The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: rubberbands on February 11, 2016, 08:02:56 PM

Title: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rubberbands on February 11, 2016, 08:02:56 PM
So the discovery of gravitational waves was confirmed today (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html). You guys don't believe in gravity, so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is this just totally fraudulent?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet on February 11, 2016, 09:14:07 PM
So the discovery of gravitational waves was confirmed today (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html). You guys don't believe in gravity, so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is this just totally fraudulent?
I'm sure they would say something similar as "How would you know it's not another government hoax to invest in their pseudoscience?"
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 11, 2016, 09:29:59 PM
Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2016, 10:13:06 PM
Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.

How do they differ?
Title: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 11, 2016, 10:17:38 PM
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2016, 10:40:05 PM
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

Ok. What leads you to this distinction? What sources do you have regarding your definition of gravity?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 11, 2016, 11:15:27 PM
Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 12, 2016, 01:24:42 AM
They aren't mutually exclusive though.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Roundy on February 12, 2016, 02:53:37 AM
They aren't mutually exclusive though.

I don't see why you would assume Junker is saying they are.  That they are not mutually exclusive does not mean that they must both exist.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Daguerrohype on February 12, 2016, 09:20:00 AM
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass.

I'm an object with mass. So is the earth. Therefore gravitation is the attraction between me and the earth.

Is that correct?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet on February 12, 2016, 01:15:28 PM
Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.
Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 12, 2016, 02:26:40 PM
Is that correct?
I don't know. Have you measured it?


Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.
Except that "gravity waves" were not discovered.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Daguerrohype on February 12, 2016, 02:59:04 PM
Is that correct?
I don't know. Have you measured it?

I'm applying your statement re objects with mass to two specific objects, viz, me and the earth. I'm not stating what the strength of that gravitation might be. Only that on the strength of your assertion, it exists.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse when I ask, what is the "it" that I might or might not have measured?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rubberbands on February 12, 2016, 05:40:57 PM
Junker, can you stop being deliberately obtuse? You can't say things like "physics is my source", that's nonsensical. If you're going to make some sort of point, then just make your point instead of forcing the rest of us to drag it out of you. Your conduct is absolutely horrible for conducting productive conversations right now.

So you've made some distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation". Fine. Can you explain how that's relevant to the discovery of gravitational waves? If you're going to claim that gravitational waves haven't actually been discovered, can you provide a reason to believe that?

From the language in your first post, it seemed like you were implying that "gravitation" is real while "gravity" is not (because gravitons haven't been discovered or something? again, I'm being forced to guess because you haven't actually said anything meaningful yet). I would like to note that in conversations about this with other FE'ers, it seems that when they dismiss gravity, they deny the existence of an attractive force between massive object as well as whatever your other interpretation is supposed to mean.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 12, 2016, 09:15:18 PM
Junker, can you stop being deliberately obtuse?
I am not sure what you are referring to.

Quote
If you're going to make some sort of point, then just make your point
Already done.

Quote
Your conduct is absolutely horrible for conducting productive conversations right now.
I felt like the conversation was going just fine. Not sure why you are so upset.

Quote
So you've made some distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation".
Yes

Quote
Can you explain how that's relevant to the discovery of gravitational waves?
Gravity isn't relevant to the alleged discovery of gravitational waves. That was my point.

Quote
If you're going to claim that gravitational waves haven't actually been discovered
I never made such a claim. Einstein said they weren't real, not me. Are you suggesting you are smarter than Einstein was?

Quote
...seemed like you were implying that
You've inserted a whole lot of unneeded assumption and conjecture here.

Quote
I would like to note that in conversations about this with other FE'ers, it seems that when they dismiss gravity, they deny the existence of an attractive force between massive object as well as whatever your other interpretation is supposed to mean.
That is great, but the position of FES is that there is at least some gravitational influence.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 12, 2016, 09:55:05 PM
Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.
Can you expand or be more specific on this? Physics is a very broad term. What physics makes this distinction and how? How, in physics, could a force be unobservable?

Feel free to cite sources.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 12, 2016, 09:58:22 PM
What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2016, 03:52:43 AM
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
So, I look up the Wiki.
Quote from: Flat Earth Wiki, "Universal Acceleration"
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.

Mind you, then I looked a bit further:
Quote from:  "Universal Acceleration, Tidal Effects"
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

This raises some serious questions:
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: junker on February 13, 2016, 05:02:42 AM
If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earth
This conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.

Quote
the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.
I am not really sure what you are arguing here.

Quote
Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.
Please provide evidence for this claim.

Quote
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.
I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2016, 09:04:08 AM
If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earth
This conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.
Help me a bit, what "false premise"?
From Wiki "The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Gravitation (whether under GR or simply Newtonian) causes a force between masses. "Celestial bodies" have mass, the flat earth has mass and objects on earth have mass, hence there must be "gravitational pull" between the flat earth and objects on it.

Quote from: junker
Quote
the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.
I am not really sure what you are arguing here.
The Sun, moon and other "Celestial bodies" rotate at rates one revolution in about 24 hours (sun, planets and stars) and about 29 days for the moon.
Hence any "gravitational pull" from these objects should show variations with similar periodicity.

Quote from: junker

Quote
Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Evidence of what? That "Gravity on earth also varies with latitude." This has been known for around 400 years since Christiaan Huygens found unexplained variations in the rate of pendulum clocks. Temperature variations were important, but were compensated for. Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton determined the variations were due to a variation in "g".

Quote from: junker

Quote
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.
I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.

And, no I have not personally verified all of this!
Mind you I could come up with numerous  points of the Flat Earth model that have not been personally verified, but are simply inferred to preserve the initial hypothesis. 

