Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2017, 05:09:13 AM »
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.

Your response is of the logical fallacy we call circular reasoning.

You are using the internet right now on a computer (or a phone, which is an even better example), and yet you can't explain at all how it works.  Yet it does.  Are you trying to tell me the electronic device you are using is a scam?  It doesn't exist?  How am I, a person you have never physically observed before, and you, a person I have never physically observed before, able to have a conversation in which our responses are explained by cause and effect?

Not knowing how something works is not a valid argument that it doesn't exist.  As I said before, you can observe the affects yourself all you want.  You use the "look out the window and observe" "logic" repeatedly, yet you refuse to observe anything you feel questions your narrative to simply use the excuse that since you have not observed it, any mention of it is false.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2017, 07:20:40 PM »
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.

Your response is of the logical fallacy we call circular reasoning.

You are using the internet right now on a computer (or a phone, which is an even better example), and yet you can't explain at all how it works.  Yet it does.  Are you trying to tell me the electronic device you are using is a scam?  It doesn't exist?  How am I, a person you have never physically observed before, and you, a person I have never physically observed before, able to have a conversation in which our responses are explained by cause and effect?

Not knowing how something works is not a valid argument that it doesn't exist.  As I said before, you can observe the affects yourself all you want.  You use the "look out the window and observe" "logic" repeatedly, yet you refuse to observe anything you feel questions your narrative to simply use the excuse that since you have not observed it, any mention of it is false.

And your response is of the logical fallacy we call false equivalence.

Whether or not he can explain what makes his electronic device function is irrelevant. It was built by people who obviously understand it, and can tell you exactly how it functions. This is simply not the case for gravity.  Do you understand the distinction? If you don't, then just ask for help and we can try to point you in the right direction. Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.

You have an account that is a few days old. So far you assert that you are just stating facts. Yet, you have not made an argument nor provided any evidence for anything. You sure seem to like firing off claims, though, and generally acting condescending and unpleasant. Yes, we get it, you don't like Flat Earth anything. You have provided nothing original and aren't even capable of having a rational discussion. You are just like the hundred, if not thousands of users we have seen pass through over the years.

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2017, 12:58:24 AM »
Quote
And your response is of the logical fallacy we call false equivalence.

Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate?  Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?

Quote
Whether or not he can explain what makes his electronic device function is irrelevant. It was built by people who obviously understand it, and can tell you exactly how it functions. This is simply not the case for gravity.  Do you understand the distinction? If you don't, then just ask for help and we can try to point you in the right direction. Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.

Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works, does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that the current understanding that we do have of it is invalid.  The theories and evidence are gathered by people who obviously understand it and can tell you exactly what we currently know in detail, refuting all nonsense that Gravity is bullshit.  Do you understand the hypocrisy in your argument?  If you don't just ask and I can explain it to you in smaller words and bigger letters.  maybe we should get together so we can use crayons?  Would that be more suited to your abilities?

Quote
You have an account that is a few days old. So far you assert that you are just stating facts. Yet, you have not made an argument nor provided any evidence for anything. You sure seem to like firing off claims, though, and generally acting condescending and unpleasant. Yes, we get it, you don't like Flat Earth anything. You have provided nothing original and aren't even capable of having a rational discussion. You are just like the hundred, if not thousands of users we have seen pass through over the years.

How old my account is is completely irrelevant.  You dismissing the information I have provided, which is the MO for all FE believers, doesn't mean I have not provided any.  You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around.  You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.

Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike".  It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem.  Anyone who challenges you is being irrational.  Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed.  Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment.  When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation, or you are not responding because it is irrational.  In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.

It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion.  You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything.  Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence.  You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2017, 03:13:26 AM »
Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate?  Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is? Are you just trolling at this point? I guess I will bite for at least one more post. You tried to make an equivalence between Tom stating that no one knows the mechanism that makes gravity function with a claim that he doesn't know how his electronics function. Those are not equivalent, as much as you might hope them to be.

Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works
I suppose it is a good thing no one is asking anyone to explain "exactly" how gravity works. I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.

How old my account is is completely irrelevant. 
False.

You dismissing the information I have provided
Also false. Have you actually read the thread?

which is the MO for all FE believers,
Citation needed...

You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around. 
Cool, more baseless claims. Feel free to provide evidence, unless you don't mind coming off as being ignorant. Hasn't seemed to stop you so far.

You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.
I am starting to wonder if you have actually read any threads at all.

Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike".  It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem.
What is arrogant?

Anyone who challenges you is being irrational.
Ah, now you are moving on to strawmen. Nice.

Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed.  Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment.
Feel free to keep making things up. Whatever makes you feel better.

When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation
Citation needed...

or you are not responding because it is irrational.  In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.
Running away from what? Do you realize how entitled you sound. And yet, you literally have made no arguments. You cannot provide evidence, you just make claims.

