evolution is a plausible explanation for this fact. And I do not discuss anything in context "creation vs evoution". A totally superflous discussion, which has specially absolutelly nothing to do with Christians. Catholics never had a problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution.

Haha. No use continuing this discussion as you are not being scientific at all.

A monkey with the name Hugo and you have a common ancestor. The theory of evolution is very concrete. Unfortunatelly I don't know, whether a monkey with the name Hugo exists - and this is the problem what the most people have, who speak about evolution: They are lost in abstracta. You are lost in abstracta too.

Now, you have pulled the old bait-n-swith back to ToE. I think you're the one lost in "abstracta." I do not need evolution in my life because I have God, the Bible, and creation science, i.e. observable science that shows science backs up the Bible. Why is "evolution is fact" so important for you?

It is not important for me. It is a fact and that's the reason why I say so.

Does Catholicism lack that which you seek? We have ding, another follower of Catholicism, who completely ignores Genesis. Genesis is the supernatural part in the Bible which we find science backs up. It is the most important part which secular/atheist scientists have eliminated from science. These people have been eliminated from peer reviews. They could lose their jobs if they bring up the Bible theory. Is it any wonder that we are not long for this Earth and will meet Jesus sooner than the next century?

In my eyes you say here a very strange nonsense far from the rebound in god and the rebound in truth. Do you have any known psychiatric problems? Are you sure you are an independent person far from mind control by a brainwashing organisation?

Maybe after President Donald Trump completes his second term, the Earth will go to hell in a handbasket.

So let him not complete to throw the Earth in a handbasket.

 

[zaangalewa]

Like we have been saying evolution and gravity is just a theory...


Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next


ISAAC NEWTON is rightly regarded as the greatest scientist of all time. However, groundbreaking black hole research has now disproved Newton’s theory of gravity – and even Albert Einstein’s theories are “starting to fray around the edges”, a scientist has warned.
By TOM FISH
12:00, Sat, Jul 27, 2019 | UPDATED: 12:00, Sat, Jul 27, 2019

I had seen this in an online science journal.

This is why I prefer science to religion.

= "This is why I prefer to fly a learjet instead to eat something."

When new evidence comes to light, science accepts it and changes the previous theories.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution and gravity are facts. A theory of evolution or a theory of gravity are plausible explanations for such facts.

You contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. First you claim evolution is a fact. Then you say "a theory of evolution...".

Evolution is, and plausibly always will be, a THEORY.

When you see a mountain then the "theory" about this mountain is the light, your eyes and your perception. But the mountain is the mountain.

In case of natural science philosophies (=for example empirism), mathematics (logic of qualities and quantities) and experiments or observations (reality) are part of a theory. That evolution exists are you able to see when you take a look at your hands and the front paws of your dog and pictures of the hand of a gorilla.

 

[james bond]

Okay. Another question: When I see it the right way then you feel predestined to go to heaven while you think the same time I and Stephen Hawking will go to hell. I, because I'm a Catholic, who says evolution is a fact - and Stephen Hakwing, because he was an atheist. Is this interpretation correct?

It appeared to be a slow thread and had some time, so I tried to look at the things you were saying. I knew you as Christian, but you were saying things a normal Christian would not say. I don't think William Lane Craig believes Genesis either. He is one of the best Christian theologians out there if not the best; I think he's the best. Yet, what the group he put together is called Reasonable Faith. He does not believe Genesis is real. How can the supernatural be real? How can a human like Noah live so long to be able build an Ark by himself in 125 years? Aren't these the same things atheists not believe?

I had trouble with the same things, but God revealed the truth to me. People could live that long in ancient times because things were different in the past. Gravity was less. They weren't bombarded by gamma rays after the flood. Their maximum lives were over 900 years. The Bible records those histories. Our maximum life is around 120 years today.

Even Sir Isaac Newton couldn't have know his universal gravity theory description could be wrong. How could he? It was the best for his time.