By the way I find this a bit odd. The Wiki says "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". How does that fit with:
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 13, 2016, 10:27:33 AM
This is what happens when erroneous information is published in the official faq: the RE have a field day with it.

The faq must be written by someone who does have the experience and know-how in explaining planetary/stellar gravity.

The tides could not possibly be caused by a force of attraction; on the contrary, they are caused BY A FORCE OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE WATER.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127


Using GTR/STR to defend FET is hilarious: both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

If the FET is true, then GTR/STR is an impossibility.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 13, 2016, 08:35:23 PM
What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.

I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2016, 09:10:27 PM
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?
I don't know if this helps or hinders. Most is from a post I made in "the other place". I guess you know all this anyway, but here goes.
Firstly though the distinction usually made is that gravitation is the general term:
"Gravity" is that gravitational field (an acceleration in m/s2 of maybe better Newtons/kilogram) near the earth's surface, though is often used to describe gravitation near some other body as in the "moon's gravity".

Now to the insistence by some (not you) that we use GR for all out gravitational calculations, I have this comment:

I suppose you would have us use "the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein equations", but it really is way beyond most people's capabilities (including mine!).
But, it seems that in the case of a stationary small object (eg me) on the surface of a massive spherical one (the earth) that general solution reduces to something a bit simpler, a bit like
F = (G x m x M) /d2
and if that small object is moving other parts of the solution look very much like Newton's laws of motion, including the Coriolis effect. Smart bloke that Einstein making his GR reduce to what we already knew!
Newton's laws of motion and gravitation.
Not bad of Newton either coming up with pretty good approximations when he had no idea of a "speed limit" or even that the speed of light was finite.

Yes,  neither "gravity" nor "gravitation" are forces but in a practical sense they can cause forces.

While GR describes the general case, we simply do not need that sophistication! In fact in most cases where relativity is included it is added as a correction to the classical solution.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 14, 2016, 10:05:19 AM
This is what happens when erroneous information is published in the official faq: the RE have a field day with it.

The faq must be written by someone who does have the experience and know-how in explaining planetary/stellar gravity.

The tides could not possibly be caused by a force of attraction; on the contrary, they are caused BY A FORCE OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE WATER.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127


Using GTR/STR to defend FET is hilarious: both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

If the FET is true, then GTR/STR is an impossibility.

So this force of pressure, that moves literally tons of water, is completely unfelt by any living being on the earth, even though those beings consist primarily of water?  Or does this force of pressure only operate over large bodies of water?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 14, 2016, 12:13:49 PM
But it is being felt by each and every being: it is called biohomochirality.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."


Ether will behave as a solid to a fluid, and as a fluid to a solid

Nikola Tesla


The icosahedral structure of the water molecule and ether waves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722739#msg1722739


To prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, we have at our disposal the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Kozyrev.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 15, 2016, 02:30:40 AM
But it is being felt by each and every being: it is called biohomochirality.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."


Ether will behave as a solid to a fluid, and as a fluid to a solid

Nikola Tesla


The icosahedral structure of the water molecule and ether waves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722739#msg1722739


To prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, we have at our disposal the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Kozyrev.

How far into the twilight zone did you reach for that?

Chirality - A geometric property of some molecules and ions.  A chiral molecule/ion is non-superimposable on it mirror image.

Homochirality - A geometric property of some materials that are composed of chiral units. Chiral refers to non-superimposable 3D forms that are mirror images of one another, as are left and right hands. A substance is said to be homochiral if all the constituent units are molecules of the same chiral form.

As you can see, neither of these have anything to do with the felt force of gravity, regardless of how you choose to describe gravity and there is no designation of biochirality or biohomochirality.

If you lead into your argument with a false, wholly manufactured, premise why should anything you say after that point be taken seriously?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2016, 06:49:17 AM
To borrow a line from a Beatles song: Slow Down.

Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity


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.


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality: read this work carefully)

http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046 ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060 (R. Shapiro debunks the Miller experiment and the RNA world)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark:

(http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image007.jpg)

Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 15, 2016, 08:21:43 AM
This still doesn't explain how biohomochirality becomes a force of pressure.

Maybe it's magic?

Better yet....It's dark matter.  You'd better call NASA and all the physicists in the world and let them know you've discovered what dark matter is.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2016, 09:08:13 AM
There is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532


To convince yourself that terrestrial gravity is indeed a force due to the pressure exerted by telluric currents/subquark strings:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189


These subquarks strings are at the origin of not only terrestrial gravity (dextrorotatory subq.), but also are the cause of the biohomochirality phenomenon (laevorotatory subq. or left-handed subq.); at the present time, biohomochirality cannot be explained at all, except if we bring the power of ether physics to solve this most important matter.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 15, 2016, 07:23:36 PM
 ??? I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.

In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 15, 2016, 11:01:18 PM
??? I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.

In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.
You claim "there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon". This is simply not true, it does not begin to explain "the phenomenon". Pressure acts all around an object, not just on top, so cannot cause a "downward" force. Also measure the weight of objects under a very low pressure in a "vacuum chamber" and the weight increases, yet we take an object to a high altitude where the pressure is also much much lower and the weight decreases!

As well as this, attractive forces can be measured between masses on the earth's surface. The force is very small, because gravitation causes only a very slight attraction. The earth has a mass of almost 6×1024 kg (or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg) and it attracts a 1 kg mass with a force of only 9.81 N (or 1 kg weight). Hence test masses of a few 100 kg still cause of minute forces.

