Rama Set

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2017, 11:52:25 PM »
We/they don't know everything, I would be deeply suspicious of anyone saying they did, but if you are going to oppose everything scientist say, you have to come up with something that at least works and you really can't take their work (that acknowledges a problem) and hold it up as proof they are wrong.

How does gravity "at least work" if it is clearly not working in entire galaxies?

It is neither clearly working not clearly not working on the galactic scale. The state of the science is to collect enough information to determine what it is they don't know. Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2017, 05:59:38 AM »
Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.

Does it?  I was under the impression that on very small scales relativity breaks down.  Electrons don't orbit around a nucleus so much as zip and zap here and there.  I've always found the fact that gravity is considered so obvious a fundamental force yet its functioning breaks down both at very small and very large scales suspicious.  But perhaps it can be easily explained by saying that a Grand Creator put it here so it could be easily observed but only at scales we can view with our own eyes, such that it wasn't until we tried to really examine things closely that we saw that it didn't quite work right.  Too big or too small and things get dark or random.  But here in Mama Bear's bed things are "just right" so that gravity is a perfect explanation for everything all the time.  I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering.  How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?  FET requires no God because it requires no magic.  That is why it is the superior theory.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Rama Set

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2017, 01:15:32 PM »
Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.

Does it?  I was under the impression that on very small scales relativity breaks down.  Electrons don't orbit around a nucleus so much as zip and zap here and there.

I misspoke.  I meant it breaks down at the subatomic scale.

Quote
I've always found the fact that gravity is considered so obvious a fundamental force yet its functioning breaks down both at very small and very large scales suspicious.  But perhaps it can be easily explained by saying that a Grand Creator put it here so it could be easily observed but only at scales we can view with our own eyes, such that it wasn't until we tried to really examine things closely that we saw that it didn't quite work right.  Too big or too small and things get dark or random.  But here in Mama Bear's bed things are "just right" so that gravity is a perfect explanation for everything all the time.

Who said gravity is a perfect explanation for everything?  What a weird position.

Quote
  I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering.  How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?

Because of evidence.

Quote
FET requires no God because it requires no magic.

Yes, well if I make up properties of a theory to make it sound ridiculous it will also sound ridiculous.

Quote
That is why it is the superior theory.

And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.  If I were to be as dishonest as you, I would just use your terrible "Magic" argument on various components that have been offered up: like UA.  It is even less descriptive than gravity as a theory.  Gravity has trouble describing the very very big and the very very small.  UA has trouble describing anything outside a completely homogeneous space, which, as we know, does not exist.
[/quote]

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2017, 10:28:59 PM »


How does gravity "at least work" if it is clearly not working in entire galaxies?

As you wrote that, did you hear a swooshing noise? That was the point I was making, going over your head.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2017, 04:38:27 AM »
Who said gravity is a perfect explanation for everything?  What a weird position.

I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!

Quote
Quote
  I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering.  How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?

Because of evidence.

Psssh, flimsy at best.

Quote
Quote
FET requires no God because it requires no magic.

Yes, well if I make up properties of a theory to make it sound ridiculous it will also sound ridiculous.

This doesn't address the issue.

Quote
Quote
That is why it is the superior theory.

And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.

It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.

Quote
If I were to be as dishonest as you, I would just use your terrible "Magic" argument on various components that have been offered up: like UA.  It is even less descriptive than gravity as a theory.  Gravity has trouble describing the very very big and the very very small.  UA has trouble describing anything outside a completely homogeneous space, which, as we know, does not exist.

At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not.  Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Rama Set

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2017, 07:49:59 PM »
I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!

Who are you quoting?

Quote
Psssh, flimsy at best.

Well I'm convinced.

Quote
This doesn't address the issue.

There isn't anything to address.  You don't even define what "magic" is. 

Quote
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.

Maybe you should read the wiki a bit more then.  I point you to the explanation of sunsets and the EA as examples of completely straining credulity. 

Quote
At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not. 

UA does not explain the heterogeneity of gravitational measurements on Earth.  It's actually a non-starter because it does not match any observation.  The observations that falsify it have been around for centuries, and specifically the last century has shown it to be utterly impossible without some serious modification, which is non-existent, unless Tausami decides to show up.

Quote
Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!

It is completely consistent and extremely accurate at a wide variety of scales and has been perfectly successful at modelling and predicting a great number of phenomena.  You really should have said, "Gravity is simply not consistent with everything we observe!"  That would actually be a statement that could be taken seriously.  It isn't consistent at extremely large and extremely small scales, as has been already mentioned, for reasons that no one can state with confidence.  Obviously this is where the most important science will happen, and it will be found that indeed there is some aspect of the fundamental interaction called gravity that needs to be thrown out or modified, I hope it will happen.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2017, 01:47:55 AM »
Quote
Quote
That is why it is the superior theory.

And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.

It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain even bother to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.
Fixed that for you.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.