Go back and read my post #29 and Jack Chick's tract The Awful Truth. He tweaks the description of Catholics a bit, but he's not too far off from the truth. What you have to discover is Satan put a false teacher among our midst. The Abrahamic God has different explanations. However, what chance do I have as a YEC creationist? Satan has made it so people like myself has to go up against evolution, famous universities, religious institutions, famous people, one of the best theologians, and so on. An then there are the atheist institutions against us. Oh Satan did a good job all right. He's the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air." The atheists write his name in each of their posts. All I have is ICR, AIG, creation.com, and others. Satan has completely eliminated us from museums, evolutionary science, and the like. Then I read things like predestination in the Scripture -- What is predestination? Is predestination biblical? (listing of verses here). I believe you are faithful, but you have to pray to believe what is true. Show me the real worldview.

 

[007]

Evolution and gravity are facts. A theory of evolution or a theory of gravity are plausible explanations for such facts.

You contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. First you claim evolution is a fact. Then you say "a theory of evolution...".

Evolution is, and plausibly always will be, a THEORY.

When you see a mountain then the "theory" about this mountain is the light, your eyes and your perception. But the mountain is the mountain.

In case of natural science philosophies (=for example empirism), mathematics (logic of qualities and quantities) and experiments or observations (reality) are part of a theory. That evolution exists are you able to see when you take a look at your hands and the front paws of your dog and pictures of the hand of a gorilla.

What in the HELL are you saying? A mountain is a theory of light?

I understand the science behind everything resonates at a certain frequency, and that determines the color our eyes perceive it as, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[zaangalewa]

Okay. Another question: When I see it the right way then you feel predestined to go to heaven while you think the same time I and Stephen Hawking will go to hell. I, because I'm a Catholic, who says evolution is a fact - and Stephen Hakwing, because he was an atheist. Is this interpretation correct?

...

Again: Is this interpretation correct?

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution and gravity are facts. A theory of evolution or a theory of gravity are plausible explanations for such facts.

You contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. First you claim evolution is a fact. Then you say "a theory of evolution...".

Evolution is, and plausibly always will be, a THEORY.

When you see a mountain then the "theory" about this mountain is the light, your eyes and your perception. But the mountain is the mountain.

In case of natural science philosophies (=for example empirism), mathematics (logic of qualities and quantities) and experiments or observations (reality) are part of a theory. That evolution exists are you able to see when you take a look at your hands and the front paws of your dog and pictures of the hand of a gorilla.

What in the HELL are you saying? A mountain is a theory of light?

... hhmmm ... Exactly ... When we percept and think then we are doing this with the help of electrochemical processes. Over the membranes of our nervs are wandering action potentials - with other words: electrons. The force carrier of the electromagnetic power are photons. So indeed I say to percept and to think produces light in us, is enlightenment - not only spiritually - also physically. Seems human beings are laterns too.

I understand the science behind everything resonates at a certain frequency,

A what? A frequency? ... I would say to live means to sing too. And with every lost species we lose a voice of god, said my beloved Pope Francesco. God may give him joy and everything else what he needs to do his hard job.

and that determines the color our eyes perceive it as, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

I spoke about what a theory is. Evolution is a fact (a fact is the mountain in my example) - what we do is to enlighten ourselves when we take a serios look at the visible and invisible phenomenons all around us - also when we take a serios look at the very concrete phenomenon evolution. And in communication with each other we don't use majorite decisions in case of questions of natural science (science is not politics at all). We use - besides of the might of the creative intuitions, sharp thoughts and the ability to inter-communicate from all parts to all other parts of science without contradictions (also science knows only one common truth) - the sword of a common philosophy in natural science: the philosophy empirism. The "judge" in questions of natural science is gods creation all around. And part of gods creation is the phenomenon evolution. Evolution is a fact. Who is not able to accept this fact lives not in our universe ... better to say: lives in an universe without science. Not to know something about science degrades no one. There exist lots of other important things too.