Nevertheless the experiment has been performed hundreds of times since the "Cavendish Experiment" (1797–98).
Once an experiment is performed getting a certain result other scientists will repeat the experiment. If the experiment is not repeatable it is rejected as either a fluke of based on a wrong premise.

Cavendish was the first to perform the experiment (using a torsion balance apparatus constructed by geologist John Michell[1])
which lead to a determination of the Universal Gravitational Constant G.

Many other experimenters performed similar experiments numerous times[2] to verify this and improve the accuracy.
Modern results of these experiments differ from the results from Cavendish's experiment by less than 1%, and agree among themselves by better than 0.03%. It is a difficult experiment and there are still some unanswered questions, but Cavendish has certainly been vindicated!

No-one will pretend that all questions regarding gravity have been answered. Einstein took it a step further further with his General Relativity explaining it as a distortion of space-time by the presence of mass and energy. This explained a number of anomalies that had been noted earlier (eg in the anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit), but so far there is no link between Einstein's GR and Quantum theory.

But, on the mundane level of gravity on earth experiments such as Cavendish's have surely demonstrated that massive objects do attract with a force given by Newton's law of gravitation[3].


[1]  John Michell died before he could perform the experiment himself.

[2]  One reason for the numerous repetitions is that, partly because of the forces to be measured, high accuracy is difficult to achieve.

[3]  There is a proviso in this. The objects cannot be too massive (like a huge sun!) or move at too high a velocity (compared to the velocity of light). If these are not satisfied we get into the realm of General Relativity.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2016, 01:34:16 AM
If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2016, 03:32:32 AM
If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history
You ask: "If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth?"
Simply because the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the earth and moon in orbit is provided by gravitation!

You claim "a force that can't totally be proven". Now, I won't claim proven, but I do claim that is massive evidence that gravitation exists. Surely experimental evidence is much better than a mathematical "proof".

Newton did not simply have an apple land on his head, and out popped the universal gravitational equation. Newton and Hooke did a large amount of experiments work. Also Newton had the paths of the planets that Kepler had found fitted elliptical orbits fairly closely.
So, Newton's result was the result of many observations and experiments.

What you say about helium balloons etc is readily explained by "Newton's" gravity and "Archimedes'" bouyancy "laws". All the effects of changing air pressure and altitude also come out easily as well.

When I get time I will try to list the numerous assumptions made in the flat earth theory without proof or evidence!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 16, 2016, 03:49:06 AM
There is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532


To convince yourself that terrestrial gravity is indeed a force due to the pressure exerted by telluric currents/subquark strings:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189


These subquarks strings are at the origin of not only terrestrial gravity (dextrorotatory subq.), but also are the cause of the biohomochirality phenomenon (laevorotatory subq. or left-handed subq.); at the present time, biohomochirality cannot be explained at all, except if we bring the power of ether physics to solve this most important matter.

Please allow me to point out the irony that you, by far the most vociferous FE supporter on this forum, are defending a theory that is based upon personal perception by calling in subatomic particles.

Have you actually seen these subatomic particles or do you trust the scientists in what they say?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2016, 04:40:15 AM
I still don't understand how gravitation makes a planet spin and hold an orbit around an object when the equation itself says there is an attraction between two "products of mass." Doesn't sound like a simple extension to say that explains why an object would do every freaking thing possible to avoid another, ie: rotate around it instead, perpetually to infinity, never getting closer but holding just the right distance-- in Earths case, coincidentally by some kind of comical cosmic accident, the picture perfect distance for life to exist to be exact. I'm just concerned humanity bet on the wrong horse, metaphorically, and has been compounding the problem ever since. We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 16, 2016, 05:11:53 AM
We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.

Accordingly the FE theory of "the force known as gravity", the FE is flying through space, at a constant speed, in a linear fashion and somehow carrying the sun (the prime move of all life forms) with us.

This would make the FE both the center of the universe as well as being an incredibly luck, insignificant speck in the cosmos as we carry all that we need for life but are leaving everything else behind rather quickly.

What lies in between?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2016, 06:13:59 AM
We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.
Accordingly the FE theory of "the force known as gravity", the FE is flying through space, at a constant speed, in a linear fashion and somehow carrying the sun (the prime move of all life forms) with us.
This would make the FE both the center of the universe as well as being an incredibly luck, insignificant speck in the cosmos as we carry all that we need for life but are leaving everything else behind rather quickly.
What lies in between?
What seems laughable to me is that they ridicule Globe Earth supporters for thinking that the earth
Quote
is actually a massive moving ball spinning through space at over 1,000 miles per hour, wobbling and tilted 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, while orbiting the sun at a blinding 67,000 miles per hour, in concert with the entire solar system spiraling 500,000 miles per hour around the Milky Way and careening across the expanding universe away from the “Big Bang” at an incredible 670,000,000 miles per hour, but that you feel and experience none of it!
from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html) [1]

When they claim that the earth and the whole material universe is going up[2] through "something" at 1,079,252,793 km/hr! Yes, i used relativistic acceleration since 4,004 BC (of course!).
Just who is joking here!

[1]  To be fair to the FES this is from Eric Dubay's Atlantean Conspiracy and Eric Dubay is certainly not "flavour of the month" in many Flat earth circles. But, the same sentiments are often expressed in these forims.

