# how gravity works



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 14, 2016)

check out this video and be enlightened:


----------



## waltky (Aug 3, 2017)

Emergent gravity may explain dark matter...





*New theory of gravity might explain dark matter*
_November 8, 2016 - A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, published a new research paper today in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity._


> In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.
> 
> Newton's law from information
> 
> ...



See also:

*Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe*


----------



## SixFoot (Aug 3, 2017)

How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?

What is the force being applied to spacetime that causes the warping?

Where is the force originating from?

What is the force behind the warping of spacetime?

What *is* gravity?


I understand that gravity is what happens when spacetime is warped, but I don't understand what is warping it. Mass? Mass in motion? Mass in stand-still?

Is there even any? Why or why not?



Fellow science enthusiasts?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Aug 11, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?
> 
> What is the force being applied to spacetime that causes the warping?
> 
> ...



The same concept of a ball warping a piece of cloth stretched out to create gravity is represented by the picture in the video. I just took that two dimensional drawing and made it 3d.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 11, 2017)

Check out this. Gravity visualized. Pretty fascinating stuff


----------



## SixFoot (Aug 11, 2017)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?
> ...



I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Aug 11, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?



Warping is a 2 dimensional view of gravity. In a 3 dimensional view space time would be denser the closer to the mass causing gravity. My idea is that the particles of mass causing gravity, protons and neutrons, are made up of super dense space time and there density puts a squeeing force in the surrounding space time causing the density and the gravity field.


----------



## SixFoot (Aug 11, 2017)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?
> ...



What is the force behind the density that causes this squeezing?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Aug 11, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> What is the force behind the density that causes this squeezing?



In my theory, the force spreading out from the small particles of super dense space-time is similar to thermal energy. Like an ice cube cooling a drink. Density in space time is a reaction to the density of the super small particles of matter. Between two gravity fields, space-time latches and pulls two objects together as a result of this force.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 12, 2017)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > What is the force behind the density that causes this squeezing?
> ...



Interesting theory but I prefer my own. 

In my theory, Gravity is simply the result of the cumulative magnetic properties of all of the atoms contained in matter. The more mass, the more atoms, the higher the concentration, the more gravity, etc.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 16, 2021)

I know longer believe in a conductive grid, aether or time as a dimension.

My latest view on the video is that the image is of the top view of the experiment in post 5. This is the correct view, not the bending from the side view, space isn't bent by gravity. Instead it is squeezed upon by the atomic nucleus so as to resemble the image in the OP. The top view is the correct view because it is a 2D experiment that only works because of the gravity below the sheet of fabric, otherwise the objects would just float away from each other. The bottom view and the side view of bending are null and the topview is in line with the surface of the gravity field.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 18, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> What *is* gravity?


Paraphrasing where not quoting Ken Wheeler: _Gravity is an anti-field. What is a field? A field is an Aether perturbation modality. Think temperature, pressure, static electricity.. Gravity is the opposite. A field terminal, ground, eraser. Think black hole, electrical ground, dielectric plane. Whereas, magnetism is dielectric acceleration (space creation), gravity erases space or more particularly spatial attributes, i.e. causes loss of dielectric inertia, acceleration toward counterspace. _

Just me now. Thinking about Earth, obviously its magnetic and gravitational attributes don't perfectly match or line up, but throw in gyroscopic precession and the Moon's gravity effects and perhaps it all begins to work out as the same. Add the Sun, planets, imperfect spherical shape, etc. Though there's likely no black hole at the Earth's center, it does have magnetic poles so there must also be a dielectric plane bisecting the North and South halves.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 19, 2021)

"Spacetime" - oh please.

*Hello, this is your doctor's office.  We have you scheduled for 3 PM spacetime tomorrow.
We look forward to seeing you in our space at that time.*


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 19, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> "Spacetime" - oh please.
> 
> *Hello, this is your doctor's office.  We have you scheduled for 3 PM spacetime tomorrow.
> We look forward to seeing you in our space at that time.*


What if I'm a dog and I find something by sense of smell, does that mean dogs have a 5th dimension of locating something?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 19, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> What if I'm a dog and I find something by sense of smell, does that mean dogs have a 5th dimension of locating something?



"This isn't right.  It's not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Paraphrasing where not quoting Ken Wheeler: _Gravity is an anti-field. What is a field? A field is an Aether perturbation modality. Think temperature, pressure, static electricity.. Gravity is the opposite. A field terminal, ground, eraser. Think black hole, electrical ground, dielectric plane. Whereas, magnetism is dielectric acceleration (space creation), gravity erases space or more particularly spatial attributes, i.e. causes loss of dielectric inertia, acceleration toward counterspace. _
> 
> Just me now. Thinking about Earth, obviously its magnetic and gravitational attributes don't perfectly match or line up, but throw in gyroscopic precession and the Moon's gravity effects and perhaps it all begins to work out as the same. Add the Sun, planets, imperfect spherical shape, etc. Though there's likely no black hole at the Earth's center, it does have magnetic poles so there must also be a dielectric plane bisecting the North and South halves.


Dr. Nuts,

Do you see what I'm saying about the the visual comparison between the image in the OP vs the experiment in post 5? Space isn't bent like Einstein says but is compressed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?
> 
> What is the force being applied to spacetime that causes the warping?
> 
> ...


The OP video is wrong.

You are asking questions that are not answerable the way they are posed. General relativity makes one basic assumption: gravitational force on a mass is indistinguishable from the force of inertial resistance when a mass is being pushed.

The math behind that simple assumption leads to warped geometries. The math does not explain anything, it just describes the behavior. That is all that can be known at this point.
.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Do you see what I'm saying about the the visual comparison between the image in the OP vs the experiment in post 5? Space isn't bent like Einstein says but is compressed.


Yes, but I see it as the Aether getting compressed, not space or time. Space has no properties so no potential to do anything. Space and counterspace are necessarily comprised of the Aether. It provides the medium, thus the basic potential for all energy exchange, as water is obviously required to produce water surface waves.

Indeed, I see gravity as a relatively weak force field resulting from matter somewhat displacing The Aether, rarifying its average local density. The weak resultant vacuum causes The Aether to push toward the center ("anti-field") of all masses, building up (being compressed) around surfaces and experiencing loss of inertia there. Le Sage theory. This Aether build up distorts light around massive objects.


> It is absurd to suppose that gravity is innate and acts without a medium, either material or immaterial -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1690


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, but I see it as the Aether getting compressed, not space or time. Space has no properties so no potential to do anything. Space and counterspace are necessarily comprised of the Aether. It provides the medium, thus the basic potential for all energy exchange, as water is obviously required to produce water surface waves.
> 
> Indeed, I see gravity as a relatively weak force field resulting from matter somewhat displacing The Aether, rarifying its average local density. The weak resultant vacuum causes The Aether to push toward the center ("anti-field") of all masses, building up (being compressed) around surfaces and experiencing loss of inertia there. Le Sage theory. This Aether build up distorts light around massive objects.


That's crazy that you are an old school aetherist. I 've never met one. My thoughts on the aether that I once avidly supported, is that space IS the aether. There's no need for a lining of a substance. All the effects of the aether are effects on space. Space as a medium that is unbreakable into smaller constituent parts would explain why object's don't emit gravity waves behind them when moving through space. Also when energy is stored into particle form, it keeps its shape. As well as further evidence in magnetic fields, I would say the universe is a one and can't be broken down. The medium of space is different in properties then other medium's because of these reasons.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Warping is a 2 dimensional view of gravity. In a 3 dimensional view space time would be denser the closer to the mass causing gravity. My idea is that the particles of mass causing gravity, protons and neutrons, are made up of super dense space time and there density puts a squeeing force in the surrounding space time causing the density and the gravity field.


*An Action Must Have an Agent.  *

"Space-time" is an irrational concept derived from  decadent Postclassical imagination.  Gravity starts in the outside universe, which interacts with our own, and it ends back here.  Outside its effect, the graviton is hidden from view.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> That's crazy that you are an old school aetherist. I 've never met one. My thoughts on the aether that I once avidly supported, is that space IS the aether. There's no need for a lining of a substance. All the effects of the aether are effects on space. Space as a medium that is unbreakable into smaller constituent parts would explain why object's don't emit gravity waves behind them when moving through space. Also when energy is stored into particle form, it keeps its shape. As well as further evidence in magnetic fields, I would say the universe is a one and can't be broken down. The medium of space is different in properties then other medium's because of these reasons.


*The Classroom Imprisons the Mind*

Space is a substance that slows down light to c.  One question that is never asked by captive students is "Why can't light go faster?"


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *An Action Must Have an Agent.  *
> 
> "Space-time" is an irrational concept derived from  decadent Postclassical imagination.  Gravity starts in the outside universe, which interacts with our own, and it ends back here.  Outside its effect, the graviton is hidden from view.


Gravity is like a truck pulling on a tree with a rope. The truck is the earth the rope its gravity field and the tree is the wall of the universe. There must be a wall or else what would the truck tug on? Nothing? GR people will tell you that objects tug on each other, what's to prevent all objects from clumping together then?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> That's crazy that you are an old school aetherist. I 've never met one. My thoughts on the aether that I once avidly supported, is that space IS the aether. There's no need for a lining of a substance. All the effects of the aether are effects on space. Space as a medium that is unbreakable into smaller constituent parts would explain why object's don't emit gravity waves behind them when moving through space. Also when energy is stored into particle form, it keeps its shape. As well as further evidence in magnetic fields, I would say the universe is a one and can't be broken down. The medium of space is different in properties then other medium's because of these reasons.





> “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”​
> ― Nikola Tesla


"space IS the aether" -- No, the Aether allows space to exist.
"There's no need for a lining of a substance." -- Huh?
"All the effects of the aether are effects on space." -- Effects of the Aether, not effects of or on space. 
"Space as a medium" -- Nope.
"Also when energy is stored into particle form, it keeps its shape." -- You mean the Aether provides for some fields to be small and retain their shape. 
"The medium of space is different in properties" -- Nope. Not a medium. No properties.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The Classroom Imprisons the Mind*
> 
> Space is a substance that slows down light to c.  One question that is never asked by captive students is "Why can't light go faster?"


The universe and the atomic nucleus are made of the same substance, space has a little density to it which allows for light waves to move through it at c.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 21, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> One question that is never asked by captive students is "Why can't light go faster?"


In space c can vary but necessarily depends upon Aether density. However, from our POV it always appears constant since we scientifically observe c from places where the Aether is relatively uniform and equivalent. If we could measure it from a black hole things would look very different.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> "space IS the aether" -- No, the Aether allows space to exist.
> "There's no need for a lining of a substance." -- Huh?
> "All the effects of the aether are effects on space." -- Effects of the Aether, not effects of or on space.
> "Space as a medium" -- Nope.
> ...


Dr. Nuts,

I don't expect you to take on the same terminology as me because I am not a physicist.  My definition of space is that the universe is a singularity with a fixed density. Matter and energy do have an effect on space medium. Space's desire to retain its normal density is what pushes a light wave along, not bumping together of aether atoms like in a sound wave. I believe that the aether is antique and believe there is just space, space by definition of my own glossary not a classical meaning like you imply.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

Because the universe is unbreakable, the atomic nucleus and space occupy the same position at the same time. Space isn't like a boat on a water medium, when you move through space there is no wave behind you.  The density of space is a vacuum density, the highly dense nucleus's vacuum force squeezes on the space it passes through. The vacuum force of the atom may be influenced by an infinity of smaller and smaller universe's from wiithin the nucleus.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Dr. Nuts,
> 
> I don't expect you to take on the same terminology as me because I am not a physicist.  My definition of space is that the universe is a singularity with a fixed density. Matter and energy do have an effect on space medium. Space's desire to retain its normal density is what pushes a light wave along, not bumping together of aether atoms like in a sound wave. I believe that the aether is antique and believe there is just space, space by definition of my own glossary not a classical meaning like you imply.


I appreciate this discussion and I'm no physicist either. However, I aced many college physics courses and have maintained a deep interest in the subject since being introduced to it way back in 7th grade. Terminology? "Singularity" in what sense? Seems a big word for someone to choose who fears terminology?

"Matter and energy do have an effect on space medium. Space's desire to retain its normal density is what pushes a light wave along," -- No, that's the Aether. Far simpler to picture and explain than your notions of space possessing such properties. 

"not bumping together of aether atoms like in a sound wave." -- Say what? "That's crazy" talk!

"I believe that the aether is antique and believe there is just space, space by definition of my own glossary not a classical meaning like you imply." -- Sounds like a  cheap excuse for not learning or seriously considering anything new. _I thought of this.. Yup,.. my minds made up now. Don't wanna hear anymore!_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Because the universe is unbreakable, the atomic nucleus and space occupy the same position at the same time. Space isn't like a boat on a water medium, when you move through space there is no wave behind you.  The density of space is a vacuum density, the highly dense nucleus's vacuum force squeezes on the space it passes through. The vacuum force of the atom may be influenced by an infinity of smaller and smaller universe's from wiithin the nucleus.


So I gather you're just reverting completely now to your science fiction stabs at reality in the dark. Okie doke. Whatever floats your dinghy..

Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks here by repeating my constant primary interest, which is seeking what makes the most objective sense. Not that I don't enjoy silliness and humor


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> So I gather you're just reverting completely now to your science fiction stabs at reality in the dark. Okie doke. Whatever floats your dinghy..
> 
> Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks here by repeating my constant primary interest, which is seeking what makes the most objective sense. Not that I don't enjoy silliness and humor


Dr. Nuts,

I have come a long way in drawing up my own map of the universe, ten years just about, and by no sense consider it complete. If your idea of 'objective sense' is an aether lining all of space, then I ask again why don't material object's that pass through the aether slow down? You're right my opinion is swayed very slowly just like anybody's. I once believed in the aether but now I don't, I think space has properties to it and that is almost obvious. If there is an aether why hasn't it been detected? What is your objective sense tell you this aether is made of?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 22, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> If your idea of 'objective sense' is an aether lining all of space,


What the heck is "an aether lining"? How many times do I need to repeat myself? The Aether *is* *a ubiquitous field *which also necessarily acts as a light wave medium. It *exists independent of space* and counterspace. Everything is ultimately a product of the Aether. Space has no properties other than being really cold and a great vacuum.


> Outer space is the closest known approximation to a perfect vacuum. It has effectively no friction, allowing stars, planets, and moons to move freely along their ideal orbits, following the initial formation stage. The deep vacuum of intergalactic space is not devoid of matter, as it contains a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.





trevorjohnson32 said:


> why don't material object's that pass through the aether slow down?


The Aether pushes equally inward upon matter from all directions so has no net effect on an object's speed or trajectory other than normal gravitation. However, at relativistic speeds the Aether will act to prevent an object's acceleration since its mass theoretically increases to infinity at c.  


trevorjohnson32 said:


> If there is an aether why hasn't it been detected?


It has 


> My review of this important but sad chapter in the history of science left me both astonished and frustrated. Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra (Jul 22, 2021)

I don't believe that gravity plays any role at the sub-atomic.
There are three subatomic forces Strong & Weak Nuclear Force and Electromagnetic Force.
It is the Electromagnetic force that is responsible for particle attraction. negative particles being attracted to positive.
There is evidence that at the relative level sub-atomic particles, photons for example are affected by gravity. This though I think is a secondary effect. The space-time around the Sun is bent by gravity and photons passing through are as a consequence also pulled but it is not gravity that is pulling them but the space-time.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> In space c can vary but necessarily depends upon Aether density. However, from our POV it always appears constant since we scientifically observe c from places where the Aether is relatively uniform and equivalent. If we could measure it from a black hole things would look very different.


*A Hole Is an Entrance, Not a Container*

A Black Hole is an impossible concentration of matter.  It doesn't compress the space it is in, or time there either.  It doesn't trap light, but sends it back to the outside universe, where it originated.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> So I gather you're just reverting completely now to your science fiction stabs at reality in the dark. Okie doke. Whatever floats your dinghy..
> 
> Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks here by repeating my constant primary interest, which is seeking what makes the most objective sense. Not that I don't enjoy silliness and humor


*Boomerang Halfway Back*

Gravity is not a pull; it a push from outside the universe.  The gravitons are a part of the atom that is embedded in that outside universe.  They are sent forth by our matter and knock other matter into a 3-D space closer to the 3-D space from where they originated.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 22, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *A Hole Is an Entrance, Not a Container*
> 
> A Black Hole is an impossible concentration of matter.  It doesn't compress the space it is in, or time there either.  It doesn't trap light, but sends it back to the outside universe, where it originated.


It attracts (compresses) the Aether, not space. It traps light. The outside universe? Gravitons? No thanks. NASA:


> No light of any kind, including X-rays, can escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole, the region beyond which there is no return. NASA's telescopes that study black holes are looking at the surrounding environments of the black holes, where there is material very close to the event horizon. Matter is heated to millions of degrees as it is pulled toward the black hole, so it glows in X-rays. The immense gravity of black holes also distorts space itself, so it is possible to see the influence of an invisible gravitational pull on stars and other objects.


One can actually see from many images that light disappears into the apparently spherical event horizons of black holes. All just goes black. The only possible escapes are edgewise around the spinning radial accretion discs (magnetic) or by axial cosmic ray ejection (dielectric). The magnetic (spatial, including matter) and the dielectric (counterspatial, including black holes) being the most basic, conjugate components of the Aether (The engines of Nature in general).






Photo of a Black Hole's Event Horizon:​


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> What the heck is "an aether lining"? How many times do I need to repeat myself? The Aether *is* *a ubiquitous field *which also necessarily acts as a light wave medium. It *exists independent of space* and counterspace. Everything is ultimately a product of the Aether. Space has no properties other than being really cold and a great vacuum.
> 
> 
> The Aether pushes equally inward upon matter from all directions so has no net effect on an object's speed or trajectory other than normal gravitation. However, at relativistic speeds the Aether will act to prevent an object's acceleration since its mass theoretically increases to infinity at c.
> ...



Just because your aether is ubiquitous or present everywhere means that it isn't made of something? I'm confused. Could you explain this further?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 22, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Just because your aether is ubiquitous or present everywhere means that it isn't made of something? I'm confused. Could you explain this further?


Is the field produced by a transmitting antenna "made of something"? Is a field of static cling "made of something"? Is the volume of iron attraction around a magnet "made of something"? No? Yet they do stuff. Go figure!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 23, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> It attracts (compresses) the Aether, not space. It traps light. The outside universe? Gravitons? No thanks. NASA:
> 
> One can actually see from many images that light disappears into the apparently spherical event horizons of black holes. All just goes black. The only possible escapes are edgewise around the spinning radial accretion discs (magnetic) or by axial cosmic ray ejection (dielectric). The magnetic (spatial, including matter) and the dielectric (counterspatial, including black holes) being the most basic, conjugate components of the Aether (The engines of Nature in general).
> 
> ...


*Proof Is in the Piddling*

All that nerdy Silly Science is similar to when "epicycles" were used to lamely try to explain away the contradictions in the theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 23, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Is the field produced by a transmitting antenna "made of something"? Is a field of static cling "made of something"? Is the volume of iron attraction around a magnet "made of something"? No? Yet they do stuff. Go figure!


*God Does Not Play Dice; He Plays in the Outfield*

The field is produced by hypospace, just as "Indeterminacy" is determined by events in hypospace.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 23, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Is the field produced by a transmitting antenna "made of something"? Is a field of static cling "made of something"? Is the volume of iron attraction around a magnet "made of something"? No? Yet they do stuff. Go figure!


Maybe not to a general relativity scientist, but for me I believe those fields are morphing of space. I believe space and matter are the same substance and that is the only way the two can act on each other. Also space is a little like a giant piece of matter and therefore creates a density in which we can have energy that moves around based on the medium having solidness.

The aether is a field ay? and other fields are a morphing of that field? You and I seem like were on different paths in the same direction. I doubt we will deter each other too much since we're both stubborn, but maybe we can learn something from each other.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 23, 2021)

LOL


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 23, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Maybe not to a general relativity scientist, but for me I believe those fields are morphing of space. I believe space and matter are the same substance and that is the only way the two can act on each other. Also space is a little like a giant piece of matter and therefore creates a density in which we can have energy that moves around based on the medium having solidness.
> 
> The aether is a field ay? and other fields are a morphing of that field? You and I seem like were on different paths in the same direction. I doubt we will deter each other too much since we're both stubborn, but maybe we can learn something from each other.


Fair enough. I mean I have nothing against everything being relative, but GR "space-time" can go suck an egg. Since space possesses no properties it simply cannot "warp." The entire notion is desperate and insane. Yes, fields overlap and possess countless properties, most doubtless far removed from the Aether, but due to it ultimately. Also, since you find a sort of equivalence between space and matter, study the dielectric and counterspace to learn something new. Capacitance, induction, impedance..







A real piece of naturally crystallized bismuth^


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 24, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Check out this. Gravity visualized. Pretty fascinating stuff



Neat; thanks.

Matter warps space-time.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 24, 2021)

Fantasy will never match Reality:


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 24, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Check out this. Gravity visualized. Pretty fascinating stuff


Yes, nice presentation of gravity for the kiddies. But only adults bent upon pushing or swallowing the farce of "spacetime" need to have gravity's effects "visualized" for them. We've been witnessing the exact same motions directly from nature for eons. Oooo.. basic 2 and 3D trig plots.. look out!


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fair enough. I mean I have nothing against everything being relative, but GR "space-time" can go suck an egg. Since space possesses no properties it simply cannot "warp." The entire notion is desperate and insane. Yes, fields overlap and possess countless properties, most doubtless far removed from the Aether, but due to it ultimately. Also, since you find a sort of equivalence between space and matter, study the dielectric and counterspace to learn something new. Capacitance, induction, impedance..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dr. Nuts,

I feel like those who discard Einstein tend to lean on the theories of Nikola Tesla, would you agree?


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, but I see it as the Aether getting compressed, not space or time. Space has no properties so no potential to do anything. Space and counterspace are necessarily comprised of the Aether. It provides the medium, thus the basic potential for all energy exchange, as water is obviously required to produce water surface waves.
> 
> Indeed, I see gravity as a relatively weak force field resulting from matter somewhat displacing The Aether, rarifying its average local density. The weak resultant vacuum causes The Aether to push toward the center ("anti-field") of all masses, building up (being compressed) around surfaces and experiencing loss of inertia there. Le Sage theory. This Aether build up distorts light around massive objects.


Closest so far I think.
Space and time are the same thing, indistinguishible.
The universe, absent all matter, is just space and time.
Imagine, for the discussion an empty universe that resembles a giant transparent ball.
No mass, just energy.  No mass = No Gravity.
Now take some energy, convert it into mass and place it in the ball.
The "space" around our newly created object must "move" out of the way to let the object exist
Thus, the object warps space and therefore time in its locality.
But, not just in the locality.  The gravitational waves generated by the new object ripple across the universe.
Now add more and more objects and eventually our perfectly round ball shaped universe begins to look something like a weirdly dimpled golf ball.
As would be expected, the more mass the object carries, the greater the warping of space and time in the locality thus the behaviors we see near black holes and neutron stars. 
As we move away from large masses the warping effect diminishes normalizing relative time in the locality.
Said simply as 
The observable effects of gravity on space-time warping is directly proportional to the mass in the locality.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 24, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Dr. Nuts,
> 
> I feel like those who discard Einstein tend to lean on the theories of Nikola Tesla, would you agree?


Einstein was no dummy, but Tesla's true genius and Austro-Hungarian origins intimidated the hell out of the elites. More than anything that explains why the physics community has abandoned the Aether with such a vengeance even though Einstein never really did. Jealousy. Einstein stole practically everything he proposed from others, but was clever enough to get away with it. Too goofy to stay mad at for long apparently. To answer your question though, yes and no, but there's no need to discard either if one finds their works helpful. Many others to lean on as well.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 24, 2021)

Gravity is a universal force.

F = GMm/r^2

The decay factor of 1/r^2 with distance r is proportional to the surface are of a sphere with any given radius r.

Therefore the total gravitational field is unweakened as unbroken field lines extend from all matter throughout the universe.

Any object in the gravitational field of another object experiences phenomena of "mass defect" and "time dilation" to some degree, due to mass-energy equivalence and the curvature of spacetime.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 25, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Einstein was no dummy, but Tesla's true genius and Austro-Hungarian origins intimidated the hell out of the elites. More than anything that explains why the physics community has abandoned the Aether with such a vengeance even though Einstein never really did. Jealousy. Einstein stole practically everything he proposed from others, but was clever enough to get away with it. Too goofy to stay mad at for long apparently. To answer your question though, yes and no, but there's no need to discard either if one finds their works helpful. Many others to lean on as well.


I get a lot of science news headlines about scientists have proven this guy theories with this technique. Basically the most mind melting crap. I don't even bother with a lot of it. If gravity can't be explained without math's and 300 page textbooks, then they probably don't have an explanation yet. That's why I have a hard time with people referring me to something they've read or name dropping, because I know the right answer is no answer. I do find people that agree with the OP but usually they end up going on about how space is made of jelly!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 26, 2021)

Tesla developed his ideas through endless experimenting and amassed hundreds of patents proving his stuff actually worked. Whereas, Einstein read other's works and played around with the math until some combination of things  seemed new and intriguing, at which point he'd propose a theory based upon his thinking ("thought experiments"), then leave it to others to actually test them experimentally. The former builds practical knowledge that improves life for all. The latter ("theoretical physics") is for the establishment's true believers who generally couldn't find the business end of a screwdriver without Googling first.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Closest so far I think.
> Space and time are the same thing, indistinguishible.
> The universe, absent all matter, is just space and time.
> Imagine, for the discussion an empty universe that resembles a giant transparent ball.
> ...


*The Original Substance Split Into Space, Energy, Matter, and Light*

You beg the question by starting with empty space, but space and matter originated in the same substance.  This is similar to the fallacy that icebergs melting would cause the seawater to rise—they merely replace the solid space with liquid space with the same area (or that ice in a drink would make the glass overflow when it melted).


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 26, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Basically the most mind melting crap. I don't even bother with a lot of it.       I do find people that agree with the OP but usually they end up going on about how space is made of jelly!


*Jelly Is on a Roll*

Do those nerdy freaks call spacetime "Smucker's"?  With a name like Smucker's, it's got to be weird.  Just like the Quantum Quacks are.  Their motto is, "If it's weird, it's wise."


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 26, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Tesla developed his ideas through endless experimenting and amassed hundreds of patents proving his stuff actually worked. Whereas, Einstein read other's works and played around with the math until some combination of things  seemed new and intriguing, at which point he'd propose a theory based upon his thinking ("thought experiments"), then leave it to others to actually test them experimentally. The former builds practical knowledge that improves life for all. The latter ("theoretical physics") is for the establishment's true believers who generally couldn't find the business end of a screwdriver without Googling first.


Interesting way to put it. I've heard most of that before. And I was thinking about your comment about capacitance. I know a little electronic engineering, but don't see what a capacitor has to do with gravity, could you explain?


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 26, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The Original Substance Split Into Space, Energy, Matter, and Light*
> 
> You beg the question by starting with empty space, but space and matter originated in the same substance.  This is similar to the fallacy that icebergs melting would cause the seawater to rise—they merely replace the solid space with liquid space with the same area (or that ice in a drink would make the glass overflow when it melted).


Sigh...

How much matter was in space before the big bang?
The empty space was to allow for a clearer visualization not a claim about, well, anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 26, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Interesting way to put it. I've heard most of that before. And I was thinking about your comment about capacitance. I know a little electronic engineering, but don't see what a capacitor has to do with gravity, could you explain?


Yeesh. Not really, but I'll stab at it a bit. Still learning myself. Never ends. In a nutshell, gravity is a spatial or magnetic manifestation, whereas capacitance springs from the dielectric or counterspace. 

Gravity is virtually the same as static cling. An anti-field. Look up the Casimir Effect, but ignore any QM BS. Point being, the metal plates form a capacitor that charges itself directly from ever-present micro-polarizations within the Aether. Though manifesting from the magnetic, the "charge" disappears into the dielectric. We call the maximum voltage induced without shorting capacitance. Voltage is the dielectric, current is magnetism.

The magnetic is force, induction, loss of the dielectric, providing us space, matter, and time. What we consider reality yet only half the equation. The dielectric is capacitance, the Aether under torsion, examples being gyroscopic precession, a tornado. The magnetic is the Aether under polarization, the simplest form being dipoles, battery poles, temperature differences. The dielectric is force inverted. Ground. Loss of the magnetic. Hope that helps some.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> How much matter was in space before the big bang?
> .


*Sealed Bulge*

There was no space, and no matter, before the Big Bang.  We are an extension.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 27, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> How much matter was in space before the big bang?


I gather black holes had devoured practically all the matter and much of the space leaving way too much counterspace, this huge imbalance annoying the Aether no end. Something had to give. Perhaps the last little black hole transformed into a proton, then another formed to keep it company and, pretty darn soon,.. KA BLAMO!


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 27, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> gravity is a spatial or magnetic manifestation, whereas capacitance springs from the dielectric or counterspace.


I ve heard people say that they think gravity is a magnetic effect. Sorry not a believer. Magnetic effect is due to energy, gravity is do to matter. Although they may influence each other, that's just evidence that they both have an effect on the space medium or 'aether' as you call it. Did you read my post 'magnet fan analogy'? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that matter as well Dr. Nuts.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 27, 2021)

You can just call me Nuts. Found your "magnet fan analogy." At least you're thinking somewhat outside the box.


trevorjohnson32 said:


> Magnetic effect is due to energy, gravity is do to matter.


The magnetic _is_ the Aether's spatial component, producing practically all we can sense or measure as space, matter, and time. But the driving power always springs from the dielectric. With no place to go, all so-called "energy" or potential force is moot, powerless. Current is spatial but requires voltage to actually get any work done.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 27, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Sealed Bulge*
> 
> There was no space, and no matter, before the Big Bang.  We are an extension.


I'm going to guess you can't show the math.

When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 27, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I gather black holes had devoured practically all the matter and much of the space leaving way too much counterspace, this huge imbalance annoying the Aether no end. Something had to give. Perhaps the last little black hole transformed into a proton, then another formed to keep it company and, pretty darn soon,.. KA BLAMO!


As valid as any other theory.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?





Dadoalex said:


> As valid as any other theory.


Funny stuff, imo. Here's the best our Harvard eggheads have been able to cook up so far:


> A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang.
> 
> Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?


So no one knows, but they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy." Couldn't just be the Aether, nooooo!


> The "inflationary universe."
> The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known.


Same. Wikipedia offers: "The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton." Well, isn't that so helpful! Seems an orgy of fallacious sins must be going in there.


> At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.


Okay, cool. So in one "instant" all of "this energy" magically turned into "particles." Great! Wait?


> A remarkable consequence of this model is that, if even a pinpoint of space contained this primordial form of energy, then the pinpoint of space would expand extremely rapidly and _would bring into existence more of the same kind of energy. _In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea.


Ah, so somehow all the energy required to produce all the matter and energy in the entire universe can be packed into a pea sized bit of space or less. But torqueing counterspace seemingly requires no space at all and why this obsession with particles? Anyways,..


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 28, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?


*Diploma Dumbos Don't Know What Begging the Question Means?  The Academized Believe It Means "Which Leads to a Question?"  All Their Concepts Are Simple-Minded.*

It expanded from a Black Hole in the Mother Universe.  The substance that went through the hole at the square of what the speed of light is here changed into space, energy, matter, and light.  "To what?" is misleading; it begs the question because there was no "what" until it got here.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 28, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Funny stuff, imo. Here's the best our Harvard eggheads have been able to cook up so far:
> 
> So no one knows, but they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy." Couldn't just be the Aether, nooooo!
> 
> ...


Actually, I don't agree with any of those suppositions.
I think that at the moment of the Big Bang there was the singularity and space.
Think of space as the surface of a balloon.
At the moment of the Big Bang the balloon completely encircles the singularity like an unused paintball if you will.
There is nothing between the singularity and space.
Then the big bang.
All of what the singularity was burst out into space causing space to expand. (more on this)
A question here is whether the expansion was uniform in all directions or unbalanced in some way?
If the expansion was uniform it would tend to indicate the singularity was inert with an even distribution of whatever the singularity consisted of.  But, if the singularity was inert what triggered the event? Was it something outside Space/Time? Something we might think of as God? No, not preaching, just running down a possibility.
If the distribution was not uniform it would seem to indicate that the singularity was turbulent and something akin to a thermonuclear explosion took place.

Back to expansion.
I think all of what the universe is embedded in the fabric of space and was carried with space as space expanded.
Remember there's nothing between space and the singularity so it logically follows there is nothing between the fabric of space and where the singularity was.  
Picking one of those objects embedded in space we could, with the right equipment, see the effect of the object embedded in space affecting the curvature of the region around the object with these impact rippling across all of space/time.

I could go on and on but this is my "Big Bang Theory."

I have another theory I call the "Big Rupture."
This references the Multiverse theories.
I think the universe are all unique, varying in composition, energy, etc.  They are also in constant motion.
When universes contact one another there is a rupture in the fabric of space.
The universe with lesser matter begins to suck matter/energy from the more dense universe in what may appear to be a giant "explosion." The process continues until the pressure in both space fabrics equalizes and the ruptures seal.
While the process results may resemble the Big Bang the difference is that there are "big bangs" going on all the time.  
This process, in the multiverse, is creation itself.  

Gee.  What fun!


----------



## Dadoalex (Jul 28, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Diploma Dumbos Don't Know What Begging the Question Means?  The Academized Believe It Means "Which Leads to a Question?"  All Their Concepts Are Simple-Minded.*
> 
> It expanded from a Black Hole in the Mother Universe.  The substance that went through the hole at the square of what the speed of light is here changed into space, energy, matter, and light.  "To what?" is misleading; it begs the question because there was no "what" until it got here.


So what was "mother universe" before the big bang?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 28, 2021)

Extremely pregnant?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> So what was "mother universe" before the big bang?


*Don't Be a Slave to Quantum Quack Authority.  Put All Their Make-Believe Phrases in Scare Quotes, Too.*

Why is that relevant?  The "Big Bang" drained only a tiny part of its substance, just like our "Black Holes" do, draining it back to the Mother Universe.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 29, 2021)

I'm a string theorist. When two universe's collide, or two hydrogen atom's fuse, they lose some of their density. The denser a material is for a given volume, the more it weighs. Density of the space medium is different then conventional density. The denser the space medium is the stronger it is as a vacuum. but when density leaves the atomic nucleus in fusion, it creates a wave which has heat and activates space's luminiferous quality. Waves in the space medium cause the medium to heat up,


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 30, 2021)

What has zero mass and therefore zero density?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Jul 30, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> What has zero mass and therefore zero density?


GR people's brains.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 30, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> What has zero mass and therefore zero density?


*The Lords of Science Need to Be Neutered*

A neutrino.  Far more important than these no-practical-value theoretics, as a kind of GPS Geiger Counter,  it can map all the earth's mineral wealth all the way to the core, creating untold prosperity for all of mankind.  But we are channeled into leisure-class snob science, because the smug and sheltered rulers already have prosperity and fear resource development because it creates class mobility.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 30, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> GR people's brains.


Um, Newton would most likely say space. However, regarding Newton's inverse square law, GR people would say:


> In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points.


.. which is utterly stupid on at least two accounts. One being that mass only attracts the Aether which induces the anti-field effect we call gravity. Second, only a GR/QM egghead ("atomist") would speak of "point masses." Real people are stuck dealing with things like "the center of gravity" and "the vector sum." Which brings us to.. Third, who died and said there are only "two points" or masses to consider? For example, say three exist forming an equilateral triangle. Then each will effectively be "attracted" toward the midpoint of the remaining two. That said, what we experience as a pulling force is really the Aether pushing us toward Earth's center of mass and vice versa.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 30, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The Lords of Science Need to Be Neutered*
> 
> A neutrino.  Far more important than these no-practical-value theoretics, as a kind of GPS Geiger Counter,  it can map all the earth's mineral wealth all the way to the core, creating untold prosperity for all of mankind.  But we are channeled into leisure-class snob science, because the smug and sheltered rulers already have prosperity and fear resource development because it creates class mobility.


Yep, yet another of them little Aether sparks they've gone ahead and named,.. after dubbing it "A particle!" of course. Class mobility? Fear, fear, fear! Personally, I'm all for placing reasoned limits upon income and wealth accumulation. Flying billionaires up to space and back should not be a thing. Up only? Better.


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> General relativity makes one basic assumption: gravitational force on a mass is indistinguishable from the force of inertial resistance when a mass is being pushed.
> 
> The math behind that simple assumption leads to warped geometries. The math does not explain anything, it just describes the behavior. That is all that can be known at this point.


It's the equivalence principle.  From wiki:

"In the theory of general relativity, the *equivalence principle* is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the _pseudo-force_ experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

Furthermore, it encompasses the idea that gravity is just a fictitious force.  Gravity would be the same to other fictitious forces such as centrifugal force.  One would not be able to tell which is which.

The geometry isn't wrong.

Some interesting examples here -- 1.5: The Equivalence Principle (Part 1)


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Aug 3, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Um, Newton would most likely say space. However, regarding Newton's inverse square law, GR people would say:
> 
> .. which is utterly stupid on at least two accounts. One being that mass only attracts the Aether which induces the anti-field effect we call gravity. Second, only a GR/QM egghead ("atomist") would speak of "point masses." Real people are stuck dealing with things like "the center of gravity" and "the vector sum." Which brings us to.. Third, who died and said there are only "two points" or masses to consider? For example, say three exist forming an equilateral triangle. Then each will effectively be "attracted" toward the midpoint of the remaining two. That said, what we experience as a pulling force is really the Aether pushing us toward Earth's center of mass and vice versa.



Dr. Nuts,
I'm afraid I don't follow. You say the aether pushes us down creating gravity?


----------



## Dadoalex (Aug 3, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Don't Be a Slave to Quantum Quack Authority.  Put All Their Make-Believe Phrases in Scare Quotes, Too.*
> 
> Why is that relevant?  The "Big Bang" drained only a tiny part of its substance, just like our "Black Holes" do, draining it back to the Mother Universe.


Not a religious thread.  
Show the math or just admit it's a religious belief.

There may be a "superverse" above our existence.  The thing you're calling "mother."
But, that would clearly indicate a layered multiverse in which our existence would be the "mother" of the layer above and so on or to quote Qui Gon "there's always a bigger fish."
We keep breaking matter down into smaller and smaller pieces.  Could those pieces be "miniverses" and what would the physics of a miniverse look like to us?
Is it possible we are the muon that some scientist in a maxi-mega-verse is trying to crack open to see what's inside.

Your "motherverse" is valid but couching it as a matter of faith rather than science destroys the concept.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 3, 2021)

In effect.


trevorjohnson32 said:


> I'm afraid I don't follow. You say the aether pushes us down creating gravity?


Not exactly. I said exactly what you quoted me saying. It's a net effect of the Aether. Le Sage theory provides the basic idea. But keep in mind that the Aether is a field, so can easily pass through all atoms and molecules.. It's not a bunch of "particles" or masses.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Aug 8, 2021)

So can I find one sucker out there that agrees with the picture in the OP is the correct view of the sheet experiment? C'mon there's always someone who thinks space is made of a sponge?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 18, 2021)




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> What *is* gravity?


Who knows? We can only answer "HOW is gravity?"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> So no one knows, but they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy."


No they aren't. They just don't have any use for the concept of "the aether", as it just adds another layer of complexity while providing no actual new understanding of anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No they aren't. They just don't have any use for the concept of "the aether", as it just adds another layer of complexity while providing no actual new understanding of anything.


How many have you asked?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> How many have you asked?


How many have you? There are 100s of 1000s of physicists on the planet. You must have a lot of free time!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How many have you? There are 100s of 1000s of physicists on the planet. You must have a lot of free time!


I take it none then. How very opiniated of you!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I take it none then. How very opiniated of you!


Right, ever since we have developed methods of passing information over large distances, I find myself  not as often having to personally visit scientists to see what they say. Thank goodness for Pony Express!   

But you can put all this to bed with the demonstration that your concept of the aether has any significant traction anywhere. You have had a couple of years to do so. What're you waiting for?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, ever since we have developed methods of passing information over large distances, I find myself  not as often having to personally visit scientists to see what they say. Thank goodness for Pony Express!
> 
> But you can put all this to bed with the demonstration that your concept of the aether has any significant traction anywhere. You have had a couple of years to do so. What're you waiting for?


Well, I'm sure that's fascinating and all. Meanwhile, I was talking about what I quoted from Harvard where they said:


> A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang.


So I said.


> they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy."


Ya folla? It's more like a restatement than an argument. And no Aether mentioning required.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 18, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?


*From Where to Where, Not "From What to What"*


It didn't expand.  It entered this universe and created it.  More outside matter came here, that's all.  When a train full of coal goes from one place to another, neither it nor the coal supply expands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well, I'm sure that's fascinating and all. Meanwhile, I was talking about what I quoted from Harvard where they said:
> 
> So I said.
> 
> Ya folla? It's more like a restatement than an argument. And no Aether mentioning required.


Yes, which was an intentional misrepresentation, so that you don't seem so kooky in your confidence in the aether. All they did was present a possibility.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 18, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> So what was "mother universe" before the big bang?


*Babies Become Baby Mamas*

Childless.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 18, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> What has zero mass and therefore zero density?


*JoJo the Yo-Yo*

Bi-den's brain.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 18, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *From Where to Where, Not "From What to What"*
> 
> 
> It didn't expand.  It entered this universe and created it.  More outside matter came here, that's all.  When a train full of coal goes from one place to another, neither it nor the coal supply expands.


Your argument ignores even the simplest science.
The universe is expanding and expanding at a currently known estimate.
Logically, since it is expanding it must be moving from a smaller state to a larger one.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, which was an intentional misrepresentation, so that you don't seem so kooky in your confidence in the aether. All they did was present a possibility.


Lovely. So I somehow misrepresented what Harvard said by directly quoting them. Okay, kooky. Whatevs 

eta: Btw, it wasn't just a quote from the middle of something. It was the entire introductory paragraph which they then expanded upon at some length. Thus, my summary:


> they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy."


No idea what your problem is, but there was no "intentional misrepresentation" going on there, that's for sure.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 20, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Your argument ignores even the simplest science.
> The universe is expanding and expanding at a currently known estimate.
> Logically, since it is expanding it must be moving from a smaller state to a larger one.


*You Can't Follow an Alternative Explanation If Orthodoxy Paralyzes Your Mind*

Our course it is expanding.  The original and originating force has not reached its limit yet.  It creates space itself.  What is farthest out is what entered this universe first and created it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 20, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *You Can't Follow an Alternative Explanation If Orthodoxy Paralyzes Your Mind*
> 
> Our course it is expanding.  The original and originating force has not reached its limit yet.  It creates space itself.  What is farthest out is what entered this universe first and created it.


The Orthodoxy then asks, given that the expansion of the universe is observably accelerating and that the acceleration itself now appears to be accelerating, how can the cause still be the originating force?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 20, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *You Can't Follow an Alternative Explanation If Orthodoxy Paralyzes Your Mind*
> 
> Our course it is expanding.  The original and originating force has not reached its limit yet.  It creates space itself.  What is farthest out is what entered this universe first and created it.


You claim implies that the universe is expanding in one direction more than others.

The seems to fly in the face of known data.
How do you explain that?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 20, 2021)

Acceleration of the universe could only mean that dark matter and dark men, the men who frolic and skip through the dark matter, have put full throttle the gas pedal to the universe, like saying 'lets see how fast this thing can go!' Using my dark energy laser gun invention we might stand a chance at fighting the dark men and saving the galaxy from falling off the side of the universe.


----------



## james bond (Sep 20, 2021)

We don't know how gravity works.  For example, no one has been able to explain how the Earth stays in its orbit and not get pulled into the sun.







The above is one of the ways gravity is visualized, but the Earth, planets, and moons are able to avoid being pulled into the nearest larger mass.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> We don't know how gravity works.  For example, no one has been able to explain how the Earth stays in its orbit and not get pulled into the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


are you talking about orbit?


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 21, 2021)

orbit is elliptical because of centripetal force, when the earth drifts into the ellipse gravity is weaker between it and the sun and the earth slows down then gravity of the sun pulls harder and speeds the planet up so it drifts closer.


----------



## Flash (Sep 21, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?
> 
> What is the force being applied to spacetime that causes the warping?
> 
> ...




Ah, the mystery of gravity.

No universe as we know it exist without gravity.  If the gravity constant was a little lower or a little higher then the universe wouldn't exist.

God is Great.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 21, 2021)

gravity is a unique effect of a vacuum force. The squeezing force of the dense aether that makes a gravity field on a similar gravity field is what pulls two objects together.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> The Orthodoxy then asks, given that the expansion of the universe is observably accelerating and that the acceleration itself now appears to be accelerating, how can the cause still be the originating force?


*The First Out Stops at the Farthest Extent*

The limits of the effect of an explosion are reached by the first part of the bomb to be expelled.  This outside material entered at the square of the speed of light and part of it became space itself, just like laying rubber.  Only when another part of it is slowed down to the speed of light does it become light.  Only its light has reached our telescopes.  Some of the rest of it is still chugging along.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Acceleration of the universe could only mean that dark matter and dark men, the men who frolic and skip through the dark matter, have put full throttle the gas pedal to the universe, like saying 'lets see how fast this thing can go!' Using my dark energy laser gun invention we might stand a chance at fighting the dark men and saving the galaxy from falling off the side of the universe.


*"The Time Has Come When the Darkies Have to Part
My Old Kentucky Home"*

So that's what the elitist Deep State is all about!  It also makes sense that dark people would hate White people.  But instead of your gadget, we would need a light-skinned laser to stop their frolic.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 21, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The First Out Stops at the Farthest Extent*
> 
> The limits of the effect of an explosion are reached by the first part of the bomb to be expelled.  This outside material entered at the square of the speed of light and part of it became space itself, just like laying rubber.  Only when another part of it is slowed down to the speed of light does it become light.  Only its light has reached our telescopes.  Some of the rest of it is still chugging along.


Why the speed of light squared? Not suggesting you're wrong, just curious.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> are you talking about orbit?


Let's refer to the visualization.  If you go by that, then the Earth should head towards the sun just like what goes up must come down.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Let's refer to the visualization.  If you go by that, then the Earth should head towards the sun just like what goes up must come down.


Uh, do you need a 7th grade physics lesson?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why the speed of light squared? Not suggesting you're wrong, just curious.


*A Century That Began With Irrational Physics Turned Loose Irrational Ideologies*

I don't know how Einstein stumbled on it, but he distorted it into being some kind of make-believe potential as a multiplier.  But it is a simple collision.  If we could measure the first collision after fission, it would have taken place at that velocity (a light-year every three minutes).  After that, it is slowed down, or else the mushroom cloud would extend astronomically.

Fission opens a gateway into an outside dimension, hyperspace, or universe.  C² is the maximum velocity in that arena. which interfaces with ours.  

The quantum leap is impossible as presented by the Postclassical dogmatists.  Displacement without motion is not a rational idea.  So there must be another dimension that the electron goes to before coming back at a different site in this universe.

Entanglement, which Einstein unintentionally discredited by calling it "spooky science," is also impossible.  So the explanation must be not two Corsican Brothers particles, but the same one going back and forth through the 4th spatial dimension.  This is also at c².  At that velocity, it is indistinguishable from being instantaneous using present measuring instruments.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh, do you need a 7th grade physics lesson?


No, I'm just going by the visualization of gravity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, I'm just going by the visualization of gravity.


No you aren't. You are completely forgetting the velocity component of the planet Earth that is perpendicular to the Sun-Earth axis.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No you aren't. You are completely forgetting the velocity component of the planet Earth that is perpendicular to the Sun-Earth axis.


And you're forgetting how does Earth get formed and just happen to develop this velocity in 13.7 - 4.5 B years.  I'd like to hear how this all happened using your evolutionary thinking and evolutionary 7th grade physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> And you're forgetting how does Earth get formed and just happen to develop this velocity in 13.7 - 4.5 B years.  I'd like to hear how this all happened using your evolutionary thinking and evolutionary 7th grade physics.


That's actually a very basic idea. 

As the molecular cloud that formed the Sun began collapsing due to gravity, it acquired a spin. This spin caused the cloud to flatten out, as the Sun formed in the center. The spin of the cloud retained its angular momentum, leading to the velocity of the protoplanetary disk. The objects formed within this disk retained its velocity.

Get it?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 21, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> I don't know how Einstein stumbled on it,


Yes, he was the first:








						Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc 2 ?
					

The great physicist was not the first to equate forms of mass to energy, nor did he definitively prove the relationship




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



Um,.. no he wasn't:
pdf link


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's actually a very basic idea.
> 
> As the molecular cloud that formed the Sun began collapsing due to gravity, it acquired a spin. This spin caused the cloud to flatten out, as the Sun formed in the center. The spin of the cloud retained its angular momentum, leading to the velocity of the protoplanetary disk. The objects formed within this disk retained its velocity.
> 
> Get it?


"In spiral galaxies the velocities of _stars_ far _from_ the _centre_ are much _faster than_ expected."
Gravity can't explain it. What does?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> "In spiral galaxies the velocities of _stars_ far _from_ the _centre_ are much _faster than_ expected."
> Gravity can't explain it. What does?


Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain it.

Even better:

It has been observed that some groups of galaxies move "in unison", almost as if connected by invisible or higher dimensional tendrils. What gives?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It has been observed that some groups of galaxies move "in unison", almost as if connected by invisible or higher dimensional tendrils. What gives?


Do you mean distant galaxies that are too far apart for gravity to be the explanation? Link?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Do you mean distant galaxies that are too far apart for gravity to be the explanation? Link?


The mystery is that they move in unison, which would not be because of their gravitational influence on each other.









						There’s Growing Evidence That the Universe Is Connected by Giant Structures
					

Scientists are finding that galaxies can move with each other across huge distances, and against the predictions of basic cosmological models. The reason why could change everything we think we know about the universe.




					www.vice.com


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> And you're forgetting how does Earth get formed and just happen to develop this velocity in 13.7 - 4.5 B years.  I'd like to hear how this all happened using your evolutionary thinking and evolutionary 7th grade physics.


You really should take that 7th grade biology course. You might learn that the formation of the planet has nothing to do with biological evolution. 

You should petition the cranks at your madrassah to expand their curriculum.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 22, 2021)

As more concrete evidence supporting dark matter, energy, and men, who frolic and play in the dark matter, becomes apparent, we can see through them like they are not there, making the invisible world around us 'heavy' with weight and knocking your sandwich out of your hand.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You really should take that 7th grade biology course. You might learn that the formation of the planet has nothing to do with biological evolution.
> 
> You should petition the cranks at your madrassah to expand their curriculum.


I already did long time ago.  What I said was evolution and evolutionary thinking and the latter has to do with formation of the planet or lies built upon lies by the atheist scientists.

Did they teach you about flat Earth in yours?  They didn't in mine.  For example, butterflies or birds would have a hard time flying and other things that would let us know right away.  Yet, you continue to believe.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> I already did long time ago.  What I said was evolution and evolutionary thinking and the latter has to do with formation of the planet or lies built upon lies by the atheist scientists.
> 
> Did they teach you about flat Earth in yours?  They didn't in mine.  For example, butterflies or birds would have a hard time flying and other things that would let us know right away.  Yet, you continue to believe.


Biological evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the planet. Religioner thinking has you at a disadvantage.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> As more concrete evidence supporting dark matter, energy, and men, who frolic and play in the dark matter, becomes apparent, we can see through them like they are not there, making the invisible world around us 'heavy' with weight and knocking your sandwich out of your hand.


The concrete evidence is in the Bible.  It explains the universe, Earth, everything in it, and leaves some things to still be found.  What the atheists and their scientists did was take how it is and tried to explain it without God.  Thus, we have two sciences today.  Only one can be right as the latter contradicts everything that is in the Bible.  That can't be a coincidence.

Moreover, it's difficult to fight the lies piled up upon lies.  Atheist scientists, in order to be published, had to come up something that wasn't published before and make it sound scientific to be recognized.

So where's the proof of their pudding?  When one can see some concrete evidence instead of some explanation from someone who got published, then we have science backing it up.

Finally, can the atheists here say how gravity formed from the evolutionary thinking viewpoint?  Gravity is explained in the Bible as the Chosen One.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the planet. Religioner thinking has you at a disadvantage.


Please read my post again.  What does evolutionary thinking do?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> Please read my post again.  What does evolutionary thinking do?


It has to do with evolution. 

The formation of the planet has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> The concrete evidence is in the Bible.  It explains the universe, Earth, everything in it, and leaves some things to still be found.  What the atheists and their scientists did was take how it is and tried to explain it without God.  Thus, we have two sciences today.  Only one can be right as the latter contradicts everything that is in the Bible.  That can't be a coincidence.
> 
> Moreover, it's difficult to fight the lies piled up upon lies.  Atheist scientists, in order to be published, had to come up something that wasn't published before and make it sound scientific to be recognized.
> 
> ...


This is not the thread for Bible thumping.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> The concrete evidence is in the Bible.  It explains the universe, Earth, everything in it, and leaves some things to still be found.  What the atheists and their scientists did was take how it is and tried to explain it without God.  Thus, we have two sciences today.  Only one can be right as the latter contradicts everything that is in the Bible.  That can't be a coincidence.
> 
> Moreover, it's difficult to fight the lies piled up upon lies.  Atheist scientists, in order to be published, had to come up something that wasn't published before and make it sound scientific to be recognized.
> 
> ...


Interesting I see the lamb who was sleign as a modern biblical character who is to come shortly because it is explained the ten million and thousands and thousands of angels will cry out worthy is the lamb of wealth. If Jesus or an ancient biblical character were the lamb, what would he need with wealth if he isn't alive today?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> This is not the thread for Bible thumping.


Kind and diplomatic. Yes, James has clearly stumbled into the wrong aisle altogether. His is a negligent being.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Kind and diplomatic. Yes, James has clearly stumbled into the wrong aisle altogether. His is a negligent being.


The formation of the planet couldn't possibly work that way.  Our solar system didn't happen by chance.  I suppose you can show another system being formed as we speak via Hubble.

Also, we had another thread about Earth-like planets with oceans on the surface.  Where are those planets or exoplanets?  Will you let us know when you do and the solar system formation?

I think the James Webb space telescope launch was delayed and has missed yet another launch date.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> This is not the thread for Bible thumping.


It seems I've shown creation science vs. atheist science.  I don't get how atheist scientists can just use their religion and eliminate and ignore God and write all these papers.  OTOH creation scientists do the same.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Interesting I see the lamb who was sleign as a modern biblical character who is to come shortly because it is explained the ten million and thousands and thousands of angels will cry out worthy is the lamb of wealth. If Jesus or an ancient biblical character were the lamb, what would he need with wealth if he isn't alive today?


What?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> It seems I've shown creation science vs. atheist science.  I don't get how atheist scientists can just use their religion and eliminate and ignore God and write all these papers.  OTOH creation scientists do the same.


There are threads in the religion forum for bible thumping


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There are threads in the religion forum for bible thumping


Science backs it up.  I'm still waiting for the shape of the universe to be proved.  The saddle shape is closest to like:

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof _are_ as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"  Isaiah 40:22

Also, the proof that the universe has an edge and is bounded.  Why and how is it that the atheist scientists say the universe is boundless and has no boundary or edge?


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The formation of the planet has nothing to do with evolution.


If you're just going by biology, then just give up now and admit creationists and their scientists won biology (we had natural selection first) and the other sciences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> If you're just going by biology, then just give up now and admit creationists and their scientists won the other sciences.


Haha, poor little guy.


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, poor little guy.


Hollie is a female, I think.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Science backs it up.  I'm still waiting for the shape of the universe to be proved.  The saddle shape is closest to like:
> 
> "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof _are_ as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"  Isaiah 40:22
> 
> Also, the proof that the universe has an edge and is bounded.  Why and how is it that the atheist scientists say the universe is boundless and has no boundary or edge?


Bible thumping about a flat earth is not appropriate in the Science forum.


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Bible thumping about a flat earth is not appropriate in the Science forum.


What would the atheists say if _I'm right_ about a bounded universe with edges and the universe was shaped like a tent?  They should be scared spitless, but they would just say it was a lucky guess.  To me, it would be science backing me up once more.

Instead, we get worthless atheist science articles like how the Earth and our solar system just happen to get put together in space by gravity and floating rocks and dust (which nobody has seen nor have evidence for), but people end up falling for them.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 23, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> The Orthodoxy then asks, given that the expansion of the universe is observably accelerating and that the acceleration itself now appears to be accelerating, how can the cause still be the originating force?


Light, as well as a other electromagnetic radiation, travels at the speed of light, and it just keeps going further and further, whether or not other light from distant reaches of the universe is reaching us to replace that which falls out of our reach.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 23, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Light, as well as a other electromagnetic radiation, travels at the speed of light, and it just keeps going further and further, whether or not other light from distant reaches of the universe is reaching us to replace that which falls out of our reach.


So the speed of light is accelerating? Here I always thought it was supposed to be a constant. No wonder!


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> The concrete evidence is in the Bible.  It explains the universe, Earth, everything in it, and leaves some things to still be found.  What the atheists and their scientists did was take how it is and tried to explain it without God.  Thus, we have two sciences today.  Only one can be right as the latter contradicts everything that is in the Bible.  That can't be a coincidence.
> 
> Moreover, it's difficult to fight the lies piled up upon lies.  Atheist scientists, in order to be published, had to come up something that wasn't published before and make it sound scientific to be recognized.
> 
> ...


Your conspiracy theories are hilarious. 

Thumping your bibles about a flat earth belongs in the religion forums.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

Speaking of gravity,.. ball bearings dropping on anvils!


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Your conspiracy theories are hilarious.
> 
> Thumping your bibles about a flat earth belongs in the religion forums.


C'mon you know you don't have any forming planets to show me.  So far, they are all existing.  I don't even see them becoming spheres.  A lot just burn up in an atmosphere.  You can't even explain how the Earth got its atmosphere.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> C'mon you know you don't have any forming planets to show me.  So far, they are all existing.  I don't even see them becoming spheres.  A lot just burn up in an atmosphere.  You can't even explain how the Earth got its atmosphere.


Pleading ignorance doesn't help your proselytizing.


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Pleading ignorance doesn't help your proselytizing.


This is exactly the type of response I don't understand.  The irony of you claiming that I am the ignorant one.  For example, the evidence for a global flood and catastrophism has been provided beyond any doubt.  Yet, the atheists and their scientists continue to hold true to their faith in lies and no God/gods.  Today, the atheist scientists' BS papers on the universe, Earth, and everything in it continue to pile up.  It has to be the biggest pile of poo poo in the universe.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> What?


revelations


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> This is exactly the type of response I don't understand.  The irony of you claiming that I am the ignorant one.  For example, the evidence for a global flood and catastrophism has been provided beyond any doubt.  Yet, the atheists and their scientists continue to hold true to their faith in lies and no God/gods.  Today, the atheist scientists' BS papers on the universe, Earth, and everything in it continue to pile up.  It has to be the biggest pile of poo poo in the universe.


You're angry and emotive because proselytizing has yielded no results.


----------



## Plow Boy (Sep 24, 2021)

I’m still pondering gravity, and I can’t take any more homework right now.


And if that video is what is used to describe two black holes merging, then I’m not the only one that is struggling to understand gravity.


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You're angry and emotive because proselytizing has yielded no results.


If I'm angry about anything is that atheists and their scientists have stolen the science of creation such as singularity and Earth being covered with 3/4 oceans.  The atheists here think these are things that we can find in nature and our universe.  Nothing of the kind.  There is no life elsewhere or another planet that experienced a global flood.  The facts back this up.  This is why creation science needs to be taught in public schools ASAP or else our universe is doomed. 

Will history back up creationism for one final ride? It's been prophecized and all of the prophecies have come true so far.  What we are waiting for is the beginning of the end or rapture.  It's my educated opinion that we'll have even greater advancements in technology beforehand (Science? I dunno.).  This is what is described our world will be like before the end times.

For you Hollie, will you continue to believe in the flat Earth?  I think so.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Doesn't work at all. Atomists and Newton assumed that there are special particles, gravitons, which bombard bodies and nail them to other bodies, but all these are primitive and long-obsolete speculations, not based on anything. The theory of gravity has long been thrown into the trash, and the law of gravitation has been refuted by the experiment of free fall of bodies of different densities in a vacuum. According to Newton, they should have had a mass-dependent acceleration, but this did not happen.
Modern physics is a pseudoscience close to scholasticism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Doesn't work at all. Atomists and Newton assumed that there are special particles, gravitons, which bombard bodies and nail them to other bodies, but all these are primitive and long-obsolete speculations, not based on anything. The theory of gravity has long been thrown into the trash, and the law of gravitation has been refuted by the experiment of free fall of bodies of different densities in a vacuum. According to Newton, they should have had a mass-dependent acceleration, but this did not happen.
> Modern physics is a pseudoscience close to scholasticism.


That's quite an impressive pile of bold claims. Do you plan to post any evidence? This isn't the religion section, where any goofy idea is as valid as any other.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> If I'm angry about anything is that atheists and their scientists have stolen the science of creation such as singularity and Earth being covered with 3/4 oceans.  The atheists here think these are things that we can find in nature and our universe.  Nothing of the kind.  There is no life elsewhere or another planet that experienced a global flood.  The facts back this up.  This is why creation science needs to be taught in public schools ASAP or else our universe is doomed.
> 
> Will history back up creationism for one final ride? It's been prophecized and all of the prophecies have come true so far.  What we are waiting for is the beginning of the end or rapture.  It's my educated opinion that we'll have even greater advancements in technology beforehand (Science? I dunno.).  This is what is described our world will be like before the end times.
> 
> For you Hollie, will you continue to believe in the flat Earth?  I think so.


Have you considered that the personality of an angry, bible thumping religious extremist tends to make proselytizing a losing game.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's quite an impressive pile of bold claims. Do you plan to post any evidence? This isn't the religion section, where any goofy idea is as valid as any other.


No proof is required here, everything is obvious from what has been said, this is already proof.
In addition, the hypothesis of Newton's gravity presupposes long-range action, which is also recognized as anti-scientific.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> No proof is required here, everything is obvious from what has been said, this is already proof.
> In addition, the hypothesis of Newton's gravity presupposes long-range action, which is also recognized as anti-scientific.


I take it you have no evidence of your silly, deviant claims. Off to the religion section with you.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This isn't the religion section


Newtonianism and atomism are religious teachings. Newton himself was a priest
Newtonianism does not use a scientific method of verification, but dogmatism borrowed from scholasticism. Newton's postulates are not based on experience.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Newtonianism and atomism are religious teachings. Newton himself was a priest
> Newtonianism does not use a scientific method of verification, but dogmatism borrowed from scholasticism. Newton's postulates are not based on experience.


We heard you the first time, Shaman.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We heard you the first time, Shaman.


It's funny that shamanism used the scientific method at the very least, unlike Newton and his sidekicks. Shamans watched natural forces and stars  and this was a start of phisics. 
It is likely that shamans knew more about nature than Newton and other Christians.
Christian apostles claimed that polytheists knew nature and rejected the creator


----------



## Natural Citizen (Sep 24, 2021)

I place Newtonians into the same category as Hamiltonians.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Among other things, the concept of atomists was ridiculed by Aristotle even before Newton. There were many of them among the Sophists and Epicureans, and they were considered swindlers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> It's funny that shamanism used the scientific method at the very least, unlike Newton and his sidekicks. Shamans watched natural forces and stars  and this was a start of phisics.
> It is likely that shamans knew more about nature than Newton and other Christians.
> Christian apostles claimed that polytheists knew nature and rejected the creator


Well that's a lot of crazy packed into one post.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The Classroom Imprisons the Mind*
> 
> Space is a substance that slows down light to c.  One question that is never asked by captive students is "Why can't light go faster?"











						Why isn't the speed of light infinite?
					

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Aristotle considered Newton's principle of inertia to be absolute nonsense. In particular, he wrote: “Thrown bodies usually move without touching the body that pushed them, either by reaction ... or because the set in motion imparts movement faster than moving the body to its own place; in emptiness, nothing this does not happen, and in this case it is possible to move only by means of transfer ... Further, no one can say why a body set in motion will stop somewhere, because why would it rather stop here and not there? it is necessary either to rest or to move endlessly, unless something stronger interferes "

He considered endless movement delirium in itself
It is easy to see that in the last two phrases the law of inertia is essentially formulated, which is now called the first law of mechanics. It is only formulated by contradictory method, i.e. Aristotle claims that if there were an infinite empty space of atomists, then the law of inertia would operate


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fair enough. I mean I have nothing against everything being relative, but GR "space-time" can go suck an egg. Since space possesses no properties it simply cannot "warp."


There is no gravity.  The Earth sucks.

On a more serious note, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was proven by an experiment during a solar eclipse in 1919.  Space does indeed warp near large bodies of mass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Further, no one can say why a body set in motion will stop somewhere, because why would it rather stop here and not there? it is necessary either to rest or to move endlessly, unless something stronger interferes "


I.E., inertia. Now to ignore with you, troll.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I.E., inertia. Now to ignore with you, troll.


Aristotle opposing sophists and degenerates too


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Here the most interesting thing is not even this, but the question of why the church and modern pseudo-physics so zealously defend the position of the sophists, contrary to common sense. After all, the entire pseudophysics of the second half of the 20th century is not doing anything else, except for the reincarnation of atomism and Newtonianism buried in the 19th century. All their sophisticated sophistry serves only to make friends with the phenomena of ether and emptiness

*Why do they need the common people to believe in emptiness?*


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Buddhists wanted the same


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

This is extreme buffoonery. Aristotle declares that if there was a emptiness, the first law of modern mechanics would operate, and Newton postulates exactly what Aristotle considers insanity, precisely in this formulation.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Moreover, in 2 other dogmas he has a direct contradiction: if the action is equal to the reaction, then the collision of different masses must have the same acceleration. A funnier comedian is hard to find. He built a whole theory on false premises, which, moreover, contradict each other.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 24, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> How does mass bend spacetime by simply being there?
> 
> What is the force being applied to spacetime that causes the warping?
> 
> ...



There's not doubt it happens and science and physics have proven it. 

The question that is still unanswered is very simply.  How does gravity start? Why creates it in direct proportions to the size of the planet for instance? 
We still don't know.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

When he described the anatomy of vision, he said that there are some kind of flying "stones of light" (an analogue of the modern nonsense about photons) that hit the pupil and irritate the nerve endings


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Why creates it in direct proportions to the size of the planet for instance?
> We still don't know.


*mass of the planet


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> There's not doubt it happens and science and physics have proven it.


Where such confidence?
Modern physics does not bother itself with any proofs at all, it just makes unfounded statements.
For example, they declared the observed centrifugal force a fiction, and they consider the real force to be a centripetal force that no one saw. But the concept of fiction does not prevent them from using fictitious forces in their calculations.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

It's about the same as if you thought your penis was non-existent, but used it for sex.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Modern "physicists" annoyed everyone with their tales about the curvature of time and acid  trips, but they have not made a single tangible discovery in 100 years, everything that was done in physics was done when there was no THIS smelly kind of physics


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> There is no gravity.  The Earth sucks.
> 
> On a more serious note, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was proven by an experiment during a solar eclipse in 1919.  Space does indeed warp near large bodies of mass.


You're clearly convinced anyway. Is that what makes it so or can you elaborate upon your reasoning? Why can't the light bend due to something else? When hair bends toward a comb do you feel obliged to attribute it to space or time or spacetime?


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Including the discovery of nuclear decay. The nuclear bomb was developed precisely when, by "the will of fate", the Einsteinian were not in Germany.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> You're clearly convinced anyway. Is that what makes it so or can you elaborate upon your reasoning? Why can't the light bend due to something else? When hair bends toward a comb do you feel obliged to attribute it to space or time or spacetime?


Light bends because of static electricity?!?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Newtonianism and atomism are religious teachings. Newton himself was a priest
> Newtonianism does not use a scientific method of verification, but dogmatism borrowed from scholasticism. Newton's postulates are not based on experience.


Sorry, Newton was not an atomist and proved himself a brilliant experimenter among other things. Tell you what, build the equivalent of the first telescope or create something like the calculus with religious dogma.. then get back to us.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> Light bends because of static electricity?!?


That's you elaborating upon your reasoning? It was an analo.. sorry, never mind.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, Newton was not an atomist and proved himself a brilliant experimenter among other things. Tell you what, build the equivalent of the first telescope or create something like the calculus with religious dogma.. then get back to us.


Sorry I don’t know how to react to this in any way, because it’s just utter nonsense. Newton is a pure atomist and Newtonianism is pure dogmatism, literate people know this.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> You're clearly convinced anyway. Is that what makes it so or can you elaborate upon your reasoning? Why can't the light bend due to something else? When hair bends toward a comb do you feel obliged to attribute it to space or time or spacetime?


The amount the light from stars whose light pass close to the sun bent was the same as Einstein had predicted.  There simply is no better explanation for that effect, nor is there an alternative theory which predicts that effect.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, Newton was not an atomist and proved himself a brilliant experimenter among other things. Tell you what, build the equivalent of the first telescope or create something like the calculus with religious dogma.. then get back to us.


Newton was devoutly religious.

Newton believed the planetary orbits were so unstable that they and the sun would interfere with each others' orbits so much that they would collide or be thrown out of the solar system.  He was puzzled as to why this did not happen.

You know what answer he came up with to explain what was stopping these things from happening?

God.


So there's some religious dogma for you!

It was Einstein's theory about the curvature of  space which finally solved the problem.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> There simply is no better explanation for that effect, nor is there an alternative theory which predicts that effect.



There is, it is the theory of fortune telling on the insides of a goose


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> The amount the light from stars whose light pass close to the sun bent was the same as Einstein had predicted.  There simply is no better explanation for that effect, nor is there an alternative theory which predicts that effect.


Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> Newton was devoutly religious.
> 
> Newton believed the planetary orbits were so unstable that they and the sun would interfere with each others' orbits so much that they would collide or be thrown out of the solar system.  He was puzzled as to why this did not happen.
> 
> ...


No kidding.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.


Until we see the the compelling published research, we can correctly call them hypotheses only.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.


I am aware of them.  I am also aware they have been obliterated.









						Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity | Quanta Magazine
					

New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.




					www.quantamagazine.org


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Sorry I don’t know how to react to this in any way, because it’s just utter nonsense. Newton is a pure atomist and Newtonianism is pure dogmatism, literate people know this.


About Newton, even though I seriously doubt you'll understand it:


> Newton explicitly rejected the idea that gravitation, or any other force, be essential to matter. But the major point of mechanical atomism had been to admit as properties of atoms only those that they must, essentially, have as pieces of matter. It was in this way that they had endeavoured to avoid introducing Aristotelian forms and qualities, which they regarded as incomprehensible from an ontological point of view. The introduction of forces as irreducible entities flew in the face of the major aim of the mechanical philosophers for clarity and intelligibility on ontological matters. Newton was unable to fashion an unambiguous view on the ontological status of gravity, a force manifest at the level of observation and experiment, let alone forces operative at the atomic level. It is true that, in the case of gravity, Newton had a plausible pragmatic response. He argued that, whatever the underlying status of the force of gravity might be, he had given a precise specification of that force with his law of gravitation and had employed the force to explain a range of phenomena at the astronomical and terrestrial level, explanations that had been confirmed by observation and experiment. But not even a pragmatic justification such as this could be offered for forces at the atomic level.


Hint: _not a "pure" atomist by any stretch._


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hint: _not a "pure" atomist by any stretch._


I'm not going to argue with you, because you have no idea what you are trying to reason about, it's not interesting


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, because you have no idea what you are trying to reason about, it's not interesting


Likewise. Bubbye!


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> It was Einstein's theory about the curvature of space which finally solved the problem.


And which of them had a bend of the brain before, Einstein or Lobachevsky?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 24, 2021)

g5000 said:


> I am aware of them.  I am also aware they have been obliterated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seriously,.. Quanta magazine? Give it up.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Speaking of "matter". They have no clear definition of this word. The concept itself comes from scholasticism, nominalists tried to assert that there is only that which is sensuously perceptible, and universals do not exist anywhere except the mind. This is where the Marxist phrase "being determines consciousness" comes from, but such a shameful interpretation does not even include the concept of physical force, so they are forced to constantly play around, talking about matter as something "solid" and scientific, but never specifying what it is


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Maybe this is due to the fact that it is easier for the primitive mind to reason in terms of nesting than in terms of substitution. As if someone puts something in an empty box and thereby fills the void of this box. They are simply not able to understand real phenomena, so they create for themselves an artificial discrete world, where there are only atoms and emptiness. Perhaps it has something to do with autism.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Where such confidence?
> Modern physics does not bother itself with any proofs at all, it just makes unfounded statements.
> For example, they declared the observed centrifugal force a fiction, and they consider the real force to be a centripetal force that no one saw. But the concept of fiction does not prevent them from using fictitious forces in their calculations.



I'll bet their calculations are far more accurate than believing God did it. 

There us no reason for them to lie or invent anything. Their job is to find  what is and test it.  
It might conflict with some other silly beliefs but theirs is supported by repeating it. 
Over to you.


----------



## Death Angel (Sep 24, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?


According to the Science Asylum,  Time Dilation causes the warping


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Why creates it in direct proportions to the size of the planet for instance?
> We still don't know.


It's the mass of the planet.  Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces and it's considered the weakest one, but has great range and is an attractive force.  No question it's a mystery using science.  The Bible says it's Jesus as to why.  Electromagnetic force is better understood, can be very strong, also long range, and can attract objects but it's can also repel.

Anyway, it's fun to experience near zero gravity and weightlessness as long as you don't get nauseous.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 24, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> There us no reason for them to lie


The same can be said about the churchmen.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 24, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> The same can be said about the churchmen.



There is.  One us trying to get to heaven, the other is yet to find it for them. 

Don't tell me you're one of those Jesus junkies also. America is full of those idiots.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 25, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Don't tell me you're one of those Jesus junkies also. America is full of those idiots.


Don't tell me Newton wasn't a Jesus junkie


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Don't tell me Newton wasn't a Jesus junkie



I never suggested he was and incidently he was an atheist. There a few quotations out there that might suggest otherwise, bu they were attributed to him by religion searching for relevance to science.


----------



## james bond (Sep 25, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Don't tell me Newton wasn't a Jesus junkie


He and Sir Frances Bacon both thought technology would advance before the end times.  I do, too.  BTW, ignore Colin norris; he's a troll.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> He and Sir Frances Bacon both thought technology would advance before the end times.  I do, too.  BTW, ignore Colin norris; he's a troll.



A troll is someone who has a differing opinion and you can't refute his claims.  
Sound familiar? 

You were implying Newton was a godbotherer.  He was not and you know it. 

Don't attack me on religion. I'm very good at that and yet to be defeated by ignorant Jesus junkies like you. Your religion and beliefs at completely devoid of  any truth.
You've been conned by the oldest trick known to man.


----------



## james bond (Sep 25, 2021)

Here are some of the ways technology has been predicted to rise in the book _Future Shock_ by Alvin Toffler in 1970.

"
Future shock[edit]​Alvin Toffler argued that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a "super-industrial society". This change overwhelms people. He argues that the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaves people disconnected and suffering from "shattering stress and disorientation"—future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems are symptoms of future shock. In his discussion of the components of such shock he popularized the term "_information overload_."

This analysis of the phenomenon of information overload is continued in later publications, especially _The Third Wave_ and _Powershift_.

In the introduction to an essay entitled "Future Shock" in his book, _Conscientious Objections_, Neil Postman wrote:



> "Sometime about the middle of 1963, my colleague Charles Weingartner and I delivered in tandem an address to the National Council of Teachers of English. In that address we used the phrase "future shock" as a way of describing the social paralysis induced by rapid technological change. To my knowledge, Weingartner and I were the first people ever to use it in a public forum. Of course, neither Weingartner nor I had the brains to write a book called _Future Shock_, and all due credit goes to Alvin Toffler for having recognized a good phrase when one came along" (p. 162).


Development of society and production[edit]​Alvin Toffler distinguished three stages in development of society and production: agrarian, industrial and post-industrial.

Each of these waves develops its own "super-ideology” in order to explain reality. This ideology affects all the spheres which make up a civilization phase: technology, social patterns, information patterns, and power patterns.

The first stage began in the period of the Neolithic Era with the advent of agriculture, thereby passing from barbarity to a civilization. A large number of people acted as prosumers (eating their grown food, hunting animals, building their own houses, making clothes,....). People traded by exchanging their own goods for commodities of others. The second stage began in England with the Industrial Revolution with the invention of the machine tool and the steam engine. People worked in factories to make money they could spend on goods they needed (it means they produced for exchange, not for use). Countries also created new social systems. The third stage began in the second half of the 20th century in the West when people invented automatic production, robotics and the computer. The services sector attained great value.

Toffler proposed one criterion for distinguishing between industrial society and post-industrial society: the share of the population occupied in agriculture versus the share of city labor occupied in the services sector. In a post-industrial society, the share of the people occupied in agriculture does not exceed 15%, and the share of city laborers occupied in the services sector exceeds 50%. Thus, the share of the people occupied with brainwork greatly exceeds the share of the people occupied with physical work in post-industrial society.

The third wave led to the Information Era (now). Homes are the dominant institutions. Most people carry on their own production and consumption in their homes or electronic cottages, they produce more of their own products and services and markets become less important for them. People consider each other to be equally free as vendors of prosumer-generated commodities.

Fear of the future[edit]​


Midtown Manhattan in New York City, the largest central business district in the United States
Alvin Toffler's main thought centers on the idea that modern man feels shock from rapid changes. For example, Toffler's daughter went to shop in New York City and she couldn't find a shop in its previous location. Thus New York has become a city without a history. The urban population doubles every 11 years. The overall production of goods and services doubles each 50 years in developed countries. Society experiences an increasing number of changes with an increasing rapidity, while people are losing the familiarity that old institutions (religion, family, national identity, profession) once provided. The so-called "brain drain" – the emigration of European scientists to the United States – is both an indicator of the changes in society and also one of their causes.

Features of post-industrial society[edit]​





This section *is in list format, but may read better as prose*. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. _(October 2020)_



A generic, disposable lighter.

Many goods have become disposable as the cost of manual repair or cleaning has become greater than the cost of making new goods due to mass production. Examples of disposable goods include ballpoint pens, lighters, plastic bottles, and paper towels.
The design of goods becomes outdated quickly. (And so, for example, a second generation of computers appears before the end of the expected period of usability of the first generation). It is possible to rent almost everything (from a ladder to a wedding dress), thus eliminating the need for ownership.
Whole branches of industry die off and new branches of industry arise. This affects unskilled workers who are compelled to change their residence to find new jobs. The constant change in the market also poses a problem for advertisers who must deal with moving targets.
People of post-industrial society change their profession and their workplace often. People have to change professions because professions quickly become outdated. People of post-industrial society thus have many careers in a lifetime. The knowledge of an engineer becomes outdated in ten years. People look more and more for temporary jobs.
To follow transient jobs, people have become nomads. For example, immigrants from Algeria, Turkey and other countries go to Europe to find work. Transient people are forced to change residence, phone number, school, friends, car license, and contact with family often. As a result, relationships tend to be superficial with a large number of people, instead of being intimate or close relationships that are more stable. Evidence for this is tourist travel and holiday romances.
The driver's license, received at age 16, has become the teenager's admission to the world of adults, because it symbolizes the ability to move independently.
Death of Permanence. The post industrial society will be marked by a transient culture where everything ranging from goods to human relationships will be temporary."









						Future Shock - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Here are some of the ways technology has been predicted to rise in the book _Future Shock_ by Alvin Toffler in 1970.
> 
> "
> Future shock[edit]​Alvin Toffler argued that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a "super-industrial society". This change overwhelms people. He argues that the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaves people disconnected and suffering from "shattering stress and disorientation"—future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems are symptoms of future shock. In his discussion of the components of such shock he popularized the term "_information overload_."
> ...



How does any of that irrelevant prove there's a god or that he objects to abortion? 
If you get a warm inner glow from it son  knock yourself out.  

The point is skinned you so now you divert as if its relevant. 
You've got nothing and know nothing. Not a good grounding for a belief in some celestial ghost. 


Have another swing.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 25, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I never suggested he was and incidently he was an atheist. There a few quotations out there that might suggest otherwise, bu they were attributed to him by religion searching for relevance to science.


He was a Christian priest


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Until we see the the compelling published research, we can correctly call them hypotheses only.


Your "we""we" is showing again. Do get over yourself. I heard you the first time and you've heard my response. Published Aether theory has compelled far more for far longer than Einstein's "warped space" silliness.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> He was a Christian priest



Newton was a Christian priest? 
 I'll leave that here for others to contemplate. I've had enough of you.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 25, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Newton was a Christian priest?


yes


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> yes



Here is a quote from his bio on wiki. 

Newton was a fellow of Trinity College and the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity

Christian priests believe in that for it rubbish. He didn't nor was he a priest. 

Get some facts.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 25, 2021)

ok he was alien from alpha-centaura


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 25, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> ok he was alien from alpha-centaura



No.  You are an ignorant liar.  Deal with it. 

Don't lie to me. I'll catch you every time.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## james bond (Sep 26, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Have another swing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               It doesn't matter.  Anyone who doesn't understand the OVERWHELMING _scientific_ evidence for the global flood is the SFE and POS.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 26, 2021)

I reiterate what you said about the science. But you shouldn't  belt yourself like the other bits.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Have another swing. It doesn't matter. Anyone who doesn't understand the OVERWHELMING _scientific_ evidence for the global flood is the SFE and POS.



There is no evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago. 

Claiming that everyone who doesn't believe your religious dogma is a POS is pretty typical for the worst kind of religious kooks.


----------



## james bond (Sep 26, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago.
> 
> Claiming that everyone who doesn't believe your religious dogma is a POS is pretty typical for the worst kind of religious kooks.


LMAO.  Another SFE.  Show me another planet that has 3/4 surface water and that was one land mass, but broke up into continents.


----------



## james bond (Sep 26, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I reiterate what you said about the science. But you shouldn't  belt yourself like the other bits.


There wasn't anything about science you iterated to begin with.  It showed you know nothing about gravity.  I understand b/c you're SFE and POS.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> There wasn't anything about science you iterated to begin with.  It showed you know nothing about gravity.  I understand b/c you're SFE and POS.



If you say so Einstein. You're FITH.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Sep 26, 2021)

Is anyone disputing the OP anymore? I think we've determined that it s a solid top view of the famous Einstein experiment. anyone argue? And that the top view is more valid then the side view or bending. Agree?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> LMAO.  Another SFE.  Show me another planet that has 3/4 surface water and that was one land mass, but broke up into continents.


You’re obviously unable to offer any support for your falsified claims.

Otherwise, most cults use the tactic of vilifying the non-cult members. You’re just a very ordinary cultist.


----------



## james bond (Sep 26, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You’re obviously unable to offer any support for your falsified claims.
> 
> Otherwise, most cults use the tactic of vilifying the non-cult members. You’re just a very ordinary cultist.


The truth and support is in almost every post of mine.  Winners win when science backs them up.  What have you won here?  I'll tell ya.  Nothing, unless they hand out some award for flat Earth advocate, Flattie Hollie.


----------



## james bond (Sep 26, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> How does any of that irrelevant prove there's a god or that he objects to abortion?
> If you get a warm inner glow from it son knock yourself out.
> 
> The point is skinned you so now you divert as if its relevant.
> You've got nothing and know nothing. Not a good grounding for a belief in some celestial ghost.


6th commandment.  Thou shalt not kill.  No amount of intelligence penetrates your thick headedness.

Again, more nonsense from the SFE and POS.  You should just give up while you are way behind.  I've been LMAO just watching you post your non-science and non-truths that my sides, brain, and whatever I got from higher education hurt.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> 6th commandment.  Thou shalt not kill.  No amount of intelligence penetrates your thick headedness.
> 
> Again, more nonsense from the SFE and POS.  You should just give up while you are way behind.  I've been LMAO just watching you post your non-science and non-truths that my sides, brain, and whatever I got from higher education hurt.



I don't give a rat's about what your silly commandments say.  They don't apply to atheists. We have civil laws which deal with that.  Why can't you understand that? 
Don't try to be witty and clever.  Godbotherers  don't have the smarts.  

Have another swing with your religious rubbish.  I love tearing you hypocrits to bits.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Here is a quote from his bio on wiki.


Wikipedia is believed only by idiots.
I'm not going to argue with you, you are talking nonsense, and even literate schoolchildren know that Newton was not a physicist at all, he was engaged in physics only in addition to scholasticism


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

And again: Newtonian physics suffered a complete collapse during the scientific revolution of the 19th century, it was initially thrown into the trash, but after World War II, for political reasons, it became a pseudophysical theory that has limited applicability.

In general, it is contrary to the scientific method. It is based on unfounded statements (dogmatics), it declares long-range action, rejected by science, it failed experimentally, because according to Newton, different masses have different acceleration in a vacuum.

Even if it worked, it would still be useless, because it considers all processes only in terms of elastic interactions, so it is not even suitable for engineering.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

Among other things, Newton, like Einstein, became famous for plagiarism and vile intrigues. Some of his works are revised works by Robert Hooke, whose name he did not mention, passing as his own.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Wikipedia is believed only by idiots.
> I'm not going to argue with you, you are talking nonsense, and even literate schoolchildren know that Newton was not a physicist at all, he was engaged in physics only in addition to scholasticism





rupol2000 said:


> And again: Newtonian physics suffered a complete collapse during the scientific revolution of the 19th century, it was initially thrown into the trash, but after World War II, for political reasons, it became a pseudophysical theory that has limited applicability.
> 
> In general, it is contrary to the scientific method. It is based on unfounded statements (dogmatics), it declares long-range action, rejected by science, it failed experimentally, because according to Newton, different masses have different acceleration in a vacuum.
> 
> Even if it worked, it would still be useless, because it considers all processes only in terms of elastic interactions, so it is not even suitable for engineering.




