Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.astronomy > #282252

Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true.

Message-ID <56C61AFD.3C27@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800
From The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true.
References (2 earlier) <56C4B116.7835@ix.netcom.com> <lOadnaBYLL4fL1nLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <56C4FE70.1ADC@ix.netcom.com> <56C5789C.25C6@ix.netcom.com> <Erfxy.6012$xT.5852@fx10.iad>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

benj wrote:
> 
> On 02/18/2016 02:54 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2/17/16 11:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist
> >>>
> >>>     You saw a guy fall, therefore, gravity exists.
> >>>
> >>>     You see satellites orbiting other bodies, therefore, gravity exists.
> >>>
> >>>     You once got hit bu a falling apple, acorn or walnut,
> >>>     therefore, gravity exists.
> >>>
> >>>     You have noted that big balls of gas and plasma exist using hydrogen
> >>>     into helium, therefore, gravity exists.
> >>>
> >>>     The existence og gravitation or warped spacetime is not in question.
> >>
> >> You have no evidence that gravity exist.
> >>
> >> I'll ask you a question...is Gravity a Theory?
> >>
> >> : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
> >>
> >> I'll ask you this question...is Gravity a Theory? Yes or No??
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> Is there a theory called... The Theory of Gravity??? Si or No, senoir?
> >>
> >> Ja or nien?
> >
> >
> > Just so everyone knows...a theory means; is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
> >
> >
> > (most of these science guys never read a dictionary)
> >
> > To be clear...a theory means; is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> > It doesn't make a difference if it's a Einstein theory...a theory means; is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> > The theory of Gravity is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> > Gravity waves, is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> > In other words...The theory of Gravity has not been proven to be true.
> >
> >
> > Anybody tells you different, is lying to you.
> >
> >
> > Why they lie? I don't know...maybe they're not in touch with reality.
> >
> >
> > They'll try to fool you by putting an Einstein name next to the word theory, as if it makes it more true...
> > but it doesn't matter whose theory it is...if it is a theory, it is not known or proven to be true.
> >
> >
> > In other words Einstein theory of gravitation/gravity has not been proven to be true.
> >
> >
> > The truth is, I don't even think anybody really knows what gravity is...or if it really exist.
> 
> Starfaker you are the reason Libs flunk every science course they ever
> took. Gravity obviously exists. Unlike you fantasy Lib arts crowd
> science is based on measurements and observations not fantasy. So we
> invite you (as we have invited HVAC who also does not believe in
> gravity) to step off the roof of a multi-story building and report back
> to us the results of your gravity-existence experiment.


Jumping off a roof does not prove gravity
 is true or exist..
all it proves that people fall down.

You can problably come up with a million alternative explanations why things fall down.

I'm not intersted in arguments or explanations for why things fall down...



It reads here: "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory


You don't like the definition...tough.


The theory of evolution....not proven to be true.



But who in the 'scientific community' is concerned about...truth???




> 
> The fine point is that one knows what has been measured. But that does
> not "explain" anything. People like PBS and "professor" Wormley like to
> say that Newton explained gravity. No such thing is true. Newton created
> a law that works pretty well to predict what gravitational forces are
> measured and what quantities regulate those forces. There is NO
> explanation of any mechanism or reason why gravity works as it does.
> It's pure description.
> 
> Einstein improved those predictive laws to cover some more cases with
> increased accuracy, but again there is no "explanation" or mechanism for
> the effect provided. The so-called 'warping" of space-time is not an
> explanation but pure mathematical bullshit.
> 
> Nobody (at least in the unclassified world) knows what gravity is or
> what the mechanism behind it is. That is truth. Being able to have a law
> that describes the action of gravity is not an explanation no matter
> what Wormley, Boinker, and HVAC say.

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
  Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 14:44 -0600
    Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
      Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:26 -0600
        Re: GRAVITY... Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 13:27 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-17 12:01 -0700
        Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 14:27 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... Double-A <doublea333@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 14:47 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
            Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 15:54 -0800
              Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:05 -0600
                Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800
  Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-16 14:03 -0700
    Re: GRAVITY... "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-02-16 17:42 -0600
      Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-17 11:58 -0700
        Re: GRAVITY... Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 17:13 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-18 08:39 -0700
  Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 22:37 -0800
    Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 09:42 -0800
      Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:48 -0600
        Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:02 -0600
          Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 23:54 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 03:40 -0500
              Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0500
              Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 14:09 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0600
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 16:29 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 16:57 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-18 18:59 -0700
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 12:06 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-19 19:58 -0700
            Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 14:47 -0800
          Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-20 08:42 -0700
              Re: GRAVITY... Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 13:46 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-20 16:38 -0700
            Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0600
              Re: GRAVITY... Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 13:45 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-20 16:42 -0700
      Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0600
      Re: GRAVITY... mr.hvac@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 13:04 -0800
    Re: GRAVITY... Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2016-02-17 11:49 -0700

csiph-web