[2]  TFES Wiki states: It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

I must make an immense apology! I used the time an outside observer would see, and not someone on the accelerating earth!
The calculator I am using simply cannot calculate  large enough numbers for the "earth years" to reach 6,020 (years since Usher's creation date of 4,004 BC). The longest "earth time" my calculator will handle is only about 687 years in which time the earth will have travelled 10154 light years. I'll let you relativity experts carry on from here!
How big is space again?
Calculated using: http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html (http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2016, 06:39:54 AM
Yeah, I think the upward acceleration thing is bunk. It really is superlative to the concept. With that aside, I do find it hard to pass the common sense test that we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground, but that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Rama Set on February 16, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

This statement is inaccurate.  The standard model's description of gravity has never been tested and is not required for GR to hold true, nor is it held to be a strong theory.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 16, 2016, 07:32:37 AM
If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific history
Because of our orbital path around the sun. We actually do fall towards it but keep "missing" because of the earth's speed relative to the sun.

Same with the moon around earth, and all other human made satellites
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2016, 09:14:56 AM
Yeah, I think the upward acceleration thing is bunk. It really is superlative to the concept. With that aside, I do find it hard to pass the common sense test that we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground, but that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away.
You think it strange that "we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground", but not strange that an iron nail is "somehow are drawn by a magical property a magnet to itself"? I wonder why!

Then why so much different "that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away"?

You have a mass if something like 80 kg, the earth has a mass of roughly 6×1024 kg and you are roughly 6,400 km from the earth's centre, so the force is 9.8x80 N (or 80 kg weight).

The sun's mass is roughly 2×1030 kg and the sun is roughly 150,000 km away, this makes the force about 3.5x1022 N (or roughly 3.5x1021 kg weight).

This is just the right force needed to keep the earth in its orbit.
The force due to gravitation depends on both masses and the distance, so it handles but "tasks" perfectly.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2016, 12:57:49 PM
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 16, 2016, 04:30:14 PM
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.
Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.

It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2016, 08:59:49 PM
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.
Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.

It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.

It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2016, 11:28:32 PM
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.
Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.
It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.
It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.
Far from being a "usurpation of the scientific method." the development of the Heliocentric Globe is the scientific method. A massive amount of observation was done from thousands of years BC in Egypt and other countries, through to later years in Greece, Italy, other parts of Europe and the Middle East. The present model was developed to explain these numerous observations. There were numerous hypotheses on the way, but the present model was chosen because it explains the observations most closely.

I've said my bit, now over to you! Now please explain to me on your flat earth:Yes, go look up you Wiki and work all this out. There you might learn about "celestial gears", "aetheric whirlpools", etc with no explanations as to what these might be! Just see if you find that more satisfying!
After this you might try to explain some of the implications of UA!
All of these are much readily explainable with the Heliocentric Globe!

[1] The 3,000 miles high for the sun seems to come from Eratosthenes thousands of years ago, when distances were measured by "pacing it out"! What about something a bit more recent?
[2] The "fixed stars" are not really fixed, they just appear to move very slowly.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 16, 2016, 11:43:47 PM
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.
Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.

It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.

It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.

No, by observation. That's why you call them facts. Observation = Fact. Explanation = Theory.

Unless, of course, you're conveniently assuming that there's no such thing as satellites.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 17, 2016, 03:04:50 AM
"You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line?"

Because you are either forgetting or completely discounting centripetal force.

The sun, even at its vast distance, has enough mass to attract the earth.  The earth orbits the sun at approximately 108,000 km/h.  This orbital speed provides the necessary force to counter the gravitational pull of the sun.  If the earth were come to a complete stop in its orbit the centripetal force would no longer be applied and the earth would then fall into the sun.


"It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method."

Do you even have an idea of what the scientific method is?  Everything in science has basis in observable phenomenon.  The scientific method is looking upon that observed phenomenon and working back to find the best explanation for why that phenomenon exists in the first place or why that particular phenomenon interacts with other phenomenon around it in the way that it does or why that phenomenon behaves in the way that it does.  The scientific method also provides a way to see how observed phenomenon can be made to behave in non-traditional ways.

Compare the scientific method to the zetetic method.

More than 2,000 years ago Eratosthenes applied what he knew of mathematics and geography to measure the circumference of the earth.  He came within a couple of thousand kilometers of the currently accepted measurement.

Zetetic FE supporters look out their window, can't see any curvature and declare the world to be flat.  They declare that there is an ice wall surrounding the earth, beyond which lies the unknown or unknowable.  They denigrate the scientists and their methods but they won't actively pursue their own measurements or experiments to prove or disprove their claims.  They even, as has been done in this thread, break from their core tenets if or when it is convenient for them to do so.

If the scientific method had not come about and instead the zetetic method had risen in its place how far do you believe humanity would have made it if they had lived their lives based only upon that which is directly perceptible?  We certainly wouldn't be having this conversation via computer.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 04:47:25 AM
What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.

One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.

By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 17, 2016, 05:28:46 AM
What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.

One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.

By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.

You readily jump on the magnetism bandwagon.  Why is that?  What makes magnetism work?  Yes it's quantifiable and its effects are observable but magnetism itself can't be observed.  Gravity is quantifiable and its effects can be observed yet it can't be observed itself.

Why will you readily accept one is discount the other?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2016, 07:51:19 AM
What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.
One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.
By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.
I note you have not attempted to answer my questions! I am waiting, as I said your turn.

What is you hangup about gravity? It is harder to demonstrate "in the lab" than the "electrostatic" attraction, simply because it is so weak.
But in the simple (non-relativistic) case the basic law is of exactly the same form F = Const x q1 x q2 /r2 cf F = Const x m1 x m2 /r2. Why accept one and not the other?
Why accept that two charges attract, and then question that two masses attract?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 02:50:58 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 17, 2016, 02:53:34 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 03:56:23 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 17, 2016, 04:10:40 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Woody on February 17, 2016, 04:36:54 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

You really do not understand the scientific method.

