It is a knowledge that almost everything pushes others. To catch and to pull are not real acts. As a magnetic illusion. Magnetic illusion is the only exception. But it is still not a complete pulling, because a full merger does not occur.
When you kept a cup, actually you don't keep it, you are forcing to it to pull up. It is theorically like this, because no one of the particles never touches to the others.
This situation shows us almost everything on the nature pushes to the others.
This situation explains us two main events:
1- Difusion
2- Sky thrust (opposite theory of gravity)
1- difusion: All of objects pushes others so if one side is empty, almost all objects pushes the object which on the edge. This causes to object to move to the gap. Science calls it as diffusion".
2- Sky thrust : All of objects pushes the others.
So on the ground, Most of the objects are above on the chosen object on the ground. So the propulsion is the the greatest value. This makes the object as heavier. When the object go up, then some objects start to push it to up, though they were pushing down it Shortly before.
if an object passes the equilibrium position by going up continuously, The balance of power changes to outward then the object starts to fly with no way to return.
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception". The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more (https://youtu.be/dyLYbvZIYoU) than (https://youtu.be/UgWaYng2eRg) one (https://youtu.be/I1s9f26dDm4) example (https://youtu.be/LxTjxKooCUM) posted on YouTube.
Of course we know about Miles Mathis! I believe he is wrong about Cavendish, nevertheless his claims certainly can't be made about the more recent measurements.QuoteThe Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception". The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more (https://youtu.be/dyLYbvZIYoU) than (https://youtu.be/UgWaYng2eRg) one (https://youtu.be/I1s9f26dDm4) example (https://youtu.be/LxTjxKooCUM) posted on YouTube.
The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.
See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.
QuoteThe Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception". The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more (https://youtu.be/dyLYbvZIYoU) than (https://youtu.be/UgWaYng2eRg) one (https://youtu.be/I1s9f26dDm4) example (https://youtu.be/LxTjxKooCUM) posted on YouTube.
The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.
See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.
When you claim that "Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces", you are completely wrong. He was a meticulous experimenter and had done much other work measuring very small forces. So that his own movement and breathing would have minimal effect he used a telescope to take readings once the experiment was in progress.
You always conveniently forget that similar experiments have been performed dozens of times since Cavendish's work, as described in What did Henry Cavendish Measure (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1766858#msg1766858)?
If Cavendish''s result was so influenced by random influences it would not have agreed with the current figure to within 1%.
All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?
Not calling Jefferson a liar, nor claiming that "one can only be acquainted with one field at a time" (straw man, much?). But suppose a paper surfaced in which Jefferson gave a theory pertaining to a field in which he had no known expertise. We would not consider it proof of anything, especially if his theory ran counter to the experts in that field.Really Tom?
All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?
His opinion on the subject is no more valid than your opinion on the subject.
Him believing the same as you doesn't make him right.
So? Thomas Jefferson claimed knowledge in many fields (https://jeffersonia.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/thomas-jefferson-renaissance-man/). Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar because one can only be acquainted with one field at a time?
QuoteSo? Thomas Jefferson claimed knowledge in many fields (https://jeffersonia.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/thomas-jefferson-renaissance-man/). Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar because one can only be acquainted with one field at a time?Not calling Jefferson a liar, nor claiming that "one can only be acquainted with one field at a time" (straw man, much?). But suppose a paper surfaced in which Jefferson gave a theory pertaining to a field in which he had no known expertise. We would not consider it proof of anything, especially if his theory ran counter to the experts in that field.
You always conveniently forget that similar experiments have been performed dozens of times since Cavendish's work, as described in What did Henry Cavendish Measure (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1766858#msg1766858)?
If Cavendish''s result was so influenced by random influences it would not have agreed with the current figure to within 1%.
I clicked on your link and it appears Sandokhan had slapped you down in discussion on that earlier this year:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767225#msg1767225
"In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes.
Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia."
My body doesn't have comparable electric currents running through it.
But it does, that is why you are able to walk upon the surface of the flat earth.
This electricity (bioelectricity) is called biohomochirality:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624
Electricity = flow of bosons through strings of subquarks
Those subquarks form a baryon, a meson, a quark - at the finest level, telluric currents/ether, electricity (flow of bosons) propagates through the subquarks themselves.
