• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Space, What is it?

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Whatever it is that causes all these massively powerful EM fields absolutely cannot be electricity. Any made up crap that helps you sleep at night...just not a force that's everywhere around you and I, is 10 to the 36th more powerful than graviton fairy magic, and can only exist via electrical discharge.

Ignore also please the fucking brontosaurus in the den...as it's merely a figment of your imagination.

This MASSIVE trench on Mars that makes the grand canyon look like a water park was definitely NOT caused by powerful electrical discharge...but was probably some water that spilled and/or some alleged plates moving around to get comfy. It's definitely not evidence of massive electrical forces ripping up the surface of a planet and hurling debris into space/time...even though that debris still to this very day lands on Earth.



The moon's pockmarked and cratered face is the result of impact and definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with electrical discharge...even though the moon is tidal locked to Earth, is allegedly younger than Earth, and should be shielded from impacts by Earth's alleged "gravity field", particularly on the face that we see from Earth. I guess sometimes Earth's graviton unicorns take some time off... hey, they are busy little bastards keeping Earth's "air sphere" synchronized with the "core" while staving off that icky vacuum space/time. Who can blame them if millions of meteorites get past them and smash up the moon.



Electric universe theory by the way asserts that planets are mostly hollow. Which helps explain why the moon can "ring like a bell". ...but I'm sure those guys don't have a clue what they're talking about...I'm sure mainstream cosmology can explain away all these issues with some fancy mathemagical calculations.

It always bothered me how all the craters on the moon appear to be 90 degree "strikes". Heck, some even appear to be hexagonal...but I'm just a stupid dummie...I'm sure a smart guy like Neil Tyson can explain away all these anomalies.

...if only I could science. sigh.
 
Last edited:

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
14,405
Likes
19,546
Electric universe theory by the way asserts that planets are mostly hollow. Which helps explain why the moon can "ring like a bell"

Your level of sarcasm reaches higher and higher sol.
BUT
A few years back there was an EARTHquake that caused our world to ring like a bell. ( I do not believe the Hollow Earth Theory):
"... Does the Earth really ring like a bell after a big earthquake?

Seismic waves from the biggest earthquakes (over magnitude 8.3) can bounce around inside the earth for up to a month. This makes the earth "ring". However, you need special instruments to hear the ring because the tone is very low — about 1 cycle per hour. Compare this with the 256 cycles per second of middle C on the piano".

https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Learnin...eally-ring-like-a-bell-after-a-big-earthquake
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,229
Likes
16,363
We need to plant some trees on mars. Although there isn't enough co2 there to terraform the planet unless there are oil reserves underground we can tap into and burn.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
We need to plant some trees on mars. Although there isn't enough co2 there to terraform the planet unless there are oil reserves underground we can tap into and burn.
The useless $160b piece of junk ISS should be turned into a dry ice launcher aimed at Mars. lol
Your level of sarcasm reaches higher and higher sol.
BUT
A few years back there was an EARTHquake that caused our world to ring like a bell. ( I do not believe the Hollow Earth Theory):
"... Does the Earth really ring like a bell after a big earthquake?
Sarcasm? moi? Whatever do you mean?

It does seem a bit odd if Earth's "squishy" mantle is as described by geologists. ...to say nothing of Earth's alleged inner/outer core. I'm sure if I "scienced" I could understand this stuff.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Entaglement. That which Einstein dubbed "spooky action at a distance" because he had no explanation for how it's possible for information to move instantly when there's no aether/ether AND a universal speed limit. What should have been his "DUH" moment was instead brushed aside...as usual, because we all "know" that information cannot travel faster than light and that there is no aether/ether.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com....nsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-3665.aspx

Here's a chap agreeing that quantum entanglement is indeed "spooky" but that it doesn't necessarily prove that Einstein was wrong. Perhaps these entangled particles merely have a "playbook" and aren't actually communicating instantly.


Here are some guys claiming they can replicate this odd phenomenon with objects nearly large enough to see.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...istance-spotted-objects-almost-big-enough-see

Quantum Entanglement and the Great Bohr-Einstein Debate | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

It's fun to see these guys falling all over themselves to protect Einstein's theories. Realism and localism MUST be defended...even if it means inventing wild theories one after another with zero evidence to support them(wormholes + multiverse)...as long as those theories cannot be proven incorrect, then they must be correct.
 