Part of it involves looking at what proves hypothesis or theory wrong and it is reviewed by others.

In the case for the Earth being a sphere it is just not a handful observations and experiments that are blindly excepted and never reviewed or validated.  It is 2,300+ years of continually being verified by others by different observations and reproducible experiments.

The ability to make predictions that are accurate are a validation that supports mainstream science is on the right track.  Tides and when and where eclipses will be visible for example.

Here is an example of the FES version of the zetetic method in practice:

Bishop Experiment offered as conclusive proof and experimental evidence depending which wiki you look at.

Distance stated is 10 miles off.

The location the observer states they were with a telescope 20" above the water is a rocky shore with a steep drop off.  Making it highly questionable that the observer height was 20" above the water.

The mistake with the distance was acknowledged, yet it remains on the wiki with no link to an addendum or at least the distances and calculations removed allowing the reader to make their own judgement.

Something like this using the scientific method would have been peered reviewed, the mistakes found, tested by others to verify the results, and would not have been ever been called conclusive proof.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.0

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4497.0

The above is the only things I could find on the wiki so far I was able to look into and verify myself.  So the three things I found was an experiment with the wrong distances given, a link to something that could be misleading if the reader does not understand the methodology used, and the court ruling stated in the wiki not being what the court transcripts say the ruling was.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 17, 2016, 04:43:33 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraud
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 05:33:24 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraud
Coincidentally, I do, but that is a discussion for another topic.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 17, 2016, 08:05:37 PM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.

You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.

Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.

Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.

But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraud
Coincidentally, I do, but that is a discussion for another topic.
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 17, 2016, 09:20:08 PM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: andruszkow on February 17, 2016, 09:52:35 PM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
I suspect you are unable to imagine just how much space there actually is. This will go no where.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 11:13:40 PM
Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

You really need to educate yourself on the history of science. There have been plenty of tests of Newton's and Einstein's Laws of Gravitation.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2016, 12:48:41 AM
I am going back a bit, because so much that follows seems to hinge on this.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.
You claim "Because masses have no inherent reason to attract." Yet can you give any plausible reason why electric charges attract?
Also, we know that somehow things are "attracted down", so what is the mechanism.Flat earth supporters come up various ideas to explain this. The main ones being:
  • "Universal Acceleration": There are a number of holes in this. One interesting one is that if Einstein's relativity is accepted, we could not have been on earth more than about 45 years! see below [1]
  • "Denspressure": But, if there is no gravity (or UA), what causes the air pressure? In any case i can come up with numerous fallacies in this "hypothesis"
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction.
Yes, there is some kind of attraction, but a 200 m diameter ball of concrete would attract a 200 mm diameter ball of concrete with a force of a little over 0.5 gm! Gravitation is a very weak force - if it were otherwise you would be squashed like a dead fly on the earth's surface.
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The gravitation due to the moon and sun on the earth's surface is extremely small! Tides are caused not so much by the "lifting" of water as causing the water to flow from one part of the earth to another. This explains a number of tidal effects.
  • Small bodies of water are hardly affected at all. Tides will occur only in bodies large enough for water to flow. Even in the Mediterranean Sea tides are small.
  • Tides are greatly affected by the sea-floor.
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Cavendish never set out to "prove gravity". His claimed aim was to "weigh the earth" and find its density. And he did not approach it "with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it." Before Cavendish the density of the earth was expected to be similar to that of the surface rocks - around 2,500 to 3,000 kg/m3 and Newton used this sort of figure to estimate the mass of the earth.
Cavendish, however, found that the density of the earth was 5,448 kg/m3 - a little lower than the accepted figure.
So you are completely wrong in this!
Cavendish did not set out with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it.
Cavendish had no idea that his density would turn out so high.
From the Cavendish result we can calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant G, and his result is within about 1% of the accepted value.

I really cannot understand your logic! You obviously accept radio wave propagation, but you cannot sense it in any way without "instruments" - a receiver! But, you will not accept gravitation that you can sense, though not easily measure without "instruments".


[1] If we accept relativity, and TFES seems to (see http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light), then we must accept time dilation, etc. If the earth were to start acceleration at 9.8 m/s2 15 billion years ago (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the acceleration earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth! (see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html (http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)) I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 21, 2016, 06:27:33 AM
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

What inherent reason do magnet have to attract?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2016, 06:44:49 AM
Magnets do not attract each other.

They establish a flow of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) between their respective south/north poles.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


There is no such thing as the Cavendish experiment: it failed miserably to explain "attractive gravity".

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) demonstrated conclusively that terrestrial gravity is a force OF PRESSURE.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1749881#msg1749881
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 21, 2016, 07:05:51 AM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 21, 2016, 07:08:37 AM
Magnets do not attract each other.

They establish a flow of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) between their respective south/north poles.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


There is no such thing as the Cavendish experiment: it failed miserably to explain "attractive gravity".

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) demonstrated conclusively that terrestrial gravity is a force OF PRESSURE.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1749881#msg1749881

Didn't we already have this discussion?  More precisely, your use of the imperceptible to support a theory wholly based upon perception?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2016, 10:24:53 AM
You haven't done your homework: long ago during the course of our discussion I provided the link to the physics of the subquark:

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

There you will find a 100% accurate proof of the existence of the "imperceptible".
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 21, 2016, 08:45:49 PM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2016, 10:18:52 PM
Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
I am really interested, when you can access a computer please find the
"corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic" which justifies your claim
"It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together."!