By the way: When I say "evolution is a fact" means this not that everyone is right, who speaks in the name of evolution bullshit. It's thousand times better to deny evolution then to be a racist or Nazi because of a wrong understanding of this, what evolution really is. Evolution shows first of all very well that we are all in our biology sisters and brothers - it shows also that all animals are somehow our sisters and brothers too. Nothing, what's really new, since the days of Noah or Saint Francis. ... Ahem ... What's really new is for example that we are genetically 52% a banana. So the banana holds the majorite of the genetical shares in us.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution is a fact. The or a theory of evolution is a plausible explanation for this fact. And I do not discuss anything in context "creation vs evoution". A totally superflous discussion, which has specially absolutelly nothing to do with Christians. Catholics never had a problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution.

Haha. No use continuing this discussion as you are not being scientific at all.

A monkey with the name Hugo and you have a common ancestor. The theory of evolution is very concrete. Unfortunatelly I don't know, whether a monkey with the name Hugo exists - and this is the problem what the most people have, who speak about evolution: They are lost in abstracta. You are lost in abstracta too.

Now, you have pulled the old bait-n-swith back to ToE. I think you're the one lost in "abstracta." I do not need evolution in my life because I have God, the Bible, and creation science, i.e. observable science that shows science backs up the Bible. Why is "evolution is fact" so important for you? Does Catholicism lack that which you seek? We have ding, another follower of Catholicism, who completely ignores Genesis. Genesis is the supernatural part in the Bible which we find science backs up.

^^
Science doesn't back up supernaturalism.

What's wrong when you use the same expression meta-physics (Greek) instead of super-natural (Latin). Mathematics for example is meta-physics. And to do physics without mathematics is ... not possible, isn't it?

 

[007]

[Evolution is a fact (a fact is the mountain in my example) -

Wow... you're out there brother... but yes, everything has a resonant frequency according it's atomic structure, and that frequency determines what spectrum of color it will reflect to our eyes. That is a fact...

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder.
Color is determined first by frequency and then by how those frequencies are combined or mixed when they reach the eye.

Color – The Physics Hypertextbook

But aside from that, evolution is NOT a FACT. Never has been a FACT. It was a theory, it's a theory now, and it will still be a theory in the future.

If you could PROVE evolution was a fact, as you're so fond of stating, you'd be the richest man in the world, and you'd be on every news channel on every TV on the world. But alas, no... it's only a theory. No one knows where life came from, no one knows how life began. We only have guesses... you know... THEORIES... like evolution.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I see everyone is ignorant as to the real meaning "theory" and "law" in the scientific sense. Here's a hint, Newton never had a theory of gravity.

His "law" of universal gravitation turned out not be applicable everywhere as pointed out earlier. Some people call this a theory. It was replaced over hundred years ago, but his mathematical equation still is applicable everywhere except in quantum mechanics and for very large masses such as the black hole.

Newton's theory was proven when Sir Edmund Halley used his theory to successfully predict the return of the comet named for him.

Not proven, but used successfully by Halley. Again, his theory/law of universal gravitation was replaced over 100 years ago as pointed out by other posters.

See, this is where you are all wrong. Though I also made the mistake of being inarticulate. Newton was the first to posit the law of universal gravitation. It's incorrect that Newton never had a theory of gravity, what I meant to say is that his theory of gravity is not equal to his law of universal gravitation.

Newton's law of universal gravity: Every mass is attracted to every other mass.
Newton's theory of gravity: The gravitational attraction between two masses is proportional to he product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.

Newton's mathematical model is by and large accurate for predicting movements based on gravity. Later, general relativity provided an even more accurate method to predict those same movements.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Like we have been saying evolution and gravity is just a theory...

