Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[Dagosa]

LMAO. You shouldn't be in S&T if you can't read beyond a paragrah. Just leave. Why am I discussing anything with you lol?

Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm not a supernatural being.

Fine admission, but don't worry. No one would even accuse you of being a purple one.

 

[Wuwei]

Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.

He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.
.

 

[Dagosa]

He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.
.

With a half dozen paragraphs that few even read. I think he’s campaigning for a ministry position.

 

[james bond]

You never provided evidence of a global flood.

I just did using the Marangoni Effect and the following recent article backs up the Bible and Noah's Flood. It's how the waters from below came up.

'“Understanding the distinct surface deformation in liquids with different depths helps unravel the dynamics of the surface deformation process,” said Bao.

Bao used a low-power (<1 W) continuous-wave laser beam to create a non-uniform surface temperature field to induce the Marangoni effect. To understand the distinct deformations between deep and shallow liquids, he varied the liquid layer thickness while keeping the laser beam the same.

The laser fountains and the depth-dependent transition from surface indentation to laser fountain have never been reported in literature, probably because they are not anticipated by any existing theory.

“We emphasize that there have been numerous attempts to understand the Marangoni flow-driven surface deformation, but no existing theory can predict the deformation patterns of a liquid with an arbitrary depth in a straightforward manner,” said Bao.'

UH Engineers Discover Method to Create Upward Water Fountain in Deep Water

Fountain Created by Lasers, Marangoni Effect is the Cause

www.uh.edu

 

[james bond]

He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.

Sheesh. I'm the one who brings up new science here just by using the Bible. It shows science backs up the Bible, but not evolution. It's your belief in evolution that prevents you from real science. Otherwise, wouldn't you have the new science to bring up? The atheists have brought up exactly zilch, zero, nada and less in the many months I've been here lol.

The global flood waters have been explained before. Here's a youtube on your atheist doubts.

 

[rupol2000]

The theory of gravity uses the anti-scientific principle of action at a distance. This is a debunked theory. Action at a distance has not been found in nature.

 

[Wuwei]

The theory of gravity uses the anti-scientific principle of action at a distance. This is a debunked theory. Action at a distance has not been found in nature.

Action at a distance isn't used anymore. Field Theory is used. It is a fundamental concept in physics.

 

[rupol2000]

Action at a distance isn't used anymore. Field Theory is used. It is a fundamental concept in physics.

Politically correct title of Ether? Then why do they keep denying the Ether?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Politically correct title of Ether? Then why do they keep denying the Ether?

Fields are not "Ether"

 

[rupol2000]

Fields are not "Ether"

They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with "fields". If they could deny wave properties, they would go back to Newton's theory of flying shit. They invented "photons" for this very reason. They were helped in this by LSD.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with fields.

No, that's idiotic. The idea of fields are so completely different from your ether fantasy that I am embarrassed even to be comparing them or mentioning them together.

The idea of fields arose as mathematical genius, because it is a model that explains what we observe. The ether was never proposed as a solution to the problems solved by field models.

take this nonsense walking, there is no place for it in this discussion.

 

[rupol2000]

The idea of fields arose as mathematical

I said: LSD + mathematical speculation (I remind you that physics is not a speculative science).

By the way, the "theory of relativity" appeared in exactly the same way. This is the mathematical model of Poincaré

 

[james bond]

You are right. He is now repeating himself. Nothing new to see here. I will leave him to his science denial and let him relish his miracles of the bible.

If you don't want to believe in the global flood even though it did happen is up to you. It was in regards to the Wrath of God.

I should point out that if you do not want to believe in God's wrath or His goodness, then there is something else as it is something that I usually do not talk about. And that is the temptation of Satan and the evil things Satan does. The Bible states that he is also responsible for death of atheists as well as tempting them to go against God.

'

CAESAR BORGIA​

Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die.”

THOMAS HOBBS​

Political philosopher: “I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark.”