This is what modern science now calls bioenergy, which has been detected numerous times in the past 100 years.
Terrestrial gravity = the effect of dextrorotatory (right handed spin) subquarks upon matter
Antigravity = the effect of laevorotatory (left handed spin) subquarks upon matter
Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.). All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids. How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.
Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:
It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.
Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:
This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.
Radioactivity = the influence/effect of dextrorotatory waves upon matter (disintegration, decay, decomposition)
Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:
Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.
In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.
Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.
Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating.
The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.
Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.
Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.
Man walks upon earth because of the spin/vibration of laevorotatory subquarks located in his aura which encompasses his/her body.
These L-spin subquarks counteract the effect of gravity upon living matter.
"The charge of matter is due to its interchange with aether. The electron as well as the other subatomic particles are basically self-sustaining vortices in a fluidic particulate aether.
The electron is a vortex of aether caught in a rotating standing wave due to the vibrating flow of aether which flows into and out of the atom's nucleus.
Matter absorbs and re-radiates energy from the medium (ether) which is responsible for the phenomenon known as gravitation.
Therefore, an intrinsic property of matter is that it absorbs energy from the ether.
The rate of acceleration of a falling object, which acquires kinetic energy is a measure of energy flow via conduction through the ether.
Gravity, far from being a force of attraction, is actually created by the pressure of the "aether wind" as it continues to flow into the Earth from all directions moment by moment, pushing down or "curving in" all objects equally from the space around it."
Another striking example of the effect of dextrorotatory waves: "global warming".
This means that the vibration of the dextrorotatory subquarks (terrestrial gravity) has increased to some degree with the following effects: the "melting" of the Greenland/Antarctica ice sheets (due to the surge of the immediate effects of terrestrial gravity, decomposition/disintegration, AND NOT due to an increase in global temperature/emission of gases; that is, the ice sheets are disintegrating faster and not melting more speedily), the exacerbation of the desertification process (W. Reich was the first to understand that this is due to the increase effects of terrestrial gravity [what he called DOR], and was able to nullify these same effects by raising the level of the vibration of the laevorotatory subquarks strings [ORGONE], using the Cloudbuster), the changing rates of radioactive decay.
Why then does not TFES follow Sandokhan theory of gravitation? When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.
If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?
Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!
QuoteThe Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception". The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more (https://youtu.be/dyLYbvZIYoU) than (https://youtu.be/UgWaYng2eRg) one (https://youtu.be/I1s9f26dDm4) example (https://youtu.be/LxTjxKooCUM) posted on YouTube.
The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.
See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.
QuoteWhy then does not TFES follow Sandokhan theory of gravitation? When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.
If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?
Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!
Sandokhan is welcome to create a section in the Wiki for his model. He is the most qualified to create such a section. No one is turning him away, and this has been expressed to him before.
The official FE wiki contains mostly wrong/false information re: gravity, the physics of the sun, flat earth cosmographia.
Not only I corrected all those mistakes, but wrote up/did the research for the Advanced FET thread, by far the most successful thread ever posted on the FES boards:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.260#.VgGhpNKqqko
Universal Acceleration
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
It has nothing to do with gravitons.
UA has been dragging down the entire FE movement for the past 50 years and it will continue to do so for as long as it will be presented here as the official line.
There are plenty of direct proofs which contradict UA:
Another striking example: the UA is totally contradicted by the Allais effect.
"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.
There is a problem with Big G (so called to distinguish it from little g, the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface). Current measurements of it are, frankly, all over the place. Seven separate experiments in the past decade or so have given results that have a spread of about 0.05%. For a fundamental constant of physics, that is extraordinarily imprecise.From Don't stop the quest to measure Big G. (http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-stop-the-quest-to-measure-big-g-1.14566)
Sandokhan is welcome to make additions to the Wiki with his model, but the theory will need to be readily understood by all and heavily debated before the majority adopt that as their model.Stop being complete ridiculous!
Sandokhan could be correct. Who knows? I base my arguments in favor of UA on that it is the most empirical explanation for gravity, which I have discussed elsewhere.
Your "Don't stop the quest to measure Big G" article isn't very specific on what the 0.05% spread in results means. Does it mean that they experiments got bunch of errors that were 25%, 25.05%m and 25.1% off, so we have a 0.05% spread in error? It doesn't even say what the experiments are looking at. They could be about looking at orbits in the sky being imprecisely measured by 0.05% for all we know, not a Cavendish-type experiment. Maybe these experiments are just examining falling bodies, and assuming that it's due to gravity, with the accuracy of the experiments being 0.05% off. We really have no idea what that vague phrase means in that zero source article.