And I thought you claimed that you did not believe in anything orbiting the earth, so just how were these "photos taken from low orbit"?
You claim this and claim that, yet never have any evidence!

There are numerous things that I claim are evidence. Here are just a few related to satellites:
  • Right from the first satellite, Sputnik I, launched  October 4, 1957, radio HAMs reported the signal on 20.007 MHz at the correct time for the given location - bit hard to fake that! Yes, I was there with the HAMs at the time!
  • There are numerous photos and videos of the ISS, some as just a moving light others as a rough shape and many with larger telescopes show the shapes clearly.
  • We can download geostationary weather satellite photos any time we like from say: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/ (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/)
  • TV from geostationary TV satellites requires the receiving antennas to be precisely aligned (±0.5° or so) with a direction that aligns exactly with the published position of the satellite! Triangulation from a number of locations can pin-point the satellite's location, including altitude!
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/4/infrared/1/201602212130-00.png)
From Japanese Himawari Satellite taken 21:30 UTC, 21 Feb 2016 (30 min ago)
Shows Cyclone Winston, now west of Fiji and a heavy cloud mass giving a lot of rain the south eastern corner of the Gulf of Carpentaria!
Don't worry, I know you won't take the slightest notice of anything I write, but just possibly there are some less indoctrinated sheep around.
I have said it before, but it seems to me that Flat Earthers look out the window (or out to sea), see it looks flat, decide on the spot that the erath must be flat! From then on every bit of contrary evidence has to be explained away by fake perspective, bendy light, a lot of pure guesswork about the sun, moon and stars and then accusing thousands of outright lying and billions of being fooled!

It must be so reassuring to be one of the few to be able to ignore all the evidence and know the truth.
Why else would you have picked such a smug sounding forum name as "TheTruthIsOnHere". I get very suspicious when someone claims to "have the truth". It reminds me of all the door-to-door pushers of the various sects - each claiming to have the TRUTH at the exclusion of all others.

BTW: technically all digital photographs (other than pure monochrome) are composites made from three or more sensors and combined in various ways.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Woody on February 21, 2016, 10:51:32 PM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.



I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-148-22727.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNgfJvuLl4w

Sources are not composite images of the Earth.

The Russians have taken at least one picture I am aware of that is not a composite.  Taken by a satellite I can not remember the name of.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 22, 2016, 03:06:35 AM
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

It's not a photograph but it's a bunch of photos.

Do the words photograph and photo mean different things to you?

You tell me that I should look for information regarding the topic at hand, which by your instigation is the recent image Blue Marble.  The recent image was done by the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite.  The photo in question was taken from a distance of 1.6 million km away.  This is not, in any way, low earth orbit.

It seems to me that you are the one in need of doing actual research.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 22, 2016, 06:43:44 AM
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 22, 2016, 12:23:48 PM
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.
I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 22, 2016, 04:51:16 PM
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.
I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:
  • believe the the sun magically rotates above on a funny, though quite unexplained, spiral sort of motion.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset directions to magically match the exact locations predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset times to exactly match the times predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight and moonlight bends in amazing ways for the sun and moon to stay the same size and shape from rising to setting.
  • believe that somehow this odd spiralling sun and moon can cause the moon phases and eclipses - usually some other completely imaginary bodies are postulated - yet these event are easily explained and predicted for the globe earth.
  • believe that even though the sun travels quite different distances in the various seasons it still manages to rotate exactly once each 24 hours.
  • believe that the earth magically has kept accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 since the earth began. I won't scare you now with the distance it might have travelled - of course you may have some other explanation for gravity!
  • believe in some funny sort of perspective that appears to make ships, the sun and the moon disappear behind the horizon in exactly the way predicted by the globe!
  • believe that the planets and stars are only tiny spots of light, yet when observed with powerful telescopes show such amazing detail.
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!

What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.

Other than that you have never seen me claim to know anything. Especially the things you listed in your bullet points. I am here to discover the ways that the phenomena we experience on Earth can be explained in alternative ways. I do however hold that Man has never been on the moon, the photos from space are fake (especially photos of satellites) and that universal gravitation is a fallacy. Other than that I couldn't tell you how the sun and moon work. I can also tell you that I don't approach our existence as a mere accident, a lucky coincidence amid a massive explosion. I don't believe we are an insignificant speck in the universe, relying on a fairy tale "Goldilocks" zone to evolve from single cell organisms into apes into man.

So its obvious to me we are coming from two very different perspectives in the first place. I am intrigued by the "flat-earth" for philosophical reasons just as much as you are adhered to the "globe-earth" for scientific reasons. I appreciate your vigor for debate, and I respect your opinions, however I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, or be proven anything by anyone. Strictly here for interesting discussion on the possibilities of alternate views of our existence, with the caveat that I am an Agnostic at heart. I would never pretend to "know" anything, and I simply don't put as much faith in Man as those that pretend to know. "TheTruthIsOnHere" doesn't mean I know the Truth, or have the truth as you have said a few times... it means the truth of our existence is HERE, not THERE. I prefer to look inward as opposed to outwards in my meditation, because if man can not know himself, how can he expect to know the entire universe.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2016, 02:05:19 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.
You say: "What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe.", but a lot of the things I mention are simple things like sunrise, sunset times and directions - anyone can check them!

A small question! However would you or anyone have known about these "massive belts of radiation" or the thermosphere if earlier space probes and satellites had not been launched to measure them? Answers from YOU please! NASA knew a lot more about the Van Allen belts than you ever will, and launch the moon missions on an off-ecliptic path to avoid as much as possible!