It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion.  You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything.  Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence. 
I can see how you might come to that conclusion given that you clearly haven't read the posts or done any research. Keep attacking that strawman, though. I won't stop you. You seem to have a victim complex, you really should work on that.

You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.
This is what projection looks like, children. Take note, as it is very unhealthy.


If you decide you ever want to have an actual conversation, the forum will be here. If all you plan to do is complain, then I would suggest limiting your posts to the Angry Ranting forum. It was designed just for angsty round earthers such as yourself. I wish you the best, friend!  :)

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2017, 08:44:06 PM »
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.

We don't know the cause of gravity - but we do know it's effects, with huge precision and great confidence.

That is not a reason to dismiss it.

You mentioned the "graviton" as an alternative theory of gravitation.   It really isn't that.

We know that changes in gravity ripple out through space as waves at the speed of light.   We've seen them in the new gravity wave detectors as a result of very distant black hole collisions.

Because the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) all present themselves as waves yet also have particle-like properties.  So light waves are the 'flip side' of the photon and carry the electromagnetic force.   We know that the gluon and various bosons carry the other forces.

So we know that three out of the four fundamental forces have this "wave/particle duality" thing going for them.  So it seems overwhelmingly likely that the action of the fourth force (gravity) must have a particle related to that wave...and we've given it a name "The Graviton".

However, the predicted properties of the graviton would make it almost impossible to detect.   We'd need a particle accelerator (like the Large Hadron Collider) that was hundreds of thousands of miles across in order to produce enough energy to directly detect gravitons.

For that reason, we don't know for 100% sure that there are gravitons, it's very unlikely that humanity will ever be able to detect them - but at the same time, it would be quite surprising if they didn't exist.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2017, 09:19:29 PM »
Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate?  Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is? Are you just trolling at this point? I guess I will bite for at least one more post. You tried to make an equivalence between Tom stating that no one knows the mechanism that makes gravity function with a claim that he doesn't know how his electronics function. Those are not equivalent, as much as you might hope them to be.

Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works
I suppose it is a good thing no one is asking anyone to explain "exactly" how gravity works. I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.

How old my account is is completely irrelevant. 
False.

You dismissing the information I have provided
Also false. Have you actually read the thread?

which is the MO for all FE believers,
Citation needed...

You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around. 
Cool, more baseless claims. Feel free to provide evidence, unless you don't mind coming off as being ignorant. Hasn't seemed to stop you so far.

You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.
I am starting to wonder if you have actually read any threads at all.

Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike".  It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem.
What is arrogant?

Anyone who challenges you is being irrational.
Ah, now you are moving on to strawmen. Nice.

Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed.  Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment.
Feel free to keep making things up. Whatever makes you feel better.

When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation
Citation needed...

or you are not responding because it is irrational.  In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.
Running away from what? Do you realize how entitled you sound. And yet, you literally have made no arguments. You cannot provide evidence, you just make claims.

It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion.  You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything.  Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence. 
I can see how you might come to that conclusion given that you clearly haven't read the posts or done any research. Keep attacking that strawman, though. I won't stop you. You seem to have a victim complex, you really should work on that.

You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.
This is what projection looks like, children. Take note, as it is very unhealthy.


If you decide you ever want to have an actual conversation, the forum will be here. If all you plan to do is complain, then I would suggest limiting your posts to the Angry Ranting forum. It was designed just for angsty round earthers such as yourself. I wish you the best, friend!  :)

You really are so full of yourself that you have no real idea what is going on.

It is obvious your little lectures are just a deflection to avoid the real conversation.  You need citations? look at the forums.  Making things up?  Again, look at the forums.  I have a feeling, though, that seeing the proof for yourself won't have much of an effect.

Quote
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is?
Yes, I do.  It is clear that YOU do not.  Or is the official documented definition a scam and the one you feel like using is the right one?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2017, 02:26:29 PM »
You really are so full of yourself that you have no real idea what is going on.
You should probably read the parable of the pot and the kettle before you accuse someone of being full of themselves. You can't possibly lack self-awareness this severely.


It is obvious your little lectures are just a deflection to avoid the real conversation. 
Ah yes, responding to your baseless claims somehow avoids talking about your baseless claims. Gotcha.


You need citations? look at the forums. 
I did just that. I don't see where you have provided sources for any of your claims. Feel free to provide links to your posts that contain sources/citations and I will admit that I was wrong. Do you understand what the burden of proof is, friend?


Making things up?  Again, look at the forums.
I have, and looking at the forums supports my position. Not sure what point you are trying to make here.


I have a feeling, though, that seeing the proof for yourself won't have much of an effect.
Nice assumption.


Yes, I do.  It is clear that YOU do not.  Or is the official documented definition a scam and the one you feel like using is the right one?
I am sorry my friend, but you are projecting again. Words have meanings. Just because you want to ignore that doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I know it can be tough sometimes, but if you need help, just ask, and I will do my best to hold your hand through explaining it. However, it is obvious you do not care about being wrong, so I imagine you will just follow this response with more baseless claims and displays of ignorance and arrogance. I wish you the best in that endeavor. Do take care.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2017, 08:52:15 PM »
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.

