• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Gravity Fake?

Mya said:
:shrug:yeah...gravity means nothing we mean nothing all is nothing .... and then we die and we continue to be nothing

that's the way it is ... or it isn't :2razz: all nothing.
Click to expand...
Except energy never dies, it just changes form.
 
makmugens said:
You are talking about the force in relation to distance, but as for the force itself, is that constant? For example...will the Earth ever run out of a gravitational field or is it something that just is because of it's mass/density?
Click to expand...

Will an electron run out of charge?

makmugens said:
You are just repeating someone else's inconclusive theory. I highly doubt we have the ability to test such a theory absolutely.
Click to expand...

Not absolutely, no. The break down of time-space is not easy to reconstruct in the laboratory environment. Though there are models and predictions and simulations can be made.

makmugens said:
Yeah. Did you know that the equation e=mc2 implies that matter and energy are interchangeable..ie...the same?
Click to expand...

Of course I know that. I have a PhD in physics, my knowledge on this field FAR exceeds yours.
 
Moot said:
I didn't so I read some about it. Apparently only small black holes about the size of the moon or smaller down to the size of a proton can evaporate due to its low mass relative to it's leakage of radiation energy....or something like that?
Click to expand...

They all have evaporation mechanisms, but large black holes will suck in more mass than it evaporates out.
 
Moot said:
Now don't be too hard on physicists, they actually have to do math to back up their hypothesis. Backing up one's imagination with math is a sight to behold. All I can do is reason and visualize, but don't knock it because Edgar Allen Poe was the first to connect space and time as a single unit and he did it without using any math, instead he just reasoned it out.

I'm not so sure if matter can't be condensed down to a tiny density, after all isn't that what causes super nova's?

But I do like your theory that black holes are volcanoes erupting into ours from an outside dimension or visa versa. I've never thought of it that way before, so I'll have to give it more thought. To me, black holes at certain angles look more like spinning disk shaped tops sucking the surrounding matter into their center and condensing it so tight that light can't escape. Not sure how the worm hole theory works but your volcano theory might fit in.

I like the visualization that the universe is made up of membranes and the membranes are dimensions the can over lap and move in and out of other membrane/dimensions and the black holes are like pores in the membranes. Now I'm think I might be talking string theory. But here's a picture I think comes closest to the way I would visualize the universe(s) if we could see all the dimensions, gases, waves, etc....

stock-photo-mild-galaxy-with-many-black-holes-or-it-is-just-creamy-sponge-8914243.jpg


seqD_063a_small.jpg


Kinda like the inside of a cellulose sponge.
Click to expand...
Math can be misleading, which leads me to suspect a trick when they normalize infinities. And it fits my theory, as their manipulations fit their theory, that since the outside dimension's extension into ours is 0, then infinity answers division by zero. The extra-dimensional effects are transmitted at the interface between dimensions.

Also called into question is the unfounded assumption that our universe is spherical. If it is a cube, actions at the edges and corners would be able to go around certain laws of physics. Second, the search for dark matter to explain unaccounted for gravity may be easier if it is on the cube's other faces, which are invisible from the face we are on. Again, their math can't explain it because it is defective in the number of factors needed for a full equation.
 
Moot said:
seqD_063a_small.jpg


Kinda like the inside of a cellulose sponge.
Click to expand...

To me, it kinda looked like neurons in the brain.

So on the sci-fi note, what if the Universe is just a gigantic consciousness and the galaxies and stars and matter which make it up are it's brain?
 