Whyever are these thing concessions? They are simple a part of the structure of the solar system.
You really take no notice of any explanations that I give! You still come up with "our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe", yet I have tried to explain that the apparent rotation of the sun and moon are mainly the earth's rotation.
And you still come up with "pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together"! You have never tried to answer what Cavendish et. al. measured with the hundreds of experiments performed! You still cannot say why gravitation is pseudo-scientific when magnetic and electrostatic forces are real - what gives?
Many of the things I listed I can observe with my own observations.
A "dyed in the wool" flat earther asked "It is baffling at times to understand just how REers can go on and on expressing their beliefs without opening their eyes and seeing what is past their text books and out the door of their lab".
I do keep my eyes open and what do I see?
Note that none of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!

I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.

Of these, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble explaining away all of the others with fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by "dark energy") and on and on.

But all the other points are far more simply explained on a Globe Earth, though not necessarily rotating. The Heliocentric Globe model came from much more detailed study of the motions of the planets. Mind a bit of logic would show that it would be strange to have all of the sun, moon, planets and stars moving (not simply rotating) about a comparitively small earth - and that is before we bring Einstein into it!

There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about strange things like celestial gears and aetheric whirlpools etc.

Even the problems with the stationary Globe earth were found in the past from observations made without modern instruments. Largely eyes and simple (though large) angle measuring equipment.

Honestly, I find that the Globe Earth conforms far better to the Zetetic approach than all the imagination and guesswork needed to support any Flat Earth model!

I guess there's no more that I can say. It's all up to you, but sometimes you really do have to look around you, look a bit more deeply into the various "models" (especially the complications you get into with any flat earth models) and start believing (though selectively!) what others have learnt from their investigations. As I said though you do have to be selective - there is a lot of rubbish out there.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 23, 2016, 04:12:51 AM
You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it. I guess all the astronomers were foolish to think they could predict the movement of the stars and planets, and eclipses of the sun and moon without the heliocentric theory showing them the way. I'm so stupid for not trusting we went to the moon with technology equivalent to a speak and spell. Thanks for opening my eyes to the folly of my ways guy on the internet. What would the flat earth society do without such a dedicated dissenting voice here to bring them back to (globular)earth. I now am comfortable knowing that I know the knowledge that I didn't know I could know. Go home guys, the mysteries of the universe are solved. Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2016, 07:16:44 AM
You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it  . . . . . . . . . . .
Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.
I won't try to answer all of this, or even argue against the flat earth, just give you my take on what you have written.
You do have to realise that there are literally millions of Christians out there that do not go with the Flat Earth. Now I don't doubt that many of those never give it a thought, but are many at all the big Universities (including Berkeley etc) who most certainly go with the Heliocentric Globe Earth. They probably differ tremendously in their detailed beliefs. It is interesting that the site "creation.com", which, as you can imagine, is very conservative is definitely not for the flat earth! see http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism).
I didn't mean to write this much! I get carried away and ramble on.

[1] Many with "autism" (Aspergers Spectrum Disorder) have extreme capability in a few areas - they are Savants, but have problems interacting with people and that does fit Henry Cavendish!

[2] With a lot of this advanced Cosmology I might glance at it and think "that's interesting!" and let it brush over me! I don't try to follow it, because so much of it is in a state of flux. I find a lot of the astronomical observations are very interesting, but, for me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 08:25:06 AM
For me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!

No wonder you are a RE believer.

If you want anybody to believe you that the Earth is round, for starters you must address the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

Until then, anything you say amounts to nothing.


FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2016, 09:11:32 AM
The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).
When a few others start bothering about it I will stick with what I can see!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 23, 2016, 10:39:51 AM
For me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!

No wonder you are a RE believer.

If you want anybody to believe you that the Earth is round, for starters you must address the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

Until then, anything you say amounts to nothing.


FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).

Speaking of paradoxes...

From the scientific view the sun is accepted to have a diameter of approximately 1.4 million km, a volume of 1,410,000,000,000,000,000 cubic km, an accepted current age of 4.57 billion years and an expected lifespan of another 5 billion years.

According to FET the sun has a diameter of 32 miles giving it a volume of 17,157 cubic miles.  How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 11:41:06 AM
I can debunk your "accepted" solar data in less than 30 seconds.

However, you mentioned the words "According to FET the sun has a diameter of 32 miles" which means your question is addressed to the UAFE who cannot explain the 1.5 km/year precession of the sun (in 4000 years this will amount to 6000 km, thus exceeding the space alloted for the orbit of the sun, situated between the two Tropics).

In order to answer your question in the context of the correct FET theory, a new subject has to be brought into our discussion: the new radical chronology of history.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 23, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
My question is addressed within the confines of this forum and site because the 32 mile diameter of the sun is taken directly from the oh so religiously referenced wiki.

The new radical chronology of history?  Is this yet another way to dance around the questions asked of you or is it the title of a new song by the group?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 23, 2016, 05:23:50 PM
Speaking of paradoxes...

How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2016, 11:50:52 PM
Speaking of paradoxes...

How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?
What has the origin of life or the age of the sun got to do with "Gravitational Waves" or the "Shape of the Earth"?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 24, 2016, 12:57:06 AM
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 24, 2016, 02:51:20 AM
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

No you're not but such is the nature of this forum.  The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.

Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly.  Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.

Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?

Title: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: Charming Anarchist on February 24, 2016, 03:09:46 AM
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school. 
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: rabinoz on February 24, 2016, 03:17:59 AM
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.
You went to "globular" school! I never did, I suppose that is why I don't know all these things!
That is no answer! What is the mechanism in the sun that generates this energy? 
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 24, 2016, 04:27:29 AM
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

No you're not but such is the nature of this forum.  The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.

Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly.  Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.

Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?

Hey speak for your own breath lol...

Definitely wasn't trying to back you into a corner, or trick you, I was just trying to see if you had a unique perspective on how life came to be on this planet. I am even willing to admit, surrounded by atheists and armchair scientists, that I believe the universe is a product of intelligent design.

So no, my purpose here isn't to bicker and argue with people, I'll save that for YouTube comment section. I'm here to learn more about something that intrigues me, and I prefer a mutual respect for each others ideas. I apologize if I've come off any other way.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: CableDawg on February 24, 2016, 12:32:21 PM
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 24, 2016, 03:35:11 PM
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

How does the sun do that on a RE?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: rabinoz on February 24, 2016, 11:02:42 PM
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

How does the sun do that on a RE?
(What do you mean by RE? I thought the Flat Earth WAS round!)

The Globe Earth's sun uses "Thermonuclear Fusion" as an energy source
but is 2x1013 times the volume of the FE sun (IF it is a sphere!),
and the Globe Earth sun's energy
is spread over an area only about 240x106 times the area of the Flat Earth!

The Globe Earth's sun has massively more relative volume of fuel for its thermonuclear "furnace"!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 25, 2016, 04:28:56 PM
How does the sun do that on a RE?
(What do you mean by RE? I thought the Flat Earth WAS round!)

The Globe Earth's sun uses "Thermonuclear Fusion" as an energy source
but is 2x1013 times the volume of the FE sun (IF it is a sphere!),
and the Globe Earth sun's energy
is spread over an area only about 240x106 times the area of the Flat Earth!

The Globe Earth's sun has massively more relative volume of fuel for its thermonuclear "furnace"!

If you believe that we have accurately measured the "life span" of the Sun then you have to address the point sandokhan brought up earlier in this thread. We can only postulate, theorize, hypothesize how the sun works from here on Earth, supposedly 93 million miles away. By the way, if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light and somehow can hold radiation back, then how is that the Earth gets any sunlight or UV radiation from the sun?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2016, 02:23:28 AM
If you believe that we have accurately measured the "life span" of the Sun then you have to address the point sandokhan brought up earlier in this thread. We can only postulate, theorize, hypothesize how the sun works from here on Earth, supposedly 93 million miles away. By the way, if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light and somehow can hold radiation back, then how is that the Earth gets any sunlight or UV radiation from the sun?
I don't "have to address the point sandokhan brought up" or anything else!
We can do quite a lot of postulating, theorizing and hypothesizing how the sun works from here on Earth with spectral analysis and analysis or sun particles emitted, but I'm not going to get into that discussion! What's not point?

Wherever did you get "if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light" from? Another Youtube video?
Yes, gravitation fields can bend light, but
Quote
A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9 miles long.
from: http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/ (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/)
Yes, the amount of bending for even the sun's mass is miniscule!
Then "somehow can hold radiation back". This gets wierder and wierder!
You try to ridicule the Heliocentric Globe Earth, yet you will never face the massive problems any Flat Earth hypothesis has in explaining moon phases, sun rise times and directions, six month sun at the South Pole, 24 hour sun over almost all of Antarctica at the south summer equinox and on and on!

Really I am not interested in discussion your imagined problems with a globe until you have some viable alternative.
And, you simply do not!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 26, 2016, 02:45:21 AM
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2016, 06:32:03 AM
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 26, 2016, 05:47:38 PM
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!

No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense. General Relativity? Get the **** out of here with that nonsense.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Rama Set on February 26, 2016, 11:34:18 PM
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!

No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense. General Relativity? Get the **** out of here with that nonsense.

By nonsense I can only assume you mean "theory which has survived many experimental tests and has made many accurate predictions."
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 12:14:54 AM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_AlGYjfa9w

Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Bookish Neptune on February 27, 2016, 12:50:27 AM

Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.

1 Billion bucks to "hear" two black holes, "never proven to exist" crash into each over 1.2 billion light years away...

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/36113588.jpg)

And didn't I read somewhere this LIGO scam involved some mirrors hanging on a string? High-tech stuff right there!

And to think people go to bed hungry anywhere in this entire world.
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: CableDawg on February 27, 2016, 04:53:37 AM

No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I suppose these two comments go hand in hand?

Do you honestly believe that any theory, whether is pertains to RE or FE, if a couple of people with differing methods end up with the same result is valid?
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: rabinoz on February 27, 2016, 07:13:47 AM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.
What about the hundreds of measurements[1] to determine the "Universal Gravitational Constant", they achieved substantially the same result - all by chance?
This a major point with "scientific discoveries", they are not seriously accepted until they can be verified!
On "Gravity Waves", you will now find that if they are not verified, preferably by others, they may fade into oblivion. Since they seem to give further confirmation to theory that has had a lot of experimental verification, it will be looked on more seriously.

On that video! It might give a demonstration of interference, but it has nothing at all to do with gravitation waves. There is no connection between gravitation and electromagnetic forces (I have to add, as far as we know, because, unlike many FE supporters scientists do not claim ultimate knowledge).


[1]  You might well ask, "Why so many measurements? There are two reasons. One is that because of the difficulties of the experiment. The other is that there are still questions. Yes, scientists do not claim to know everything, they never have!
Title: Re: Gravitational Waves
Post by: Charming Anarchist on February 28, 2016, 09:33:25 PM
Is this just totally fraudulent?
Yes. 

It is theater for the masses. 




I wonder what all of the lab coats will say.