Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[Dagosa]

just like atheism is a lie.

How is a belief, a lie ? A brief in a particular god, isn’t a lie, it’s just unsupported foolishness. .

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hopefully someone else has already pointed out to the OP that Newton's "Law of Universal Gravity," was superseded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The "Principle" to Newton has never been "superseded" for anything other than things approaching the speed of light. Think how often you've actually made use of the former as opposed to the latter. The latter reducing to the former for 99.9% of practical applications hardly suggests being replaced.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy, selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

Beautifully put. Your use of "fields" has provided me a new avenue of thought. The word "science," having always just suggested "study (of)" to me, can now go deeper. Study of what? Fields. Fields of study or study of fields. Works either way. This is where atomists go wrong. Fields are actually what's fundamental. Let the troglodytes keep masturbating given any mention of "particles." The science of electricity remains vastly unexamined.

 

[james bond]

How is a belief, a lie ? A brief in a particular god, isn’t a lie, it’s just unsupported foolishness. .

A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as unsupported foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their conviction that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.

 

[abu afak]

Quote from a friend:

"To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

The "Principle" to Newton has never been "superseded" for anything other than things approaching the speed of light. Think how often you've actually made use of the former as opposed to the latter. The latter reducing to the former for 99.9% of practical applications hardly suggests being replaced.

I think you are not entirely well-informed about that speed of light business. Do you have a link?

Einstein's General Theory has been proven right in every experiment, and has been shown to explain discrepancies between Newton's theory and observed events, such as the orbit of Mercury (which moves far slower than 99.9% of the speed of light).

On May 29, 1919, the world changed forever. For hundreds of years, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity — the law of universal gravitation — had gone unchallenged, as its predictions matched every observation or measurement that had ever been made. But a mismatch between Newton's predictions for the orbit of Mercury and what astronomers saw surfaced in the mid-19th century, and scientists struggled to explain it.

Perhaps we needed to modify the laws of gravity, after all. Evidence mounted when special relativity came out, demonstrating that there was no such thing as absolute distance. Newton's theory predicted an instantaneous force, again violating relativity. In 1915, Albert Einstein put forth a new alternative theory of gravity: General Relativity. The way to test it against Newton's theory was to wait for a total solar eclipse. 100 years ago today, Einstein was proven right. Here's how.

This Is How, 100 Years Ago, A Solar Eclipse Proved Einstein Right And Newton Wrong

The solar eclipse of May 29, 1919, was the nail in the coffin of a Newtonian Universe.

www.forbes.com

At one time the Heliocentric model of the Universe seemed to match observations and measurements, but it - like Newton's Theory - has been superseded by other theories.

Since Einstein's General Theory is the one that has not been refuted or superseded, it is the one I make use of. I don't make use of any theory that requires that gravity be an instantaneous force, with no regard for distance.

In fact, other than debates such as this, I rarely "make use" of Einstein's theories. If I, or anyone else, prefer to think of my body as a magnet and the earth as a giant ferrous ball and that's why I stick to it, no harm is done. If I want to think that the moon and sun go around Earth, no harm no foul, unless I'm trying to predict lunar eclipses or some other solar astronomy. If I see maggots appear on a dead animal and think that life was spontaneously generated from non-life (a key tenet of evolutionary theory), no harm to me, unless I'm claiming such nonsense to be "settled science."

So long as none of those things are taught as scientific dogma in public schools, what do I care?

Truth be told (and shouldn't it always), even Einstein's theories should not be taught as scientific dogma in public schools. Who knows when or by what Einstein's theories will be superseded? We should always be willing to "admit," or better yet, proudly state, that scientific knowledge is ever-changing and that it is unlikely that we will ever reach a final, unchangeable, conclusion.

 

[Dagosa]

A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as unsupported foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their conviction that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.

So, which of the six or seven gods should we believe in to keep from living a lie ? Pick one out. There are six or seven major religions, each with their own version of a god. Which ones is it ?

 

[Dagosa]

A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as unsupported foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their conviction that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.

Which god does one have to believe in ?
Are you saying you have to be a Christian to avoid being an atheist ? That would leave 7 billion people in the world who are atheist.

 

[Dagosa]

Quote from a friend:

"To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.​

​

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."​

​

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.​

​

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​

`

Gee, I contend that anyone who doesn’t believe in any god, is “almost” a Christian. A Christian doesn’t beleive in the dozen or so other gods. An atheist is just one “ non belief” of all the gods away from them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think you are not entirely well-informed about that speed of light business. Do you have a link?

Well that's a weird complement. I'll take it. And no, no link, just consider it my informed deduction.