Last edited:

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
14,405
Likes
19,546
I'm sure if I "scienced" I could understand this stuff.
You need to "GROK" the issue according to Robert Heinlein's, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. "Scienced" does not sound as cool as "Grok". :thumbs up 2: :spaceship:
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
GROK ME! ...all. this. time. ?!?

I changed my avatar to represent a Sumerian sun god. One does what one can and hopes for the best I guess. lol
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,229
Likes
16,363
The universe is only about 14 billion years old but has expanded so it's distance to as far out as we can see is around 46 billion light years away. WTF? How do I get my pile of silver to expand like that? save 100 ounces and end up with 300.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
How do I get my pile of silver to expand like that? save 100 ounces and end up with 300.
Shine red light on that sucker and wait. If modern cosmologists are correct...something will soon come from nothing and you'll soon have moar AG.

...or you'll just have a bunch of crap that looks like copper, but at least there'll be pretty red lights.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
This stuff is too lulzy.

NASAReligion.jpg


I spoke with two "scientists" at once and both defined the word "gravity" differently both from one another and from NASA. One asserts that gravity is a generic "phenomenon"(which is what wiki now says), another says "Gravity is a consequence of spacetime distortion..." and NASA curiously calls gravity a "force" while showing cartoons of gravity wells and mentioning Einstein's definition under it...which is just bizarre.

NASAGravity_Force.png


https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

*THE* alleged fundamental defining force/not-force in the universe and a straight answer as to its very definition, let alone causality...or even propagation speed is so elusive that both "scientists" eventually disconnect from the conversation rather than attempting to explain this apparent discrepancy. Why is it so difficult to get a consistent definition of the word "gravity" beyond the latin(weight/heavy) or the generic meaningless word "phenomenon"? Science is becoming a joke and it's not even funny anymore. 475 years and all I can get out of 2 scientists with regard to gravity are two contradicting definitions, zero causality, and a range of propagation speeds(light speed +/- 49%). That this debunks Newtonian gravitational theory somehow bothers neither they or NASholes.

This is religion...not science.

An excerpt from my most recent discussion with a scientist re: gravitational theory.

GravityDiscussion.png
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
MichelsonMorley.gif


This "null" result is *NOT* evidence that Earth isn't moving...it's evidence that there is no aether/ether and that there is "contraction" along the line of (pre-assumed) motion.

LorentzContraction.png

Every single Interferometer test since that proves this explanation to be WRONG...are themselves WRONG...because reasons*.

* = Would cause mainstream "science" too much embarrassment and loss of prestige.

"Indeed, Einstein had said: “Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter…Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning…The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.”[4]

In a 1920 lecture, after his theory of general relativity was fully developed, Einstein acknowledged the necessity for aether, and did so again in his book Relativity.[5] More recently, the highly respected physicist William Tiller of “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” movie fame—also an original thinker and experimenter in consciousness research—has written that an aether is necessary when considering the subtler/occult forces and the origins of known forces and matter in general.[6]

Warren emphasises: “A vertically entrained ether theory is fully consistent with the [M-M] null results as Michelson and Lorentz of the Lorentz-FitzGerald formula firmly believed.”[7]

As the aether theory illustrates, the spatial/aetheric inflow towards the center of a celestial body creates the “pull” of gravity and the so-called “curvature” of Einstein’s relativistic “curved space,” which is merely the aetheric medium renamed. Space is not curved but Euclidian in this view. In a heated defense of the 1933 Dayton Miller aether experiments, James DeMeo asserts that in combination, the small

Michelson-Morley drift and the greater drift of the Dayton Miller experiments, which were performed at a higher altitude, actually support an entrained aether theory.[8] In 1986, the journal Nature reported on the results of experiments conducted with more sensitive equipment than what was available to Michelson and Morley. A field with the characteristics of the aether was detected, and it behaved just as the older predictions had suggested it would a century before. It was “precisely linked to the motion of the earth through space, just as had been predicted!”[9]

There were several theories that were proposed to explain the initial M-M null result, including Einstein’s Special Relativity. Michelson, himself a Nobel laureate, rejected the Special Relativity theory and championed the “(a)ether drag” theory, which had been proposed as early as 1831.[10] Experiments by Michelson and Gale actually supported the case for a “physical” vacuum, though fundamentalized relativistic Science prefers to ignore this.[11] Though the Priesthood of Official Science would never let on, many have criticized the theoretical removal of the aether, including Michelson himself.[12] Other researchers have attempted to correct the misconception of the apparently failed aether hypothesis through the years, with little success, due to the perceived prestige of Einstein’s entrenched theories and the assumptions carried with them.

Moreover, with the advent and establishment of Darwinism through the mid-to-late 1800s, the Western world was developing an incredible bias towards reductionist ways of viewing the universe and everything in it, and aetheric models were inevitably going to be crushed. “Scientific materialism” (an oxymoron in the context of a discussion on the origins of reality) became the dominant paradigm, and reached its zenith (or nadir, depending on your viewpoint) in the 1950s when Crick and Watson discovered the DNA helix, which the scientific world viewed as the material source of life. With Darwinism and DNA primacy in full flight, unconscious mankind could not see that the source of life actually did not lie in this electrochemical “physical” reality at all. (See The Grand Illusion – Book 1 for the undeniable proof of this notion.)

In fact, the experiments and research of Georges Sagnac (early 1900s), Herbert Ives (mid-1900s), Panagiottis Pappas (1983), Ernest Silvertooth (1987), Peter Graneau (1980s), and others (including Ampà¨re) have rendered invalid both special relativity and general relativity, “and with [GR] goes the expanding-universe theory. Consequently the entire edifice of modern relativistic cosmology has begun to crumble.”[13] (Einstein’s GR equations demanded an expanding or contracting universe which caused him to introduce the cosmological constant notion whose purpose was to ensure a stationary space-time continuum, which he believed in. The expanding/Big Bang universe idea is not compatible with today’s scientific evidence and does not afford the universe enough time to create stars and galaxies.[14])

Scientist and aether researcher David Thomson laments on his blog the nonsensical stance mainstream physics has taken towards the aether and the fabric of reality, and asks how much longer it will be before the popular PC theories essentially collapse under their own weight:

Mainstream science tells us the Aether does not exist because it is not physical. However, mainstream science talks about “electrical currents” and “twisted magnetic field lines” as though they were physical objects…[C]urrent is not a physical object of itself. Also, magnetic field lines are considered by mainstream science to be mathematical structures, not physical structures. Like the Aether, magnetic flux lines are non-material. Students of the Aether Physics Model clearly understand that magnetic flux lines are Aether structures. So the acknowledgement of the reality of magnetic flux lines is the acknowledgement of the reality of Aether! The more science learns the truth about existence, the closer they are getting to returning to the Aether theories of the past. How much more strain can mainstream science take before they are forced to recognize the Aether Physics Model?[15]"

https://wakeup-world.com/2014/12/13/the-virtual-aether-empty-space-gets-an-upgrade/

Tesla was right...Einstein was wrong. Light speed is not a constant. Space/time "fabric" is made up crap. Waves CANNOT travel without a medium...this should be everyone's DUH moment, but is instead constantly ignored even while discussing so called "gravitational waves". This stuff is just flat out ridiculous. Mainstream physics and cosmology have spent over a century creating phantom "dark" matter/energy instead of simply acknowledging the obvious. Relativity is complete rubbish.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,494
Likes
19,047
Location
South Floriduh
"...the spatial/aetheric inflow towards the center of a celestial body creates the “pull” of gravity..."

Michelson-Morley drift and the greater drift of the Dayton Miller experiments, which were performed at a higher altitude, actually support an entrained aether theory.[8] In 1986, the journal Nature reported on the results of experiments conducted with more sensitive equipment than what was available to Michelson and Morley. A field with the characteristics of the aether was detected, and it behaved just as the older predictions had suggested it would a century before. It was “precisely linked to the motion of the earth through space, just as had been predicted!


The above seems to beg the question:

Why haven't any NASA types even given a cursory glance at this from different places in space? Stationary orbit, polar orbit, moon surface, comet surface, planetary probe-to-Mars... If this was legitimate, I would think they'd be climbing all over it in all those venues.

Instead, the argument uses experiments conducted ninety years ago... and actually emphasizes the altitude difference as being a significant avenue.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
What do you mean by "NASA types"? Not a single human has even claimed to have been more than 400 miles from Earth in 45 years. Please feel free to tell me why...in your opinion.

BTW you actually cited a portion of the article that mentioned the 1986 experiment that once again proved there is, in fact, an aether/ether. It's not "only" about that which has been proven in 1887, but also 1899, 1925, 1933, 1983...but also in 1986 at a US Air Force research facility(Silvertooth).

SilvertoothExperiment.jpg


Mainstream "science" simply cannot afford to entertain the notion that relativity is wrong. It would undo 103 years of pseudoscience based upon a single patent clerk's metaphysical mathemagical gibberish. So much has been built up around Einstein's silly theory of relativity that to let it go now would cause massive upheaval within the scientism community. Falsifying evidence MUST be suppressed and ignored.

It's just one excuse after another employed to ignore that which should be painfully obvious to anyone by now. Mainstream cosmology suffered the largest dose of FAIL in the entire history of science with their 120 orders of magnitude zero point energy cosmological constant disaster by testing relativistic theory and comparing it to measured result. ...silly they to expect theory to match experiment. Yet pseudoscience marches on...

SilvertoothExperiment_explanation.png


http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.html

LightSpeedChanges.png


Egads...who wants to be bothered changing all those damn text books! Let's just keep telling kids that Newtonian gravity(gravitons) propagate at infinite speed AND that light speed is a constant universal speed limit. This rubbish should take people 5 mins to reject outright, but in my experience almost NOBODY even realizes this blatant contradiction as kids are NOT TOLD that Newton's gravitational "law" does not include any reference to a time aspect and therefore implies instantaneous propagation/infinite speed.

SpeedOfNewtonianGravity.png


If it AIN'T falsifiable it AIN'T science.
 
Last edited:

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,494
Likes
19,047
Location
South Floriduh
Sol -- ease up on the pics. They do not make the argument.

When I said "NASA types", I was referring to the 17,000 employees and twice that number of NASA contractors -- MANY of whom are deep-dish scientists. Many of whom would slay their own mother to be able to break the news that everything is wrong.

And what I suggested was that it was surprising the folks on the space station (scientists to the bone) who have enough time to have a Childrens' Hour (TINS -- They do demos, answer kids' questions, etc) -- then why not waste a little time doing earth no, galaxy-shattering discovery science? Meanwhile, we (NASA) have analyzed salty water on Mars. And tasted the soil of a comet

That is a fair question, asked fairly. And I do not rise to the obfuscation stuff. Please leave it out. Deal with the real question here, OK?

And for your own safety, please do NOT think a "secret" could be held in the arena of scientists. It is dog-eat-dog among them. Perhaps only one in thirty would slay their own mother to release the news. Regarding each other? It rises to one in ten. Working as a team? They would never go home -- it would be the Ultimate Prize in Everything. Fame beyond fame.
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
What obfuscation stuff? lol I'm sorry you dislike empirical evidence, but that to me is the only evidence that matters. You described this evidence as "experiments conducted ninety years ago" while quoting a date(1986). I merely provided several more dates...looks like about a dozen. One of which as recent as 2013. Anyone that chooses to do so can investigate this stuff anytime they wish.

You're asking me about someone else's motives...while simultaneously assuming purity of motives on others' behalf. I'm delighted that you see state authority as pure of purpose and deed, but I do not.

I did address exactly that which you seem to be asking:
Mainstream "science" simply cannot afford to entertain the notion that relativity is wrong. It would undo 103 years of pseudoscience based upon a single patent clerk's metaphysical mathemagical gibberish. So much has been built up around Einstein's silly theory of relativity that to let it go now would cause massive upheaval within the scientism community. Falsifying evidence MUST be suppressed and ignored.
I believe the motive to suppress falsifying information to be readily apparent. The mechanism, as well, is readily apparent imo. State sponsored grants + the peer review process ensure that only scientists supporting mainstream theory are published, the rest simply ignored.

Do YOU think the speed of light is a constant? ...and if not then how can E=MC² possibly have any inherent validity?
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,839
Likes
20,666
Location
Plague world — again
Tesla was right...Einstein was wrong. Light speed is not a constant. Space/time "fabric" is made up crap. Waves CANNOT travel without a medium...this should be everyone's DUH moment, but is instead constantly ignored even while discussing so called "gravitational waves". This stuff is just flat out ridiculous. Mainstream physics and cosmology have spent over a century creating phantom "dark" matter/energy instead of simply acknowledging the obvious. Relativity is complete rubbish.
Does the tiny ant contemplate the foot? Does the tiny ant understand the physics behind it's falling?
Yet you, just as insignificant as that tiny ant, feel as though you have the absolute answer to the infinity question that faces every conscious person?

If the ant looks up he sees no more of the true world than you.
try some mushrooms

BF
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Yet you, just as insignificant as that tiny ant, feel as though you have the absolute answer to the infinity question that faces every conscious person?
I never said anything of the sort.

Because you choose not to try to comprehend anything in physics you naturally assume nobody is capable of doing so? LMAO

Real sorry you think so very little of yourself, but don't project your inadequacies upon me sir.

One needn't invoke grandiose concepts like infinite speed empowered graviton unicorns patrolling the universe or equivalence principles to explain "falling". The principle of least action has been capable of doing that for nearly three centuries.

If the ant looks up he sees no more of the true world than you.
My but you do enjoy projecting don't you. All the information is out there...all one need do is LOOK.
No thanks...I don't use drugs. Try the ignore button...you clearly find my posts damaging to your preferred state of blissful ignorance.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Delighted to entertain...slick.

I certainly never meant to imply that I thought you were here to discuss theoretical physics.

:spamani:
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
EmergentTheory.png


Gravity is something all of us are familiar with from our first childhood experiences. You drop something - it falls. And the way physicists have described gravity has also been pretty consistent - it’s considered one of the four main forces or “interactions” of nature and how it works has been described by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity all the way back in 1915.

But Professor Erik Verlinde, an expert in string theory from the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute of Theoretical Physics, thinks that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it's not always there. Instead it’s “emergent” - coming into existence from changes in microscopic bits of information in the structure of spacetime.

Verlinde first articulated this groundbreaking theory in his 2010 paper, which took on the laws of Newton and argued that gravity is “an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies”. He famously stated then that "gravity is an illusion,"

"Well, of course gravity is not an illusion in the sense that we know that things fall. Most people, certainly in physics, think we can describe gravity perfectly adequately using Einstein’s General Relativity. But it now seems that we can also start from a microscopic formulation where there is no gravity to begin with, but you can derive it. This is called ‘emergence’."

What’s more, the Dutch professor now published an elaboration of his previous work in “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, which argues there’s no “dark matter” - a mysterious kind of matter that along with dark energy theoretically makes up 95% of the universe, but has not really been discovered yet. Dark matter alone is thought to account for nearly 27% of the universe's mass-energy.

There has undoubtedly been something scientifically disconcerting about giving so much significance to a force that’s never been detected directly. It’s existence has only been inferred through gravitational effects. Interestingly, it’s existence has been first suggested by another Dutch scientist - the astronomer Jacobus Kapteyn in 1922.

One way the existence of dark matter was used was to explain why stars in outer regions of space seem to rotate faster around the center of their galaxy than theory suggested. What Verlinde proposes is that gravity just works differently from how we previously understood it, and creating the concept of dark matter is irrelevant. He is able to predict the velocity of outer-rim stars and their “excess gravity” within his new theory.

"We have evidence that this new view of gravity actually agrees with the observations," said Verlinde. "At large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn't behave the way Einstein's theory predicts."

This aspect of Verlinde's theory was actually tested recently with success by a team of Dutch scientists.

One great outcome of Verlinde’s work is that it pushes us further towards reconciling quantum physics with general relativity.

"Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a revision of the theory, and some major advancements have been made. We might be standing on the brink of a new scientific revolution that will radically change our views on the very nature of space, time and gravity, “ explained Verlinde.

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/re...gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,229
Likes
16,363
No one got the answer correct after 14 pages of trying.
Space is jello. :finished 2::dduck::dduck::dduck:
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Jello.png
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,296
Likes
3,150
"...

Well, of course gravity is not an illusion in the sense that we know that things fall. Most people, certainly in physics, think we can describe gravity perfectly adequately using Einstein’s General Relativity. But it now seems that we can also start from a microscopic formulation where there is no gravity to begin with, but you can derive it. This is called ‘emergence’.

..."
Gravity fairies!
"lol"
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
GravityJoke.jpg


Cool to envision birds flying upside down on the other side of the spinning spaceball though. lol

People believe any crap if it comes from "authority", particularly when they're brainwashed at an early age.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,229
Likes
16,363
Begs the question, why is the moon moving further away from earth every year if gravity is supposed to hold everything in place.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
The force/not force called "gravity" is not uni-directional or based upon silly stealth graviton fairy magic spontaneously erupting from matter at infinite speed. There is no fundamental defining uni-directional force/not force of the universe called "gravity". Newtonian gravity was just one possible mathematical explanation for an effect an Englishman allegedly observed in 1666 for inclusion in his otherwise impressive body of work in 1687. I believe this particular Englishman did the best he could to describe what he observed mathematically, though it drove him half nuts doing so. Evidence of Newton's self-doubt and struggles with regard to his own theory of gravitation are easily researched by simply going to the Oxford Newton project where anyone that wishes can read his many correspondence with his peers of the day. This was a smart man trying desperately to reconcile observation with theory...though he never did so to his own satisfaction before he died. That he was forced of necessity to completely remove any reference to a time element to make his theory match observation disturbed him greatly, and he said as much. He couldn't have known that shortly after his death even with infinite speed/instantaneous propagation his "universal" theory would prove inadequate to describe the motion of even the planets in our own sol-ar system.

Unfortunate as well that Newton's provably incorrect theory of gravitation is peddled as the only explanation to describe via mathematics that which a human observes on Earth. The principle of least action has been doing so without invoking stealth graviton fairy magic for nearly 3 centuries and isn't hamstrung by invoking inverse square laws or provably incorrect mass calculations.

That which we call gravity is most likely a product of an already existing fundamental force of nature. The most likely of which being electrostatic. Electrical charges possesses both the ability to attract AND repel and have been proven to comply with inverse square laws...precisely as does Newtonian gravity. Had Michael Faraday lived before Newton then we'd probably all accept that uni-directional "gravity" is not itself a fundamental force/not force of nature, but is instead simply a bi-product of electromagnetism.

Spend only a few minutes pondering how the moon could ever have been right on top of the Earth...as it certainly would have had to be at one point if one simply reverse engineers the mathematics of the moons motion AWAY from Earth. How could it not have crashed into Earth if gravity is uni-directional in nature? ...and comets flying into the sol-ar system on wildly elliptical orbits to merrily circle the sun? ...then when said comet is as close as possible to the alleged greatest center of mass in the entire sol-ar system it simply turns around and leaves the sol-ar system again?!? HOW?

Well it's fairly easily explained once one dispenses with the notion that "gravity" is uni-directional, but is instead bi-directional. Also far easier to explain is the proclivity of stars to hang out together...ie binary formations. Uni-directional gravitational theory makes this provably common event highly unlikely as there's simply no mechanism to slow a mass within the theory.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,494
Likes
19,047
Location
South Floriduh
Since I am convinced by the appallingly standard trolling technique of eliding at every opportunity (or even non-opportunity), and the instant slide to snark, I will enter my last post on this thread with a quick summary and a quick flattening of the trolling:

I politely asked the troll to drop the obfuscation stuff and discuss the subject. I politely asked TWICE for serious discussion. No note was taken of my polite plea. The trolling continued with subject-changing and snark.

See this insipid snark:

"What obfuscation stuff? lol I'm sorry you dislike empirical evidence..."

Now observe the vitally IMPORTANT and PERTINENT troll shit:

1. A full-page website picture of a guy playing with a laser. <<-- VERY important. Spot on to the subject. Necessary. NOPE. But, gee! It sure looks "sciencey"!! We better stare at it awhile.



Wow! The poster must really know his stuff. Lookit all the blue! 490nm wavelength!! Holy shit! UV!!! Wow.

2. And do we really need "sooper spacey oooohhh-aaahhhhh" artist's impression of time whorls (or are they Star Trek headlamps)

spacetime.jpg
OOOOOHHHHH AAAAHHHHH

THAT certainly rocks us back on our heels!! We would NEVER be able to comprehend anything without these very important pieces of OBFUSCATION oh, wait... "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE".

Like I politely noted: These things do not sell your song.

You are doubtless having your kind of fun, but since you pretend you cannot conceive that all those with any sort of science degree or even competency in science aren't all 100% complicit in hiding crucial knowledge... every fucking last one on the fucking planet...

...then you can stand flatfooted and TWICE ignore the obvious question about using the ISS (or other venue not available 90 years ago) for some attempt at proof/disproof since it would add tons of solid information. There is a reason, right? Ego. Not shitscience Middle Earth crapola.

You had better hope that during Childrens' Hour on the ISS some schoolkid does not ask about your troll idea about a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about the universe from us dumb fucks because it would embarrass some of them or even (more likely) ALL of them. After all, if higher elevation gets better results... nah.

There It Is.

You are receipted and filed, mister... now let us go to the REAL science: We know the earth is flat. And Nibiru...

I should explain: I absolutely hold no rancor. But your trollskill needs tweaking. It is clumsy. Just sayin'.

You should accept this as guidance for knowing what potholes to avoid stepping in while you play troll. Some people can read and write.

Do not bother to answer this. That's what "receipted and filed" means: You are done. Mebbe some others will continue to play, but I have found your sandbox to be too vapid, crude, and shallow.

I am done here.
 
Last edited:

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,229
Likes
16,363

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
I should explain: I absolutely hold no rancor. But your trollskill needs tweaking. It is clumsy. Just sayin'.

You should accept this as guidance for knowing what potholes to avoid stepping in while you play troll. Some people can read and write.

Do not bother to answer this. That's what "receipted and filed" means: You are done. Mebbe some others will continue to play, but I have found your sandbox to be too vapid, crude, and shallow.

I am done here.
Lates.

Thanks for repeatedly talking about me while utterly, totally, and completely ignoring every single shred of data presented.
The guy doesn't even understand E = mc2 , the simplest equation since 1+1=2.
Really? Simple? Well then please feel free to explain the meaning of the equation sir. Start by defining the "m" and then we can move on to determining the constant called "c".

While you're at it...and presume to know oh so very much about relativity, tell me please how much space/time is warped by a falling rock?

...oh and how many hours are there in a circle?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,536
Likes
12,091
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Begs the question, why is the moon moving further away from earth every year if gravity is supposed to hold everything in place.
It's due to the conservation of angular momentum. Because the Earth rotates faster than the Moon orbits, the tidal bulge created by the Moon stays a bit ahead of a direct perpendicular line to the Moon. That means that a bit more of the Earths mass stays ahead of the Moon and is therefore speeding up the Moon in its orbit.
....and a faster orbital speed relative to the object being orbited, means that it will enter a higher orbit.


Thanks for repeatedly talking about me while utterly, totally, and completely ignoring every single shred of data presented.
It'd help if you'd present some actual data, as opposed to all this flat Earth herpty derpty "data" you keep insisting on posting.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
Actually, I very rarely mention flat Earth...you on the other hand make it clear it gets your panties all bunched by mentioning it constantly. Which is amusing as hell. My problem stems from the fact that science is being turned into a GD joke...it has little to do with the shape of Earth.

I present data all the time...but you completely ignore it, because if you don't you get your ass handed to you. Here's five paragraphs, no mention of the shape of Earth, zero copy pasta, and as usual you completely disregarded every. single. word.

https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/space-what-is-it.181914/page-14#post-1502893

You don't understand relativity, and you don't understand Newtonian gravitational theory...so you wisely avoid the topic so as to not end up appearing foolish.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,692
Likes
10,220
First someone will have to prove black holes even exist...which isn't likely.

Pluto's revenge!

Pluto.jpg
 

skychief

enthusiastic stacker
Silver Miner
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
980
Likes
1,436
Location
California Coast
Tesla was right...Einstein was wrong. Light speed is not a constant. Space/time "fabric" is made up crap. Waves CANNOT travel without a medium...this should be everyone's DUH moment, but is instead constantly ignored even while discussing so called "gravitational waves". This stuff is just flat out ridiculous... Relativity is complete rubbish.
Others are beginning to explore this possibility. Would this make time-travel possible?

"Electromagnetic force can be described quantum-mechanically by the motion of photons. Try and work out the gravitational force between two objects in terms of a quantum graviton, however, and you quickly run into trouble—the answer to every calculation is infinity."

SplittingSpaceFomTime