Moot said:
Scientists don't claim space is nothing made of nothing. Quite the contrary. For instance scientists know that space has mass/volume and contains matter and is finite and they know that time is linear and can only move forward in space to infinity. Both space and time can exist in the same place at the same time so scientists put the two together as one unit and call it the "spacetime continuum". This was pretty much proven back at the turn of the last century. But what science doesn't know is what the space matter is made of because it can't be observed with the human eye or our limited technology, so they just call it dark matter. But science can detect the presence of dark matter from the gravitional pull on visible matter. Science has tried to prove what the dark matter is made of with experiments such as the "accelerated particle colliders" and have come very close many times, but just not quite there yet. But like Carl Sagen said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Click to expand...
I'm referring to the discredited Ether Hypothesis, which claimed that empty space was a substance. Space could be like lava from the Big Bang volcano, but spread so thin that its gravity is undetectable, except to explain what they call dark matter. Under the hypothesis that space has mass, divide the unaccounted-for gravity by the volume of space and you get its density. I'd rather stand for the rule of reason than accept any of the explanations preached by postclassical physics. For starters, the Quantum Leap is impossible unless the particle goes into another dimension and comes back at another place in these dimensions. Entanglement is unacceptable without it being the same particle submerging into and re-emerging out of a dimension where the ultimate permissible velocity is much faster than the speed of light. At c squared it would make the trip at 6 light-years a second, which would explain the illusion that the individual entangled particle is a set of twins.
 
PrometheusBound said:
I'm referring to the discredited Ether Hypothesis, which claimed that empty space was a substance. Space could be like lava from the Big Bang volcano, but spread so thin that its gravity is undetectable, except to explain what they call dark matter. Under the hypothesis that space has mass, divide the unaccounted-for gravity by the volume of space and you get its density. I'd rather stand for the rule of reason than accept any of the explanations preached by postclassical physics. For starters, the Quantum Leap is impossible unless the particle goes into another dimension and comes back at another place in these dimensions. Entanglement is unacceptable without it being the same particle submerging into and re-emerging out of a dimension where the ultimate permissible velocity is much faster than the speed of light. At c squared it would make the trip at 6 light-years a second, which would explain the illusion that the individual entangled particle is a set of twins.
Click to expand...

That isn't how entanglement works.

Do not take this to be insulting, because it isn't:

You don't understand some of these concepts very well. You are clearly not a physicist. That's ok, that doesn't make you ignorant or stupid or anything. I can fly an airplane, something most people can't do, but that's because this is where my education is. I can't do brain surgery and the math behind some of this high-end physics is well beyond me. I can tell you how my plane's carburetor works but if you asked me to build or repair one I'd be clueless.

Because you don't understand these concepts very well, you should be careful not to go and make broad statements like "X is impossible!" Instead, ask questions. "Hey, I thought entanglement is where ____, but that seems impossible. How does this work?" And a physics-smart person can probably help explain it to you.
 
Last edited:
Mya said:
:shrug:yeah...gravity means nothing we mean nothing all is nothing .... and then we die and we continue to be nothing

that's the way it is ... or it isn't :2razz: all nothing.
Click to expand...

A useless post...is this in anyway reflective of the poster? I'm full of theories of late.

Paralogic said:
It *is* getting further away.

Read a book. It does a mind, good.
Click to expand...

I don't think you knew that before this thread, and I don't believe you ever read a book on it yourself. Practice what you preach, then get some manners.
 
makmugens said:
Is there a way I write that makes people think I'm angry? It sounds like you are. Well, thank you for providing your input. As you can imagine, I've seen it already. It's everywhere. But...well...even the people who wrote what your referencing are inconclusive about it. So...even though you have made yourself thoroughly familiar with other peoples guesses I just wanted to think beyond them. Besides...anger clouds the mind :p
Click to expand...

You're not thinking "beyond" anyone, certainly not Einstein and the other brilliant physicists who have come up with sound answers to all of the questions you've brought up. On the contrary, you're rather far behind.

But, please, don't let me burst your bubble. Just go right on believing whatever it is you believe. Gravity is fake. The moon isn't in orbit. Elvis isn't dead. Etc etc.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/68549-warning-gravity-only-theory.html
So here we are.. for real!

