Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Gemini Saga

Pages: [1]
Well because dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape...

Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace

I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon!
Yes it is.
But also F = ma. So a = F/m.
So that same force has much less effect on the earth, which is massive, than the balloon which is not.

Also, with a balloon one must consider other forces. The wind exerts a force. Not a large force but, again, a = F/m.
So a small mass - like a balloon - can be affected by a small force. Which is why feathers and balloons are blown about by the wind and cannonballs are not.

Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that =/ 3 dimensional field. Which means the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test this is because in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition and thus the formula used above should actually be used to disprove gravity > F = GMM/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.

Hi All,

Like many others, I've seen the video of Eric Dubai debunking the gravity, and answering Dave difficult questions (at least this is what seems to be for new Flat Earthers). I thought of sharing with you an experimental way to prove that Gravity doesn’t exist, I am not sure if it will count or not, However, I feel its worth discussion with you all here.

As we know, following the scientific methodology we cannot give a label to a theory that its 100% correct, because if we do so we are actually going to destroy the foundation of the scientific methodology as this methodology is built on continuous learning, meaning there would always be a tiny percentage of doubt regardless of the evidences provided for things which we cannot observe or assumptions we've developed in our minds. I know the subject might seems to taking this a bit far or stretching but anyway let's give it a try. If we use Newton's formula, F= GMM/r^2 where Force equals the constant of gravity is multiplied by the mass of Object 1 and mass of Object 2 divided by the distance between the two masses raised to the second power. If we take this into account, this would mean that the mass of the Earth is so great that the balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. Why is that? because we have Object 1 mass pulling on Object 2 mass and vice versa where Object mass 2 pulling on Object mass 1 which we then have to conclude that F1 = F2 and this we all know is wrong, and why its wrong? because the pulling force of both not equal. I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon! Given that, the balloon shouldn’t rise whatsoever but the reality is showing something else, something which Eric mentioned before makes more sense, that Objects follows its density equilibrium

What do you think of the above?

and would also like to pounder on the question, is there a force required! we know that the scientific community considers gravity a force, do we need a force to explain what we observe in the first matter? and if we need, can we 100% say that gravity force consists of pulling factor?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: September 23, 2017, 07:02:07 PM »
I am Muslim and honestly, all verses of the Quran about Earth proves that Earth is flat. The Quran is in total sync with the Bible on this.

Plus extra information about Creation from my own understanding of the verses of the Quran

1. Earth was created before the creation of the 7 heavens (skies)
2. Probably, Day and Night was created before Sun and Moon
3. Earth has corners (Atraf)
4. Earth is very big, its usually gets compared with the 7 skies (heavens)
5. God Created Earth and designed all things on it in 4 days while Heavens in 2 days

The above is from my understanding of many verses of the Quran, other Muslims might have different opinion though

Pages: [1]