There is a problem with Big G (so called to distinguish it from little g, the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface). Current measurements of it are, frankly, all over the place. Seven separate experiments in the past decade or so have given results that have a spread of about 0.05%. For a fundamental constant of physics, that is extraordinarily imprecise.Look at this bit given results that have a spread of about 0.05%! Yes, the results have a spread of about, not the errors.
For a scientist — and a former director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris such as myself — the imprecision in G is irritating. Moreover, there is a solid scientific case for sorting it out. The search for a theory of quantum gravity that is consistent with quantum electrodynamics is perhaps the most active field of theoretical physics. One day, we may have to test such theories by comparing the values of G that they predict with the real thing — so we need an accurate experimental value.from Don't stop the quest to measure Big G (http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-stop-the-quest-to-measure-big-g-1.14566)
The problem for the physicist on Earth who tries to measure G is that, although the strength of gravity is huge on an astronomical scale, it is extremely small in a laboratory. The force of gravity holds the planets in their orbits around the Sun and the billions of stars in the arms of the galaxies, yet this is the same gravitational force that, between a pair of 1-kilogram copper balls that are just touching, is about 10−8 times the weight of each.
To pick up this tiny signal, the laboratory itself has to be mechanically stable, with a low level of ground vibration and tilt, and with the temperature of its apparatus stabilized to a few thousandths of a degree Celsius.
Assuming that there is no hidden physics that can explain why the value of G measured in different places would be different (unlikely), why is there such a spread of results? The problem lies in systematic error — the spectre that haunts every absolute determination of a fundamental constant. No matter how much one tries to take into account every possibility for error in a measurement, it is in principle impossible to demonstrate its absence. The only way to give confidence is to measure the same constant using a number of different methods. This is true in the measurement not only of a fundamental constant of nature, but of anything else.
At the BIPM, we devised an experiment to measure G with two almost-independent methods in the same apparatus. Our results were at the high end of the range. They did not have the smallest level of uncertainty of any G experiment, but they are the only ones that have been repeated and it is the only G experiment in which more than one method has been used (we published the original in 2001 and then the follow-up last year).
Rama, your link comes up as FORBIDDEN for me
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Such an ironic thing for you to say. From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker. Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Such an ironic thing for you to say. From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker. Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.
And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.
Certainly the RE think that Newton was and is most qualified to offer an opinion as to the cause of gravity.
Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.
In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:
[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:
Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...
In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia MathematicaDon't you think that, in the intervening years, Newton might have found explanations that fitted the voluminous experimental work done by him and Robert Hooke (who really should get a lot of the credit).
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), often referred to as simply the Principia, is a work in three books by Isaac Newton, in Latin, first published 5 July 1687. After annotating and correcting his personal copy of the first edition, Newton also published two further editions, in 1713 and 1726. The Principia states Newton's laws of motion, forming the foundation of classical mechanics, also Newton's law of universal gravitation, and a derivation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion (which Kepler first obtained empirically). The Principia is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science". From Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Such an ironic thing for you to say. From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker. Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.
And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.
It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.
It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.
Are Astrologers not reliable sources for the practice and teachings of Astrology?
Are they not the most reliable source to find and present evidence for it, if such evidence can exist?
For example, perhaps only an properly motivated Astrologer would be up on the statistics of the number of murders on full moons, and might argue that is possible for the celestial bodies to affect the human complexion. Maybe such a dedicated Astrologer would have all sorts of stats for us about the sun and the planets and the heavens. I only know about the murders during a full moon association. A knowledged Astrologer would know much more.
The Astrologer is not in the best position to debunk himself, as he is not actively persuing that, but he is in the best position to show himself to be right or the opposition to be wrong.
Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them. What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?
Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them. What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?
Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.
A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm), as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.
The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.
The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.
The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.
Quite incorrect.
If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.
First off, why are you instantly characterizing A as ignorant and biased?
Second, we are talking about replacing a theory in the same discipline. Someone from another discipline is not as likely to replace a theory because they would not have the facility with the available evidence.