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”
by Ellery Schempp
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

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.”
[...............]
”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.
Click to expand...
and
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "Theory of Gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
.....
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
[.......]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PrometheusBound said:
I'm referring to the discredited Ether Hypothesis, which claimed that empty space was a substance. Space could be like lava from the Big Bang volcano, but spread so thin that its gravity is undetectable, except to explain what they call dark matter. Under the hypothesis that space has mass, divide the unaccounted-for gravity by the volume of space and you get its density. I'd rather stand for the rule of reason than accept any of the explanations preached by postclassical physics. For starters, the Quantum Leap is impossible unless the particle goes into another dimension and comes back at another place in these dimensions. Entanglement is unacceptable without it being the same particle submerging into and re-emerging out of a dimension where the ultimate permissible velocity is much faster than the speed of light. At c squared it would make the trip at 6 light-years a second, which would explain the illusion that the individual entangled particle is a set of twins.
Click to expand...
Please explain how you determine how much space volume/mass in the universe there is in order to divide by unaccounted for gravity if you can't see or account for either of them?
 
Ikari said:
To me, it kinda looked like neurons in the brain.

So on the sci-fi note, what if the Universe is just a gigantic consciousness and the galaxies and stars and matter which make it up are it's brain?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it sure does look like the neurons of a brain, doesn't it....

Brain neurons...
brain_neurons.jpg
images


Universe.....
seqD_063a_small.jpg
 
makmugens said:
Well, I didn't mean that gravity is fake. I know it exists, but I am not sure about all the things gravity or is suppose to explain. While no one is sure about gravity everyone seems so sure of their concept of it.

But like Goshin said, Gravity, along with the Big Bang, Evolution, and a bunch of other things we take as fact is just theory. An unproven assumption sophisticated enough to be given attention. Like the Moon. I looked it up this morning, looking for anything on the web to show if anyone had any similar problems and it turns out I am not the only one. There are some considerable breakdowns when i comes to explaining the logic of the Moon orbiting the earth at all.

One...planetary satellites are usually much smaller in size than the planet itself. Probably like 32 times smaller. Ours is one fourth our size. It is immense, large enough to be called a small planet in itself. Earth's gravitational field is week so how can the earth hold the Moon in orbit. This one question underscores the gap in questioning that should be present when we learn about these things in school. These are not new questions but old ones that have been ignored for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
If you want to understand anything about science please learn what a theory based on observable factual evidence is. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels.
 
the_recruit said:
You're not thinking "beyond" anyone, certainly not Einstein and the other brilliant physicists who have come up with sound answers to all of the questions you've brought up. On the contrary, you're rather far behind.

But, please, don't let me burst your bubble. Just go right on believing whatever it is you believe. Gravity is fake. The moon isn't in orbit. Elvis isn't dead. Etc etc.
Click to expand...

Oh God...By beyond I don't mean I am smarter than them, I mean I am thinking what if everything they said isn't fact. I mean isn't that as much blind worship as anything else would be? There are other people- physicists, engineers, and whatever both respected and new-thinkers coming out of school who have theories counter to that of Einstein and other people and- unlike yourself- actually experiment rather than simply repeat whatever they read from a previous person decades ago.

The only thing I seem to get from you is that people who don't think like you are idiots of some sort. Have I called you an idiot?

Moot said:
If you want to understand anything about science please learn what a theory based on observable factual evidence is. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels.
Click to expand...

A theory based on observable but inconclusive evidence is still a theory? Why not be smart before trying to sound smart.
 
Last edited:
makmugens said:
Oh God...By beyond I don't mean I am smarter than them, I mean I am thinking what if everything they said isn't fact. I mean isn't that as much blind worship as anything else would be? There are other people- physicists, engineers, and whatever both respected and new-thinkers coming out of school who have theories counter to that of Einstein and other people and- unlike yourself- actually experiment rather than simply repeat whatever they read from a previous person decades ago.

The only thing I seem to get from you is that people who don't think like you are idiots of some sort. Have I called you an idiot?



A theory based on observable but inconclusive evidence is still a theory? Why not be smart before trying to sound smart.
Click to expand...
No, not "inconclusive evidence", FACTUAL EVIDENCE. You are commiting the greatest fallacy of all, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Stop being defensive and go READ ABOUT GRAVITY!!!!!
 