THOMAS PAYNE​

The leading atheistic writer in American colonies: “Stay with me, for God’s sake; I cannot bear to be left alone , O Lord, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? What will become of me hereafter? I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! No, don’t leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one.”

SIR THOMAS SCOTT​

Chancellor of England: “Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty.”

VOLTAIRE​

Famous anti-christian atheist: “I have swallowed nothing but smoke. I have intoxicated myself with the incense that turned my head. I am abandoned by God and man.” He said to his physician, Dr. Fochin: “I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life.” When he was told this was not possible, he said “Then I shall die and go to hell!” His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”

ROBERT INGERSOLL​

American writer and orator during the Golden Age of Free Thought: “O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!” Some say it was said this way: “Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!

DAVID HUME​

Atheist philosopher famous for his philosophy of empiricism and skepticism of religion: He cried loud on his death bed “I am in flames!” It is said his desperation was a horrible scene.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE​

French emperor who, like Adolf Hitler, brought death to millions to satisfy his greedy, power-mad, selfish ambitions for world conquest: “I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth. Such is the fate of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ!”

SIR FRANCIS NEWPORT​

Head of an English Atheist club, to those gathered around his deathbed: “You need not tell me there is no God, for I know there is one, and that I am in his presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell! Oh, that I could lie for a thousand years upon the fire that is never quenched, to purchase the favor of God and be united to Him again. But it is a fruitless wish. Millions and millions of years will bring me no nearer the end of my torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity forever and forever! Oh, the insufferable pangs of Hell!”'

The Last Words Of Dying Atheists

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay CAESAR BORGIA Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to …

mousesqueak.com

What will you have to say when you're at death's bed?

 

[Dagosa]

the Wrath of God.

Good grief…..if you believe the wrath of god as a response to the evil doers, it has to be the gop who hate the poor, minorities and the oppressed. You know, all those people repugs try to fuck over.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Ellery Schempp
Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​

​

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​

​

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​

​

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​

​

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​

[...... Big snip........]​

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​

​

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​

​

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​

`

Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.

This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.

Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts.

Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force. That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute. But that is not the "Theory of Gravity."

Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth. The existence of species is not in dispute. But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.

Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory. There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection. So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.

Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.

Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection. So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.

*By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory. I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . . . "

 

[abu afak]

Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.

This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.

Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts.

Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force. That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute. But that is not the "Theory of Gravity."

Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth. The existence of species is not in dispute. But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.

Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory. There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection. So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.

Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.

Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection. So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.

*By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory. I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . . . "

Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002

..1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution...."
[......]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

​

`​

 

[Seymour Flops]

Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.

`

With no real response to any of the previous 29?

You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.

When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it. Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.

Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.

What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

[abu afak]

With no real response to any of the previous 29?

You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.

When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it. Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.

Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.

What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

I've put it in my own words (and elaborated) HUNDREDS of times, as I understand science and this topic.
I wanted some authority behind it for your Introduction instead of a yes/no/yes/no opinion exchange
Yours is WRONG.

If I put it in my own words you would hve said "Just your opinion".
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
But I can easily explain it another 100 times to another denier as I do here with MOST of my posts in the section.
Read back a few pages/threads.

You are very new to this section. I am not.
And instead of answering it, you BSed about me copying it,
Fraudulent deflection/whiff.
If you put up a contrary link I personally could debunk it as I do when creationists do put them up
OTOH, you can't/won't even touch my link.

Troll.

`

 

[abu afak]

With no real response to any of the previous 29?

You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.

When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it. Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.

Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.

What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

'Appeal to Authority' is often abused by Science ILLITERATES of which you are one.

Appeal to Authority does not apply to bona fide experts on the topic (nor does it apply to scientific consensus unless you are or have an expert to present). Appeal to authority would be Trump or Kobe Bryant's opinion on Evo.
OTOH, citing, ie, Einstein on relativity would be an excellent source and obviously not a fallacy.

Nor is my is my sig a fallacy, but one of the foremost experts on the topic until he died.
The quote/s from his book and article "Evolution as fact and theory"

You Clown.
`