Einstein's General Theory has been proven right in every experiment

They all say that and clearly love to, but just think about it once. No one screwed it up? Ever? Even by accident? C'mon.. I just did an experiment.. guess what? Can you say "propaganda"? I knew you could. So Einstein cooked up some decent equations from others' works. Big deal. He said lots of stupid things as well.

and has been shown to explain discrepancies between Newton's theory and observed events, such as the orbit of Mercury (which moves far slower than 99.9% of the speed of light).

Yep, so what? Prior to "the mid-19th century" nobody gave a crap. It was 100% useless information. When's the last time you needed to know the exact orbit of Mercury? Has knowing it now ever put food on your family?

Since Einstein's General Theory is the one that has not been refuted or superseded, it is the one I make use of. I don't make use of any theory that requires that gravity be an instantaneous force, with no regard for distance.

Knock, knock, Einstein. Newton's theory also "regards" distance and how many people could actually give a shit less whether gravity is "an instantaneous force" or not? Look, we've read and were taught the same crap, okay? I have no desire to argue this stuff with you. Been there, done that enough times already. If you're happy with your mainstream beliefs, great. Enjoy & Peace.

 

[james bond]

Quote from a friend:

"To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.​

​

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."​

​

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.​

​

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​

`

The proof is starting with faith in God. However, that's not possible with atheists, so the proof is unfortunately in the death of atheists.

BTW I agree bald isn't a hair color, but most started to grow hair after birth and that's was their hair color. Thus, how did you start with the religion of atheism with no evidence for it? I think it's because you didn't want to bow down and obey an ultimate authority.

That said, my goal is to learn and explain creation science. It isn't to convert atheists or anyone to Christianity although it would be considered grace for them as salvation leads to grace.

 

[abu afak]

The proof is starting with faith in God. However, that's not possible with atheists, so the proof is unfortunately in the death of atheists. BTW bald isn't a hair color, but most started to grow hair after birth and that's was their hair color. Thus, how did you start with the religion of atheism with no evidence for it? I think it's because you didn't want to bow down and obey an ultimate authority.

"Proof" doesn't start with faith, it starts with facts.
That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.

`

 

[Dagosa]

The proof is starting with faith .......

That’s hilarious. “Faith” is acceptance without proof. So, you’re asking people to accept something with no proof. Trump’s motto.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well that's a weird complement. I'll take it. And no, no link, just consider it my informed deduction.

Then I'll take it for what it's worth.

They all say that and clearly love to, but just think about it once. No one screwed it up? Ever? Even by accident? C'mon.. I just did an experiment.. guess what? Can you say "propaganda"? I knew you could. So Einstein cooked up some decent equations from others' works. Big deal. He said lots of stupid things as well.

Far be it from me to debate someone who is so smart that Einstein seems stupid.

Yep, so what? Prior to "the mid-19th century" nobody gave a crap. It was 100% useless information. When's the last time you needed to know the exact orbit of Mercury? Has knowing it now ever put food on your family?

No, but you were the one who asked me which theory I "made use of."

Knock, knock, Einstein. Newton's theory also "regards" distance and how many people could actually give a shit less whether gravity is "an instantaneous force" or not? Look, we've read and were taught the same crap, okay? I have no desire to argue this stuff with you. Been there, done that enough times already. If you're happy with your mainstream beliefs, great. Enjoy & Peace.

I'm happy with the most current scientific theory. But I recognize the difference between theory and fact.

Did you have a point with this whole "gravity is just a theory thread?"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Not my thread, Einstein.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Far be it from me to debate someone who is so smart that Einstein seems stupid.

You can also take it from Tesla:

“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”​

― Nikola Tesla

 

[james bond]

"Proof" doesn't start with faith, it starts with facts.
That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.

`

Lol. You do not understand the subject, as usual. With God, it starts with faith. For facts and history, all you have to do is read the Holy Bible.

That's why I bring up creation science vs evolution (atheist science). Now, I have science on my side. You act all high, mighty and knowledgeable but cannot present any facts for evolution. Thus, I win with one post and relegate you to the bowels of the Earth where you and atheists belong.

>>That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.<<

Mwahahaha. You can flush yourself down and end up in the bowels right now.

 

[Dagosa]

Lol. You do not understand the subject, as usual. With God, it starts with faith. For facts and history, all you have to do is read the Holy Bible.

Hilarious. The Bible is made up shit from the upper class to control the masses. It’s the same incredible disease that inflicts the white conservative Christian today. Let’s worship the rich .

 

[james bond]

That’s hilarious. “Faith” is acceptance without proof. So, you’re asking people to accept something with no proof. Trump’s motto.

That's with God, not science or humans. Anyway, it leads to creation and science and facts and history in the Bible backed up by science. I lmao because you and atheists accept evolution without any proof and that's supposed to be science. Why are you such a hypocrite to your S&I statement above?

 

[james bond]

Hilarious. The Bible is made up shit from the upper class to control the masses.

Where do you get "made up shit from the upper class?" How can it be made up when science and history backs it up?