Moot said:
No, not "inconclusive evidence", FACTUAL EVIDENCE. You are commiting the greatest fallacy of all, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Stop being defensive and go READ ABOUT GRAVITY!!!!!
Click to expand...

No, not completely factual. Yes, I realize there is gravity...yes, I believe it is right on most points...But, I think there are some cases that are not clearly explained by gravity. I don't consider myself a fool for thinking so. I believe I mentioned this before in this thread. You should stop being antagonistic, stop sitting on your CAPS button, and go read, yourself, of any views contesting your own, obviously established belief. I've already considered yours.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Please explain how you determine how much space volume/mass in the universe there is in order to divide by unaccounted for gravity if you can't see or account for either of them?
Click to expand...
You are deliberately misinterpreting the statement in order to conform to the required orthodoxy. But this may refute Einstein. If Newtonian equations don't give us the necessary gravity from Earth to the Moon, we may not have to add the relativity factor. Instead, we could add the gravity of the space between the Earth and the Moon. This dark-matter answer was invented to explain the fact that the observable masses don't account for the observable gravity. But instead of inventing dark matter, they could have assigned some gravity to the observable vacuum. It's similar to how the location of some of the outer planets was predicted according to the unaccounted-for gravitational pulls on the orbits of the first known planets.
 
Moot said:
If you want to understand anything about science please learn what a theory based on observable factual evidence is. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels.
Click to expand...

This all over. A theory is not just an assumption; there is enough evidence to logically conclude that the theory is true. Often a theory is nearly impossible to test: that is why evolution is hard to prove without a doubt.
 
If you have ondemand go hit up the science and history channels. They always have great shows on these topics and do a great job of explaining a lot of these things in an interesting way.
 
MadLib said:
This all over. A theory is not just an assumption; there is enough evidence to logically conclude that the theory is true. Often a theory is nearly impossible to test: that is why evolution is hard to prove without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you mean. But, like the Big Bang theory, there is enough logical information/evidence to come up with three or four separate but just as plausible theories for the creation of the universe. It's kind of like looking at a picture. Four people can see the same picture and come out with four different interpretations.

Before Einstein there was Newton, and before Einstein's theories there was Newton's theories. Before the obvious laws of reality made by Einstein there was the obvious law of reality by Newton. And before Newton there were others. Of course, many, many papers were circulated in support of both their claims in each of their times and beyond. As a civilization we are not really so smart but instead ride the genius of a relatively few man who occur every so often. It is their unique vision that has opened the vision of humanity and it is often in contrast to the information that preceded them. I am by no means saying that I am the next Einstein or Newton. I just realize that an important part of learning is always being able to see outside the box; that the ability to imagine beyond what is known precludes great discoveries; that it is important not to be confined by what you think you know, but what you do not know that may be.

I hope you don't twist what I'm saying to be grandiose, self-serving, or whatever. I just don't want to be banged on for having a different opinion.
 
They were never different realities. They were different perspectives, different abilities to describe what they perceived.
 
makmugens said:
I don't think you knew that before this thread, ...
Click to expand...

Really? You think I internet-ed gravity and one of the links that came up was that the moon is getting further from the earth?

I don't mind ignorance that much as the refusal of the ignorant to admit to their ignorance. Since you used the constant distance of the moon from the earth as part of your failed argument, it's up to YOU to change your argument rather than cast aspersions on others as to whether or not they are not as ignorant as you.
 
makmugens said:
I don't think you knew that before this thread, ...
Click to expand...
It's common knowledge among those who read a lot of science books and articles. I answered a quiz question about that exact subject a few months ago. I also knew the answer without having to "look it up".
MoSurveyor said:
The moon IS flying off into space, it's just doing so v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
Click to expand...
I have on doubt that Paralogic and many others on this forum are well aware of basic science facts like that.



Perhaps you should take Paralogic's advise and do some reading on the subject? I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of reading science and pop-sci books and articles over the years. I find it interesting and relaxing. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom