Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[abu afak]

abu afak

"Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.

You never have the correct English expression for anything.

Hey Quesadilla!
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
`

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

"Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.

You never have the correct English expression for anything.

Hey Quesadilla!
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
`

?

 

[RandomPoster]

"I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. "

To be fair, I haven't heard that argument since High School and I think its prevalence is greatly exaggerated.

 

[abu afak]

"I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. "
To be fair, I haven't heard that argument since High School and I think its prevalence is greatly exaggerated.

Then you are BLIND.
I's a Fallacy posted in several current running threads. here.
`

 

[Flash]

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.​

`

Actually the sun is pulling the moon away from the earth. About an inch a year.

 

[Dagosa]

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.​

`

We get way too involved in definitions . But it’s really quite simple Idea but has to be adhered to in keeping deniers at hand and less confused. Gravity exist. It is factual. But, describing how it works and relates to , is totally theoretical. On earth and in close distances, we look at gravity in in one way, but as a universal force over great distances it’s looked apt Differently and no different Describing many aspects Of ideas in science. It’s the same for time, evolution

 

[zaangalewa]

Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.

That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.

That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.

Even the black or white hole

White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.

has entropy or heat transfer.

A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.

Where do you get such bogus science?

Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?

The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items. There is no infinity

If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.

or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).

It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician "to divide by zero will bring you in a hell" and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.

Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.

No. I'm able to make mistakes and to trust in wrong things or ideas for example - but nothing what I say bases on "imaginery" science. One truth - one science. My science is written in school books and is taught in universities.

You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.

Who ever was in the past? Never anyone, isn't it?

The present of the present is attention, the present of the past is memory, and the present of the future is expectation.
Augustinus

In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.

Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic. For example 2/0 = n. It means n x 0 = 2. Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this. There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2. I just used 2 as an example. It could be any number. What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2. QED.

Why do you try to tell me bullshit?

0x1=0; 0x2=0
=> 0x1= 0x2
=> (0x1)/0=(0x2)/0
=> (0/0)x1=(0/0)x2
=>1=2

It is evidence for God or ∞.

¿? ... I have not any idea what you try to say here.

Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.

Multiverses are an idea of physicists - and the only problem of this idea is to find an experiment in this context. Most people are convinced an experiment (or observation) in this context is impossible. I guess this is true - nevertheless from a Christian point of view multiveres are absolutelly not any problem - whether they have a physical connection to our world or not. Love knows not any physical borders. Not in space, not in time and not in any other nowhere or anywhere.

 

[ding]

Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.

That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.

That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.

Even the black or white hole

White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.

has entropy or heat transfer.

A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.

Where do you get such bogus science?

Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?

The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items. There is no infinity

If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.

or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).

It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician "to divide by zero will bring you in a hell" and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.

Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.

No. I'm able to make mistakes and to trust in wrong things or ideas for example - but nothing what I say bases on "imaginery" science. One truth - one science. My science is written in school books and is taught in universities.

You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.

Who ever was in the past? Never anyone, isn't it?

The present of the present is attention, the present of the past is memory, and the present of the future is expectation.
Augustinus

In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.

Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic. For example 2/0 = n. It means n x 0 = 2. Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this. There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2. I just used 2 as an example. It could be any number. What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2. QED.

Why do you try to tell me bullshit?

0x1=0; 0x2=0
=> 0x1= 0x2
=> (0x1)/0=(0x2)/0
=> (0/0)x1=(0/0)x2
=>1=2

It is evidence for God or ∞.

¿? ... I have not any idea what you try to say here.

Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.

Multiverses are an idea of physicists - and the only problem of this idea is to find an experiment in this context. Most people are convinced an experiment (or observation) in this context is impossible. I guess this is true - nevertheless from a Christian point of view multiveres are absolutelly not any problem - whether they have a physical connection to our world or not. Love knows not any physical borders. Not in space, not in time and not in any other nowhere or anywhere.

There's no telling how many other universe are filled with radiation and nothing more. From a scientific viewpoint, it can be argued that our universe was a mistake; that instead of being created with one billion matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles, it was created with one billion and one matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles.

1,000,000,001 versus 1,000,000,000

 

[ding]

abu afak

"Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.

You never have the correct English expression for anything.

Hey Quesadilla!
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
`

?

He was bumping the OP he created to the top of the list and used your 1 year old post to do it.

 

[Dagosa]

abu afak

"Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.

You never have the correct English expression for anything.

Hey Quesadilla!
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
`

Sorry, it can’t be both. It’s not rocket science. If a term has the word theory after it, it’s a theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

 

[ding]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

 

[ding]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.

 

[ding]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.

How is that a test? How is that an experiment? Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?

 

[ding]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.

You do realize that every time you avoid answering the question honestly that all you are doing is giving weight and importance to it, right?

 

[ding]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.

Why are you afraid of answering the question honestly?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, it can’t be both.

Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.

Playing devil's advocate here.

Can it be tested?

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.

I must have missed it. How can evolution be tested? Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.

How is that a test? How is that an experiment? Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?

So many questions! May i suggest you go ask an expert?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You do realize that every time you avoid answering the question honestly that all you are doing is giving weight and importance to it, right?

Hmm, no, that's all nonsense. And i did answer it honestly anyway. No, i am quite confident that no amount of religious goober equivocation will give any more weight or legitimacy to evolution deniers. You really need to check the scoreboard.