You really shouldn't talk about this because you often characterize scientists as biased and/or unable to just do the work of science, which is to follow the evidence. It was Einstein who supplanted Newton, and it was Feynman who replaced Maxwell. These are scientists who were more than capable of seeing outside the box of what had come before and to find new and novel ways of dealing describing the world.
This blogger you linked to seems highly unlikely to supplant QM because he does not appear to be actually doing science, but instead puts up diagrams and ideas and purports them to be science.
The people actually doing science are the ones likely to do the science that supplants an outdated or outmoded theory. This should not be a surprise.
He is ignorant because his science was replaced with Science B. He is biased because he is a Science A proponent rather than an an unaffiliated third party.
Earth Science covers all aspects of the planet from the deep inner core to the outer layers of the atmosphere. But Geology and Meteorology are called different sciences, as are sub fields within them. A science is merely a body of knowledge on a particular subject.
That's right. It was Einstein who debunked Newton, not Newton who debunked Newton.
His website is quite extensive and the theory is flushed out beyond the front page, do pay attention to things when you look at them.
The author claims to have discovered the protron and neutron wave structure in 2004. How is he not claiming to have performed science?
tl;dr: no one in science is ever going to take your criticism of science seriously if you cannot accurately describe their evidence and arguments. that's not just true of science. it applies to every field of study.
i disagree that the personal beliefs of an author has any bearing on the soundness or validity of her deductive reasoning. the evidence and reasoning can speak for themselves.Again, I largely agree, but sometimes the clear bias of the investigator comes through. I could point to some current findings as to the detriments effects of sugar ~ fats and a paper by Miles Mathis where he attacks the Gravitation Constant measurements (I'll get attacked for saying that, but I believe I can justify it).
two staples of any comparative analysis are 1) the ability to demonstrate a mastery of the subject material being compared or critically analyzed, and 2) a fully charitable and accurate representation of the viewpoint you seek to describe/compare/criticize. this is true for any field of study, from physics to astrology to philosophy to whatever else. i would argue that it's an essential component to mitigating or eliminating bias; the author makes it her task to understand the opposing viewpoint as thoroughly as possible and presents the strongest and most compelling version of the opposing viewpoint before detailing her own criticism. i can't speak to science writing, but this is ubiquitous in the humanities, and for very good reason: it produces the highest-quality work possible.I have to agree again, with both the skepticism being necessary and the need for understanding.
but gary, surely you're not saying that i need to become an expert in astrology to be skeptical of astrology. that's asinine.
is it? for sure, i agree that skepticism is always well-warranted by default, and i'm not saying that you should personally believe in every positive claim made in a field in which you aren't expert; but, i actually do think that if you want to criticize the field properly/formally/persuasively/whateverly, then that requires a robust understanding of the field and the arguments its adherents make. i mean, if you're not even aware of the best evidence that astrologers claim to have to support their views, then how can your analysis be complete?
Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them. What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?
Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.
A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm), as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.
The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.
The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.
Quite incorrect.
If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.
The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.
But they do state that gravitation is not gravity. ?????
The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.
But they do state that gravitation is not gravity. ?????
Gravity and gravitation are different.
The following made me chuckle on Flat Wiki under UA near the end.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A:: The moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull.
But they do state that gravitation is not gravity. ?????
Gravity and gravitation are different.
Main Difference – Gravity vs. Gravitation
The terms gravity and gravitation both describe the phenomenon which causes masses to attract each other. Both terms are widely used interchangeably, and it is more or less permissible to do so. However, in some fields of study, the difference between gravity and gravitation is more prominent. In these situations, the main difference between gravity and gravitation is that gravitation describes the attractive force between any two masses while gravity specifically describes the resultant force with which an object is attracted towards the Earth.
From: Difference Between Gravity and Gravitation (http://pediaa.com/difference-between-gravity-and-gravitation/)
What is gravity ?what is difference between gravity and gravitation?
Best Answer: The terms gravity and gravitation are often used to explain the same thing, but there is a definite difference between the two.
Gravitation is the attractive force existing between any two objects that have mass. The force of gravitation pulls objects together.
Gravity is the gravitational force that occurs between the earth and other bodies. Gravity is the force acting to pull objects toward the earth.
From: What is gravity ?what is difference between gravity and gravitation? (https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100910221543AA0Fs9R)