The original debate was you said Newton was a Christian in the true sense of the word.  I proved he was not.  

After physics, everything about your silly God is opinion only. 

Religion is now becoming irrelevant to Mao stream discoveries about the universe.  You are desperately attempting to connect yourselves to science to retain and dignity you have left. 
Fabricating lies and instructing me about your "theories" doesn't cone into it.

All the information is there to be read.  Not one bit if facts about the universe can be found in your hideous filthy bible. 

Wiki is not for fools. The whole purpose of it is you can change it if you think it is wrong. There has never been one sentence in it, independently verified, that God was responsible for anything.  That's why you reject it.  But you do use it occasionally but not tell anyone. 

Do yourself a favour and stop your denial of facts.  That was done for you by religion for 2000 years which is why you a currently attempting to re connevtveith r4ality and feeling guilty about being conned. 
Take it further.  What's in this God shit  that you have certainty of,  that will benefit you? I'll tell you

Nothing.  You're frightened of death and expect an after life for your loyalty.  The ridiculousness of that has also been proven by science to not exist. 
You MUST have doubt that all that magical conjuring can't be true when we know it cannot happen. 
Are you so brainwashed to not even think for yourself? Have a look at yourself and ask questions.  Stay away from God and churches propaganda and see if you die. 
Bowing and bscraping to the community because it's expected of  you is no different to a slave to a celestial  diety that doesn't exist. A type of religious north Korea. 

My opinion if anything religious must be clear to you now. You're wasting your time with your silly fairy tales. 
Religion has destroyed  millions of lives by teaching kids that shit.  Grow up.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The original debate was you said Newton was a Christian in the true sense of the word. I proved he was not.


lol


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

Among other things, ideologists still hide that Newtonianism was not an independent, but went along with the general trend of the revival of atomism in England in the 17th century. In addition to Newton, these ideas were preached by Boyle, Descartes, Gassendi and others. It was already then a hybrid of Epicureanism and Aristotelian physics. In the spirit of modern "particle-wave madness" game


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

This sect was called "Corpuscularianism"


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

The ideological aspect of Newtonianism seemed to echo the ideas of the nominalists who reject universals. His brother in reason, Hobbes, in his "Leviathan" tries to build a concept of the "material" world without involving the concepts of spirit and natural force standing over reason. Reincarnation of a primitive, swinish view of the world, where there is no good and evil, they are only a product of "desires" and other "science" of lack of spirituality, previously imposed by the nominalist branch of Christians. It was approximately from this source that Hegelianism, Nietzscheanism and Marxism flowed.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Among other things, ideologists still hide that Newtonianism was not an independent, but went along with the general trend of the revival of atomism in England in the 17th century. In addition to Newton, these ideas were preached by Boyle, Descartes, Gassendi and others. It was already then a hybrid of Epicureanism and Aristotelian physics. In the spirit of modern "particle-wave madness" game



Stop the shit.  You made a fool of yourself by saying Newton was a godbotherer. Don't exacerbateyour ignorant by ranting  against the best brains in the world. 

Ideologists.  Really.  You getting desperate now. You wasting your time with me. Stick to your silly bible.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You wasting your time with me


I do not pay attention to your naive speeches. These are just thoughts aloud, I myself am interested to figure it out to the end


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

And it is the ideological aspect that interests me here. The fact that Newtonianism is rubbish is well known, there is no question. Modern ideologists who cling to it do not try to assert that it is really adequate, they only say that in some cases something can be calculated according to Newton.

But why the scammers are so diligently pulling atomism out of the coffin, not sparing taxpayers' money, this is a more interesting topic.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 27, 2021)

The first dogma of Newtonian mechanics was explicitly postulated in Chapter 2 of Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1651, several decades before the release of Newton's "beginnings". Although the thought is not new in itself. Perhaps it was unusual precisely for that time, but it was already among the ancient sophists.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> The truth and support is in almost every post of mine.  Winners win when science backs them up.  What have you won here?  I'll tell ya.  Nothing, unless they hand out some award for flat Earth advocate, Flattie Hollie.


As noted, you offer nothing to support your specious claims.


----------



## james bond (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I don't give a rat's about what your silly commandments say.  They don't apply to atheists. We have civil laws which deal with that.  Why can't you understand that?
> Don't try to be witty and clever.  Godbotherers  don't have the smarts.
> 
> Have another swing with your religious rubbish.  I love tearing you hypocrits to bits.








The Ten Commandments played a role in the establishment of our civil and criminal laws or didn't you know that?  We have thousands of Ten Commandments displays in the public square across the nation.  That's all right.  You're excused because you're SFE.

I can guarantee that you'll care about a rat's arse, yours, in the afterlife but it'll be too late.

Anyway, we don't understand how gravity works and we prolly never will until the end.  Just think, it's the fourth fundamental force but we won't know nor figure it out (except for the believers).


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Ten Commandments played a role in the establishment of our civil and criminal laws or didn't you know that?  We have thousands of Ten Commandments displays in the public square across the nation.  That's all right.  You're excused because you're SFE.
> 
> Absolute rubbish. The laws were drawn and altered slightly from  those  of other countries. You might like to think God was involved but that's ridiculous. You foolishly attempting to link religion to everything. Stop it.  You're lying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I do not pay attention to your naive speeches. These are just thoughts aloud, I myself am interested to figure it out to the end



While ever you believe in God, you will never gain knowledge of anything but full blown lies and myths. 

You believe in immaculate conception and virgin births yet it's me who you consider to be naive???? 
You dont have the smarts.  Bury you head in your bible and let the progression of society continue unhindered by godbotherers attempting to be relevant.


----------



## james bond (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris

james bond
The Ten Commandments played a role in the establishment of our civil and criminal laws or didn't you know that? We have thousands of Ten Commandments displays in the public square across the nation. That's all right. You're excused because you're SFE.

Colin norris
Absolute rubbish. The laws were drawn and altered slightly from those of other countries. You might like to think God was involved but that's ridiculous. You foolishly attempting to link religion to everything. Stop it. You're lying.

Lol, it's always you who are lying and wrong.  

Colin norris
No you can't arrogantly guarantee anything about me after I die. Threatening me with eternal fire is now what I expected from you when you feel pressured by not cutting through.
You have no knowledge of my destination and punishment if any. Its vain, presumptuous and arrogant to think you do. You DO NOT have unique access to knowledge if some celestial ghost. Wake up to yourself. It doesn't exist.

I can tell where you are going with the path you are on.  God warns.

It's not a "threat" _from me_ and will be the last time.

james bond
Science will eventually find the truth but fools like you will immediately link it to God. That's how arrogant you are to remain relevant.

Colin norris
It won't be a godbotherer who figures it out. None of you have taken a step forward outside your hideous book of lies for 2000 yet you think God will explain it?
Get a grip on yourself.

This is 2021.  It's no hideous book of lies.  How do you know that?

No need for me to lie.  Jesus stands before us like gravity (it means final judgment).  I suppose we'll all know how gravity works eventually.  It's a weak force, but extends across the universe.  Anyway, I can't discuss things with you like with others, so won't be replying to you.
.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Colin norris
> 
> james bond
> The Ten Commandments played a role in the establishment of our civil and criminal laws or didn't you know that? We have thousands of Ten Commandments displays in the public square across the nation. That's all right. You're excused because you're SFE.
> ...


Quote whatever you like.  You're pissing against the wind with me.  
The tho g about facts are, even if you don't believe them, they are still facts.

There is no God or any of the downright lies you peddle as fact. You have no one sceric of evidence there is a god and You know it. You've been mumbling with your bible crap for days and proven nothing but your gullibility. 

What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.  
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 
You have provided nothing so take your silly bullshit and attempt to convince someone else.  I'm.an atheist and will never respect any religious bullshit from anybody.


----------



## james bond (Sep 27, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Quote whatever you like.  You're pissing against the wind with me.
> The tho g about facts are, even if you don't believe them, they are still facts.
> 
> There is no God or any of the downright lies you peddle as fact. You have no one sceric of evidence there is a god and You know it. You've been mumbling with your bible crap for days and proven nothing but your gullibility.
> ...


I've tried to show you the evidence.  Anyone would intelligence would accept that the global flood happened.  What facts do atheists have?  Evolution is just biology.  OTOH, the creation scientists have the why explanation for gravity, but like everyone including all the scientists, do not have know how it works.

What bothers me is you claim the lies are from me because I have the evidence.  How can a solar system just form the way it did naturally?  We both don't know how the sun, planets, and moons float in space and spin around their own axis.  We have theories, but no proof.  All we have are the facts.  Yet, you act like you are the only one privy or who knows the facts.  It makes you SAF because everyone can use the facts.  Even if you don't want to tell me your facts, i.e. I am not aware, then I can still find out.

Your claims of no God/gods is ridiculous and shows you are wrong.  We have God's autobiography and science backs it up.  I can't help it if you can't accept the science and the creation facts.  It's you who have been fooled and are gullible.

I am not trying to convince you, but expressing my opinion of you as SFE and POS.  How can I when you say the things you say and in the way you do it?  As for the Bible, I try to present how science backs it up, but you just opine that it doesn't.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> While ever you believe in God, you will never gain knowledge of anything but full blown lies and myths.


At least not in the god Newton worshiped


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 28, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> At least not in the god Newton worshiped



And exactly which God was that and which one do you worship?


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> And exactly which God was that and which one do you worship?


I believe in Dyaus, the heavenly god from whom the English word comes "divine". In his host of Devas and Marutаs, the great heavenly host.


Newtonians also call their god heavenly, but their name for god comes from Hades, the god of the earth and the underworld, it is not entirely clear who they believe in, and why their god needs atomism. Any suggestions?
Besides Newtonians, Einsteinians and Christians, this god was pleasing to the Buddhists, they had the concept of shunyata, the "great emptiness"


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

Found something. Probably there is a connection with the ethics of Epicurus.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

It seems that for the atomists, as well as for the dialectics like  Hegelians and Marxists, it was important to substantiate that being is changeable and all objects are only the combination and decomposition of atoms, thus they denied the existence of the eternal, Platonic ideas and realists' universals. I think that this is what attracted them to atomism: there is nothing but clutches and uncoupling of elements, no metaphysics. This recreated the ancient ideas of chthonism about the cyclical nature of nature, its destruction and revival, the beliefs characteristic of early agricultural cultures.

In short, it is a denial of the unchanging and eternal. This is the main idea.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 28, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I believe in Dyaus, the heavenly god from whom the English word comes "divine". In his host of Devas and Marutаs, the great heavenly host.
> 
> 
> Newtonians also call their god heavenly, but their name for god comes from Hades, the god of the earth and the underworld, it is not entirely clear who they believe in, and why their god needs atomism. Any suggestions?
> Besides Newtonians, Einsteinians and Christians, this god was pleasing to the Buddhists, they had the concept of shunyata, the "great emptiness"



The choice of a God is irrelevant when you're an atheist. None of them have been proven to exist, including the  ghost you believe. 
There has been thousands of God throughout time and not one proved to be Valid. Science is the graveyard of all of them. 

Don't try to mock me with your silly ignorant enticement. You have no knowledge of any of  it.  Just inherited faith and gullibility. 
You've never received on irrefutable thing from any God. Ever. Yet here you are instructing people about God  as if it is fact. 
Every time you reply I get another whack at you.


----------



## Dayton3 (Sep 28, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?



mass


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The choice of a God is irrelevant when you're an atheist. None of them have been proven to exist, including the ghost you believe.


A typical mistake of illiterate people. Buddhists were atheists, and nominal theists-Christians and Jews, recognizing the creator, were materialists.
Newton himself was a theologian and Christian preacher.

Veddism and shamanism were closest to a scientific approach in a positivist sense, a view of nature from the point of view of natural forces, this was fundamentally different from witness religions with their obscurantism(including the religion of Newton and Newtonianism itself based on the atomistic dogmatics of Epicurus and Christian nominalists)


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've tried to show you the evidence.  Anyone would intelligence would accept that the global flood happened.  What facts do atheists have?  Evolution is just biology.  OTOH, the creation scientists have the why explanation for gravity, but like everyone including all the scientists, do not have know how it works.
> 
> What bothers me is you claim the lies are from me because I have the evidence.  How can a solar system just form the way it did naturally?  We both don't know how the sun, planets, and moons float in space and spin around their own axis.  We have theories, but no proof.  All we have are the facts.  Yet, you act like you are the only one privy or who knows the facts.  It makes you SAF because everyone can use the facts.  Even if you don't want to tell me your facts, i.e. I am not aware, then I can still find out.
> 
> ...


Anyone with intelligence can see the evidence for a spherical planet and an ancient planet. 

The earth is not flat. There is no evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago and biological organisms evolve. 

Those are material facts not changed by tales and fables.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 28, 2021)

g5000 said:


> There is no gravity.  The Earth sucks.
> 
> On a more serious note, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was proven by an experiment during a solar eclipse in 1919.  Space does indeed warp near large bodies of mass.





> “Einstein’s right, at least for now,” said Ghez, a co-lead author of the research. “We can absolutely rule out Newton’s law of gravity. Our observations are consistent with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability. It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein’s theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is.”


It's insufficient for explaining "gravity inside a black hole" just as Newton's theory has proven insufficient for calculations involving near light speeds generally. Both remain quite adequate for everyday, practical calculations like where exactly to aim your cannon to blow up your nearest house of worship. However, neither "explains" a damned thing about the why, what, how of gravity. Saying, "Oh, well, space warps, space-time, doncha know?" is just practicing convenient tautology from an Einsteinian Lalaland perspective.


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Anyone with intelligence can see the evidence for a spherical planet and an ancient planet.


I have intelligence, but not you.  You're Flattie Hollie.  I've known the Earth was spherical since pre-school.



Hollie said:


> The earth is not flat. There is no evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago and biological organisms evolve.


We have evidence the Earth is not flat like we have evidence for a global flood, 1) 3/4 water covers the planet, 2) one massive land Pangea broke up into seven continents (creation scientist, Alfred Wegener, discovered plate tectonics), 3) Mid-Atlantic ridge circles the world, and more; Too much to list here -- The Institute for Creation Research.  It's hard evidence to anyone with intelligence.  What's next?  Finding Noah's Ark.



Hollie said:


> Those are material facts not changed by tales and fables.


The tales and fables are what you believe such as Earth and solar system just formed from space rocks, dust, and gravity.  Atheist scientists pile lies upon lies with their made up papers.  I even challenged Grumblenuts and anyone here to show me a planet forming in the universe.  Where's the explanation from the big bang?  Give me some physical evidence instead of dark energy and dark matter.  The Bible says that it's God's right arm that stretches out the universe, so we prolly won't be able to prove anything like gravity.