Evolution and gravity are facts. A theory of evolution or a theory of gravity are plausible explanations for such facts. And the sentence "Newton was wrong" is wrong. The theory of Newton is only wrong in case of some conditions, what he never thought about. The theory of Newton was replaced - better to say "enlarged" - from the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein. Since more then a hundred years every single test (experiment and observation) of the theory of Albert Einstein was definetelly correct. A short time ago some scientists from the University of California in Los Angeles found even out it is also exact in the very near of the supermassive black hole in in the middle of our milky way. They watched since 24 years S0-2 who circles around Sagittarius A* - as far as I know with the help of the W.M. Keck-Oberservatorium Hawaii. The observation showed the gravitational redshift in the near of this black hole.

To say they are facts shows me what a fool you are.


.

Denying that evolution and gravity are facts shows what a fool you are.

More anti science from you narcissist?

.

 

[james bond]

Okay. Another question: When I see it the right way then you feel predestined to go to heaven while you think the same time I and Stephen Hawking will go to hell. I, because I'm a Catholic, who says evolution is a fact - and Stephen Hakwing, because he was an atheist. Is this interpretation correct?

...

Again: Is this interpretation correct?

To me, the Bible is the word of God. It is his autobiography. Science has revealed it to back up the Bible. This science is observable, testable, and falsifiable. The evolutionist people who claim to have this observable, testable, and falsifiable experiments lied. They also claimed to have the mountain of evidence and lied. You claimed evolution is a fact and it's a lie. What Catholics believe is what their human leader Pope tells them. Look at Pope Gregory. Didn't he imprison Galileo for heresy for heliocentrism? Today, we have Pope Francis who makes one mistake after another and claims evolution is true science. I'm the one who only has the Bible theory. Like I said, how can I go against the standard tide that people believe, but don't ask me to believe in lies of Satan.

 

[james bond]

I see everyone is ignorant as to the real meaning "theory" and "law" in the scientific sense. Here's a hint, Newton never had a theory of gravity.

His "law" of universal gravitation turned out not be applicable everywhere as pointed out earlier. Some people call this a theory. It was replaced over hundred years ago, but his mathematical equation still is applicable everywhere except in quantum mechanics and for very large masses such as the black hole.

Newton's theory was proven when Sir Edmund Halley used his theory to successfully predict the return of the comet named for him.

Not proven, but used successfully by Halley. Again, his theory/law of universal gravitation was replaced over 100 years ago as pointed out by other posters.

See, this is where you are all wrong. Though I also made the mistake of being inarticulate. Newton was the first to posit the law of universal gravitation. It's incorrect that Newton never had a theory of gravity, what I meant to say is that his theory of gravity is not equal to his law of universal gravitation.

Newton's law of universal gravity: Every mass is attracted to every other mass.
Newton's theory of gravity: The gravitational attraction between two masses is proportional to he product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.

Newton's mathematical model is by and large accurate for predicting movements based on gravity. Later, general relativity provided an even more accurate method to predict those same movements.

It's a waste of time to argue about being stuck pre-1900s. Why don't you explain Newton's description of this law of universal gravity and how he describes a fixed space. Tell us about the eternal universe haha.

 

[Hollie]

Okay. Another question: When I see it the right way then you feel predestined to go to heaven while you think the same time I and Stephen Hawking will go to hell. I, because I'm a Catholic, who says evolution is a fact - and Stephen Hakwing, because he was an atheist. Is this interpretation correct?

...

Again: Is this interpretation correct?

To me, the Bible is the word of God. It is his autobiography. Science has revealed it to back up the Bible. This science is observable, testable, and falsifiable. The evolutionist people who claim to have this observable, testable, and falsifiable experiments lied. They also claimed to have the mountain of evidence and lied. You claimed evolution is a fact and it's a lie. What Catholics believe is what their human leader Pope tells them. Look at Pope Gregory. Didn't he imprison Galileo for heresy for heliocentrism? Today, we have Pope Francis who makes one mistake after another and claims evolution is true science. I'm the one who only has the Bible theory. Like I said, how can I go against the standard tide that people believe, but don't ask me to believe in lies of Satan.

Yes, science is lies. Thank you so much for your continued retreat to conspiracy theories.