I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.
Flat Earth is one of the following:
- nonsense
- bullshit
- garbage
- trash
- junk
- crap

Choose to your liking.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2017, 12:59:29 AM »
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.

I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.

I'd suggest you read the FAQ and maybe search the fora. I know you probably think you're the only person to bring this up but it's literally been covered dozens of times, hundreds if you go back to the old forum.

Offline Pineal

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2017, 05:30:47 PM »
While we as humans do not know the cause of gravity (be it the bending of spacetime or some subatomic particle) we can clearly demonstrate extensive knowledge of how these forces work in the real world, and apply said knowledge to make accurate predictions about the world around us.

A great example would be the 2017 solar eclipse that will cross the United States next month. For years, scientists around the world have been accurately predicting the exact time and location that a solar eclipse will be visible, down to the very second. This is only possible because of our incredibly accurate modeling of orbital mechanics.

How would a zeteticist even go about predicting the exact moment an eclipse will appear? In ENaG, Rowbotham claims eclipses are caused by a shadow object that cannot be observed by humans. How do you track the movements of something that cannot be observed?

Offline Pineal

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2017, 05:38:09 PM »
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.

I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.

I'd suggest you read the FAQ and maybe search the fora. I know you probably think you're the only person to bring this up but it's literally been covered dozens of times, hundreds if you go back to the old forum.

The FAQ doesn't even attempt to address the fact that there are variations in gravitational energy that correlate with latitude and altitude. Searching through the forum yields dozens of poorly articulated (and in some cases contradictory) theories with no repeatable experiments to verify their claims.

I think you're missing the point of a forum. We are all here to have a discussion about the Earth's shape. If all of your responses boil down to "parse through a decade of former discussions to find your answer,"  then why participate in this discussion to begin with?
 

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2017, 03:17:30 AM »
Blah blah blah...
This has literally been the entirety of your claims thus far. Well done.


Be honest...how much time did you spend on typing that bullshit?  The only part I am having problems figuring out is if you are trying to convince other people you are not bat shit stupid, or if you are trying to convince yourself...or maybe both.

Oh good, you are projecting again.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2017, 06:45:08 PM »
Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.

Now that's a tempting offer!

Wave-duality says that for every force-carrier there is a corresponding particle.   Electromagnetic waves have the photon, Strong and Weak nuclear force have the Gluon, Mass has the Higgs particle.  Gravitational waves (if they exist) have the graviton.   Even electrons (normally seen as a particle) have an associated wave function (see Schrodinger's equation).

In fact, there isn't really a distinction between a force as a wave or as a particle - they are merely aspects of the same exact thing that show themselves up under different experimental situations.   So some experiments with light can count photons where others diffract and focus light as a wave.   This duality is a hard thing to wrap our minds around - but we've seen it in enough physical situations to know that it's true.

So - for gravity,  the only experiment that would reveal a "particle-like" nature would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of the moon  (er, sorry FE'ers...I mean "MUCH BIGGER THAN THE ICE WALL CIRCLE").

However, we don't need to do that - we only need to detect a gravity WAVE - and the existence of the dual particle can either be assumed or ignored.

So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.



We don't need to directly detect a graviton because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.

So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave - that things as far distant as a pair of orbiting black holes in another galaxy have the power to transmit a gravity wave that can be detected here on Earth.

Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2017, 01:48:10 AM »

We don't need to directly detect a graviton
False.

because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.


So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.


Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2017, 06:16:34 AM »
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.

We know that gravity is a force dependent on mass, as per newtonian mechanics. This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2017, 10:01:31 AM »
This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
In order to convince me that it applies to all kinds of mass, please prove that it applies to bananas. Since you've just said it should be easy, I'm sure this will cause you no trouble whatsoever.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2017, 09:46:04 AM »
This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
In order to convince me that it applies to all kinds of mass, please prove that it applies to bananas. Since you've just said it should be easy, I'm sure this will cause you no trouble whatsoever.

Hard to tell whether you're serious or joking. But yea, you can substitute anything with a certain mass and you would get similar results.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2017, 08:22:10 PM »

We don't need to directly detect a graviton
False.

because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.


So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.


Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.

Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2017, 08:57:52 PM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2017, 09:13:58 PM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.
But he laid out why the statements in the second half of his post were true, within the first half of his post. All you did was take the second half and declare them false, without refuting the reasoning contained within the first half. All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.

LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

Thus, gravitons most likely exist as the quantum carrier of gravitational waves. While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons. But it IS a touch misleading, even if it's not patently false. More appropriately, gravitational waves give strong evidence and credence to gravitons existing. Because they would be to gravitational waves, what photons are to electromagnetic waves.

If you're going to disagree, please give reasons and not just 'nuh-uh', because that doesn't help either side see where the disagreement lies, or see where they may need to be more precise with their verbiage.