Consider how Galaxies move. Galaxies move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies with "gravity" has been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is opposite of what is observed.
Let me stop you here and ask a question. Tom, what do you think galaxies are?
We believe that the nature of the galaxies is unknown (See, we are honest).
No, see, that is where you are wrong. His points don't need to be addressed because he has shown himself to not be worthy of discussion.
How is he not worthy of discussion? I actually read the article you linked, and Mathis' follow up articles. He isn't calling it "all fake" and "all a hoax" like you implied. I don't see how this topic is not worthy of discussion.
He has shown evidence suggesting that there is an organization using and manipulating the Newton event to push for new gun laws. The points are valid. In the aftermath the liberals label Lanza's mother as a "doomsday prepper," and imply that people with food and guns are mentally unstable and something to be outlawed. There are so many appeals to emotion in an effort to push new gun laws it is ridiculous.
His PDF and the follow up articles linked at the bottom all talk about how an organization (liberals/democrats) are using this as a push for an assault weapon ban, and are willing to stretch some of the facts to do it. That is not really too hard to believe.
Since you seem to dismiss things without looking too closely, and put generic labels on people without actually reading the material, I would go as far as saying that it appears that you are the one who is not worthy of participating in these discussions and debates with us. We don't mindlessly follow the herd. We seek to have an open mind, and require such an effort from anyone we debate with.
I haven't really looked into the Sandy Hook debate. But if you were having this debate and if your opponent pointed out the same discrepancies, you would need to actually address the evidence. You can't just dismiss everything and point to a news article that says things were "debunked" without actually showing that it was debunked.
Again with the irony. Tom, you are the master of debunking everything based on one data point. The GPS bs is a prime example. One test showed that for runners in a small area the GPS units were not accurate so therefore no GPS is accurate. Ringing any bells here?
Please.
It rings a bell. As I recall that article was something you guys brought to us as evidence that GPS was accurate. We pointed out that the article was not a valid test of GPS accuracy.
No one said that it was a universal proof that GPS is inaccurate. That is a statement you are imagining in your head. An article was brought to our attention, and it was addressed with agreement on both sides to our points that the article was invalid as evidence of GPS accuracy.
Please try and be more accurate with your arguments in the future.
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Hardly fair! Only 200 individuals have received the Nobel prize; they clearly are a league of their own, and would never in a million years grace this forum with their presence. Furthermore, your post implies that every theory that has merit has won a Nobel prize, which is not true. It is worth mentioning though, that Kip Thorne won the Nobel prize very recently for the observation of gravitational waves. We've literally seen them. Saying gravity is not real, is like saying global warming is not real, Mr. Trump.
**remembers that we believe in celestial gravitation**
This is the same way that we view light. In some instances, light acts as a wave, and in others, it acts as a particle. We call this the wave-particle duality of light. See the double slit experiment if you're curious. We need both models to describe the behavior of light, and both models do give very accurate predictions. And how else might you judge a theory as being right or not if not from the accuracy of their predictions. You can't just know because you're God or something. So as far as we're concerned, both models are "correct" as far as we can determine what "correctness" is. And again I emphasize, we need both models. The case with gravity is completely analogous.
A theory isn't "proven right" by the accuracy of its predictions.
A prediction of gravitational lensing is predicted by both bendy space and graviton theories, and an observation of gravitational lensing does not prove either mechanism.
We must have a true test of the mechanism. The problem is the mechanisms were just made up. No one really knows what form the mechanism might be.
Your assertion that we can predict things with the equations, so it must be true, is fallacious. If we make a theory called "invisible pusher fairies" and give it the same equations of action, does that prove that gravity is caused by "invisible pusher fairies"?