rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #40 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.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #41 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.

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #42 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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 10:17:14 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #44 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:
• What keeps the sun some (who knows[1]) 3,000 miles above the earth?
• What makes it follow a strange path spiralling from the Tropic of Cancer in the northern summer, to the equator at the equinoxes, then to the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern summer and then back?
• During these spirals the sun seems able keep rotating at almost exactly once each 24 hours, yet is travelling quite different distances, so it must travel much (3 times) faster when in the south. What causes this massive change in velocity?
• If the sun is travelling 3 times faster when over Queensland (Australia) than when over Taiwan its heat would be spread over a much larger area. Why aren't summers in Queensland much cooler than summers in Taiwan? In fact the opposite is true.
• The same could be asked of the moon, except that it appears to circle over us a bit slower.
• How do you explain the positively weird paths the planets seem to take in the night sky? They seem to move in circles on circles.
• Then the so-called "fixed stars" seem to rotate at a different rate again. What mechanism enables all the different motions?
• If we look at these  "fixed stars"[2] we find that some do have a small movement year after year. Even your famous Polaris was not even the same star a few thousand years ago. Again what possible mechanism is there for all of this?
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.

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #45 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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

CableDawg

• 201
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #46 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.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #47 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.

CableDawg

• 201
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #48 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?

rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #49 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?

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #50 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?

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #51 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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #52 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.

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #53 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.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 04:12:56 PM by andruszkow »
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #54 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.

Woody

• 241
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #55 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.

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #56 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
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #57 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.

andruszkow

• 563
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #58 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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #59 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)