Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376358 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-18 15:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 30 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 14:27 -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... 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... David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:29 -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. oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:00 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 12:06 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 05:33 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:55 +0000
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800 |
| Subject | GRAVITY... |
| Message-ID | <56C37C07.5882@ix.netcom.com> |
i saw a person fall down.. and i wondered to myself... how many planets were involved? it couldn't have just been the moon... i imagine other planets having a piece of the action.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 14:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <msKdnTe6WcexF17LnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376358 |
On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > i saw > a person > fall down.. > and i > wondered to > myself... > how many planets > were involved? Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C38B72.A1E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376360 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > i saw > > a person > > fall down.. > > and i > > wondered to > > myself... > > how many planets > > were involved? > > Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. > Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 15:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <msKdnTC6Wce8CV7LnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376361 |
On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> i saw >>> a person >>> fall down.. >>> and i >>> wondered to >>> myself... >>> how many planets >>> were involved? >> >> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. >> > > > Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? > No... According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting in what we call gravitation. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C3A23C.EEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376364 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> > >> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> i saw > >>> a person > >>> fall down.. > >>> and i > >>> wondered to > >>> myself... > >>> how many planets > >>> were involved? > >> > >> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. > >> > > > > > > Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? > > > > No... > According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, > mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting > in what we call gravitation. There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <J9udnfI_jvjCLF7LnZ2dnUU7-bsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376368 |
On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> i saw >>>>> a person >>>>> fall down.. >>>>> and i >>>>> wondered to >>>>> myself... >>>>> how many planets >>>>> were involved? >>>> >>>> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? >>> >> >> No... >> According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, >> mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting >> in what we call gravitation. > > > There is no such word as "momentum-energy". > It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 15:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C3B6BA.3905@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376371 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> > >> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> i saw > >>>>> a person > >>>>> fall down.. > >>>>> and i > >>>>> wondered to > >>>>> myself... > >>>>> how many planets > >>>>> were involved? > >>>> > >>>> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? > >>> > >> > >> No... > >> According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, > >> mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting > >> in what we call gravitation. > > > > > > There is no such word as "momentum-energy". > > > > It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much > easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy" has nothing to do with Gravity! Do you see any mention of the word "Gravity" on the page from the link you provided???? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 18:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <J9udne8_jvinJF7LnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376372 |
On 2/16/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> i saw >>>>>>> a person >>>>>>> fall down.. >>>>>>> and i >>>>>>> wondered to >>>>>>> myself... >>>>>>> how many planets >>>>>>> were involved? >>>>>> >>>>>> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No... >>>> According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, >>>> mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting >>>> in what we call gravitation. >>> >>> >>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy". >>> >> >> It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much >> easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation >> >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation > > Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy" > > has nothing to do with Gravity! > Even some school kids know the mass and energy warp spacetime and that warped spacetime tells mass how to move (gravity) "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime." That, in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C40510.40D7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376374 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 2/16/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> > >> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>> i saw > >>>>>>> a person > >>>>>>> fall down.. > >>>>>>> and i > >>>>>>> wondered to > >>>>>>> myself... > >>>>>>> how many planets > >>>>>>> were involved? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No... > >>>> According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, > >>>> mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting > >>>> in what we call gravitation. > >>> > >>> > >>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy". > >>> > >> > >> It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much > >> easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy. > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation > >> > >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > >> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation > > > > Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy" > > > > has nothing to do with Gravity! > > > > Even some school kids know the mass and energy warp spacetime and that > warped spacetime tells mass how to move (gravity) > > "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space > and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime." > That, in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. > "manifestation"???? sounds too religious to me... manifestation is not physics, it's metaphysical...physcology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 22:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C4153A.3A1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376358 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > i saw > a person > fall down.. > and i > wondered to > myself... > how many planets > were involved? > > it couldn't have just > been the moon... > > i imagine other > planets having > a piece of the > action. It seems that most of yous are too close to the trees to see the forest... yous do understand the Gravity...is 'just a theory'? haves yous forgotten?? it's...just a theory....just a belief...speculation. No one can say Gravity is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 09:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C4B116.7835@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376383 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > i saw > > a person > > fall down.. > > and i > > wondered to > > myself... > > how many planets > > were involved? > > > > it couldn't have just > > been the moon... > > > > i imagine other > > planets having > > a piece of the > > action. > > It seems that most of yous > are too close to the trees to see the forest... > > yous do understand the Gravity...is 'just a theory'? > > haves yous forgotten?? > > it's...just a theory....just a belief...speculation. > > No one can say Gravity is true. I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist and is true...how can you find gravity waves? That's like saying there is no God but you know what kind of car he drives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 11:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lOadnaBYLL4fL1nLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376411 |
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. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56C4FE70.1ADC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376412 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b2781db5-0468-4085-afaf-cd1f6995f573@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376419 |
You have no evidence that gravity exist. I "fall" therefore I am....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 19:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q_2dne3tqd2xhVjLnZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376419 |
On 2/17/16 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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? > Gravitation is a fundamental force described mathematically by Sir Isaac Newton's Law of Gravitation. Einstein's theory of gravitation (general relativity) is even more accurate than Newton's and supported by countless experiments and observations, including GNSS 24/7. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 23:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. |
| Message-ID | <56C5789C.25C6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376419 |
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. The Starmaker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 03:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. |
| Message-ID | <Erfxy.6012$xT.5852@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #376436 |
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.
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.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. |
| Message-ID | <na4qiu$r2u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #376438 |
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. > > 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. How can you argue with logic like that ? BTW,....wind doesn't exist either, because you can't see it, or put it in a box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. |
| Message-ID | <56C61AFD.3C27@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376438 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. |
| Message-ID | <iPCdndsYYdLSuVvLnZ2dnUU7-fsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376484 |
On 2/18/16 1:26 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Jumping off a roof does not prove gravity is true or exist.. all it > proves that people fall down. What force causes them to fall down? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web