Instead, I learned the atheist scientists stole singularity (infinite temperature and infinite density) and natural selection from the creation scientists.  What's next?  They're gonna steal the saddle shape of the universe and that the universe has edges and is bounded?  They contradict it now or will contradict it soon.


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The choice of a God is irrelevant when you're an atheist. None of them have been proven to exist, including the ghost you believe.
> There has been thousands of God throughout time and not one proved to be Valid. Science is the graveyard of all of them.


God the Father has been proved to exist.  The evidence is overwhelming as science backs up the Bible.



Colin norris said:


> Don't try to mock me with your silly ignorant enticement. You have no knowledge of any of it. Just inherited faith and gullibility.
> You've never received on irrefutable thing from any God. Ever. Yet here you are instructing people about God as if it is fact.
> Every time you reply I get another whack at you.


Lol.  Everyone here thinks you've gone looney tunes.  You're the most hateful atheist person I've met of God the Father.  I'm still waiting for some physical evidence which you, Grumblenuts, or any atheist scientists cannot provide.  Where's the science that backs up all those fake papers the atheist scientists wrote?


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Anyone with intelligence can see the evidence for a spherical planet and an ancient planet.
> 
> The earth is not flat. There is no evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago and biological organisms evolve.
> 
> Those are material facts not changed by tales and fables.


Flattie Hollie, it gets tiring listening to your flat Earth theories about creationists.  Face it, you are wrong and one who thinks she lives on a flat planet.  I guess you think it's a flat planet for a flat universe .

We can teach the seven days of creation to pre-schoolers.  They they can get the truth of the Earth being spherical and how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  Science and the physical evidence backs it up.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> I have intelligence, but not you.  You're Flattie Hollie.  I've known the Earth was spherical since pre-school.
> 
> 
> We have evidence the Earth is not flat like we have evidence for a global flood, 1) 3/4 water covers the planet, 2) one massive land Pangea broke up into seven continents (creation scientist, Alfred Wegener, discovered plate tectonics), 3) Mid-Atlantic ridge circles the world, and more; Too much to list here -- The Institute for Creation Research.  It's hard evidence to anyone with intelligence.  What's next?  Finding Noah's Ark.
> ...


Water on the planet is not evidence of a global flood. 

There is no evidence of a global flood.

The planet is not flat. It is spherical. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. When you're rocking back and forth reciting Bible verses at your madrassah, remember what I wrote here.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Doesn't work at all. Atomists and Newton assumed that there are special particles, gravitons, which bombard bodies and nail them to other bodies, but all these are primitive and long-obsolete speculations, not based on anything. The theory of gravity has long been thrown into the trash, and the law of gravitation has been refuted by the experiment of free fall of bodies of different densities in a vacuum. According to Newton, they should have had a mass-dependent acceleration, but this did not happen.
> Modern physics is a pseudoscience close to scholasticism.


*It Solves Everything the Authorities Give an Irrational Explanation *

Gravity takes place in an outside dimension.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 28, 2021)

SixFoot said:


> I get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?


There's no warping. Space has no properties by definition so can't warp or influence anything. Light bends around massive objects (refracts) because the ("luminiferous") Aether's density increases around them.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> It's insufficient for explaining "gravity inside a black hole" just as Newton's theory has proven insufficient for calculations involving near light speeds generally. Both remain quite adequate for everyday, practical calculations like where exactly to aim your cannon to blow up your nearest house of worship. However, neither "explains" a damned thing about the why, what, how of gravity. Saying, "Oh, well, space warps, space-time, doncha know?" is just practicing convenient tautology from an Einsteinian Lalaland perspective.


*The "Singularity" Is Also Impossible, So It Never Existed*

The Black Hole has an impossible quantity of gravity and an impossible compression of mass.  It has to explode back into the universe from which ours came.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> I have intelligence, but not you.  You're Flattie Hollie.  I've known the Earth was spherical since pre-school.
> 
> 
> We have evidence the Earth is not flat like we have evidence for a global flood, 1) 3/4 water covers the planet, 2) one massive land Pangea broke up into seven continents (creation scientist, Alfred Wegener, discovered plate tectonics), 3) Mid-Atlantic ridge circles the world, and more; Too much to list here -- The Institute for Creation Research.  It's hard evidence to anyone with intelligence.  What's next?  Finding Noah's Ark.
> ...


*Fast Forward*

Postmodern science gives you an out for explaining the discrepancy between the measured age of the Earth and its Biblical age.  God accelerated all the processes, which follows from the orthodox idea that time is relative.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> God the Father has been proved to exist.  The evidence is overwhelming as science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> Lol.  Everyone here thinks you've gone looney tunes.  You're the most hateful atheist person I've met of God the Father.  I'm still waiting for some physical evidence which you, Grumblenuts, or any atheist scientists cannot provide.  Where's the science that backs up all those fake papers the atheist scientists wrote?



Laugh all you like.  
Show me one instance where science has studied the bible and unequivocally supports it as fact and a repeatable experiment.  
I'll wait here.  See how good you are now.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> I'm still waiting for some physical evidence which you, @Grumblenuts, or any atheist scientists cannot provide.


Here ya go, son. Straight from the government. Study hard!




__





						Our Solar System
					

An overview of our local neighborhood in the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy.




					solarsystem.nasa.gov


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 28, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> However, neither "explains" a damned thing about the why, what, how of gravity.


They do explain the how, and that is all science will ever explain.  "Why" and "what" are the purview of the imagination.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 28, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They do explain the how, and that is all science will ever explain.  "Why" and "what" are the purview of the imagination.


Science is just study. It invites investigating things in logical, practical ways. Explaining things is never what it does. But *you* could attempt explaining "the how" of gravity at least..


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 28, 2021)

g5000 said:


> There is no gravity.  The Earth sucks.
> 
> On a more serious note, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was proven by an experiment during a solar eclipse in 1919.  Space does indeed warp near large bodies of mass.



No gravity?? Are you completely mad? 
Jump off the roof and tell me why you hit the ground. 

As for Einstein's theory,  you're stark raving barking mad. Dumb as dog shit.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 28, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Jump off the roof and tell me why you hit the ground.


It's not gravity. Gravity is one of the hypothetical unfortunate explanations for this.

If we ask why a stone flies down and a balloon up, gravity sucks and the Aristotelian explanation works


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 28, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> It's not gravity. Gravity is one of the hypothetical unfortunate explanations for this.
> 
> If we ask why a stone flies down and a balloon up, gravity sucks and the Aristotelian explanation works



And exactly what is the Aristotelian theory? 


Everybody.  Watch this intellectual  mountain destroy the theory  of gravity.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> And exactly what is the Aristotelian theory?
> 
> 
> Everybody.  Watch this intellectual  mountain destroy the theory  of gravity.


Aristotle said that light and heavy are mutually displaced by each other, light matter goes from the center and heavy to the center, that is, down


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> destroy the theory of gravity


This is not required, it has long been exposed


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

By the way, the fact that in English the word "light" is opposed at the same time to "heavy" and "dark" is not accidental.
The ancients attributed the element of light to brightness associated with ether.


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Here ya go, son. Straight from the government. Study hard!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is the kind of paper I've been warning you about as lies written by atheist scientists.  It's not a formal science paper, but it gives one a general idea.

For example,

"
Formation​Our solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a dense cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The cloud collapsed, possibly due to the shockwave of a nearby exploding star, called a supernova. When this dust cloud collapsed, it formed a solar nebula – a spinning, swirling disk of material.

At the center, gravity pulled more and more material in. Eventually, the pressure in the core was so great that hydrogen atoms began to combine and form helium, releasing a tremendous amount of energy. With that, our Sun was born, and it eventually amassed more than 99% of the available matter.

Matter farther out in the disk was also clumping together. These clumps smashed into one another, forming larger and larger objects. Some of them grew big enough for their gravity to shape them into spheres, becoming planets, dwarf planets, and large moons. In other cases, planets did not form: the asteroid belt is made of bits and pieces of the early solar system that could never quite come together into a planet. Other smaller leftover pieces became asteroids, comets, meteoroids, and small, irregular moons."

Do you actually believe this?  It's an informal science article on atheist science.  Where is the hard evidence?  Is there another scenario where we see this happening?  I asked you to show me that when you find it before.  My point is no one has seen this nor has seen it happen today.  All of atheist science has those qualities.  Why?  It's bullsh*t.

The reality is we see other galaxies, solar systems, stars, black holes, and other heavenly bodies, but nothing that the above is referring to.  They were all created beforehand by a creator.  This shows the vastness of his work and we continue to see it expand as the universe expands.

Why don't you _think hard_ about what I said?  What do you expect to see from above?  Ask these atheist scientists for hard proof.  Something that we should be able to see and understand of the above.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Due to the flawed hypothesis of gravitation, they are forced to nail down the law of pushing out, although the downward movement of matter does not fundamentally differ from the upward movement.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> This is not required, it has long been exposed



Show the link from whoever proved it wrong? Put your money where your mouth is. 
I'll bet you can't and you are as dumb as a stump.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Aristotle said that light and heavy are mutually displaced by each other, light matter goes from the center and heavy to the center, that is, down



We know.  It's called gravity. Duuuuuuuh.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Aristotle said that light and heavy are mutually displaced by each other, light matter goes from the center and heavy to the center, that is, down



No he did not.  Here is what he said and you are wrong. Admit it or go away. 









						Gravity: From Apples to the Universe
					

How our ideas of gravity have changed from Aristotle to the present day.



					www.britannica.com


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Show the link from whoever proved it wrong? Put your money where your mouth is.
> I'll bet you can't and you are as dumb as a stump.


This is discussed above. argumentum ad hominem means surrender


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> We know


No, You do not


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No he did not


Yes he did. This writen in his "Phisics"


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

According to Occam's law, the correct explanation  is simpler and does not require additional entities. For the sake of Newtonian gravity, an additional entity has been introduced: Archimedes' principle


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No he did not.  Here is what he said and you are wrong. Admit it or go away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More SFE and POS from you.  Aristotle was prolly an atheist.  He's adored by the likes of you, but said some stupid shat.  Is that why you guys/gals adore him?

"The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said that objects fall because each of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) had their natural place, and these elements had a tendency to move back toward their natural place. Thus, objects that were made of earth wanted to return to Earth, whereas fire, for example, rose toward heaven."

As usual, atheists were wrong.


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Fast Forward*
> 
> Postmodern science gives you an out for explaining the discrepancy between the measured age of the Earth and its Biblical age.  God accelerated all the processes, which follows from the orthodox idea that time is relative.


The measured age of the Earth from meteors/space rocks in 1956 was wrong.  The atheist geochemist made assumptions that were wrong and didn't know radioactive decay doesn't fit calendar year.  OTOH, the creationists just used radiocarbon dating on organic materials and discovered dinosaur fossils still had C14 remaining and soft tissue inside.  That's hard evidence.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> More SFE and POS from you. Aristotle was prolly an atheist. He's adored by the likes of you, but said some stupid shat. Is that why you guys/gals adore him?
> 
> "The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said that objects fall because each of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) had their natural place, and these elements had a tendency to move back toward their natural place. Thus, objects that were made of earth wanted to return to Earth, whereas fire, for example, rose toward heaven."
> 
> As usual, atheists were wrong.


Usually illiterate people who did not read Aristotle and do not understand the context, think that he used words like "earth" or "fire" in the literal sense, but they mean heaviness and density.

Also, illiterate people are most often confused in the concepts of atheism and materialism. You can be a materialist and a theist, like the Jews and Christian nominalists, you can deny God, but to be an idealist, these are not related concepts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Science is just study. It invites investigating things in logical, practical ways. Explaining things is never what it does. But *you* could attempt explaining "the how" of gravity at least..


See classical physics and relativity. Best we got.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Show the link from whoever proved it wrong? Put your money where your mouth is.
> I'll bet you can't and you are as dumb as a stump.


Frannie the sock troll will waste your time for as long as you let him.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> The measured age of the Earth from meteors/space rocks in 1956 was wrong.  The atheist geochemist made assumptions that were wrong and didn't know radioactive decay doesn't fit calendar year.  OTOH, the creationists just used radiocarbon dating on organic materials and discovered dinosaur fossils still had C14 remaining and soft tissue inside.  That's hard evidence.


Creationer frauds did nothing of the kind.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Idealists are distinguished by the  materialists not by the fact that they believe in "God", but by the fact that they assert that reality exists beyond sensibility and is intelligible (which was also accept by correct physicists)


----------



## Hollie (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> More SFE and POS from you.  Aristotle was prolly an atheist.  He's adored by the likes of you, but said some stupid shat.  Is that why you guys/gals adore him?
> 
> "The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said that objects fall because each of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) had their natural place, and these elements had a tendency to move back toward their natural place. Thus, objects that were made of earth wanted to return to Earth, whereas fire, for example, rose toward heaven."
> 
> As usual, atheists were wrong.


Science has progressed since the time of Aristotle. Religioners have not.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

In fact, physics and idealism are identical concepts, because the physicist speaks of intelligible forces, unlike the priest Newton and the materialists, who tried to reduce everything to mathematics


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 29, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> Interesting theory but I prefer my own.
> 
> In my theory, Gravity is simply the result of the cumulative magnetic properties of all of the atoms contained in matter. The more mass, the more atoms, the higher the concentration, the more gravity, etc.



Gravity and magnetism both are proportional to inverse distance squared, but Magnetism is a property of matter, while according to general theory of relativity, gravity is the property of space time itself. Magnetism depends on the electronic configuration, temperature and orientation of atoms of a material, while the force of gravitation only depends on the mass of the material.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

There are traces of scholastic manipulation in the languages. The words heaven and heaviness in English have the same root, and this completely contradicts the ideas of the ancient physicists about the lightest ether, and human experience, from which it follows that the lung things always rises up. This is an inversion, which is typical, just as the words devil and god were reversed, and the first to do this in the pre-Abrahamic Zoroastrian tradition((Devs and Assurs)).


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Something similar, although not exactly the same, is in the Slavic languages, where the word sky("ne-bo" that is "not being") means literally nothingness


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

The Indo-European root for heaven is "div" and its flexive variations, which include the words "devil" and "divine"
The very word "divine" meant the same as "heavenly", "from sky"


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie the sock troll will waste your time for as long as you let him.


Aww jeez.  I thought he was banned .


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Science has progressed since the time of Aristotle. Religioners have not.


What can you tell me about Aristotle?  And the four elements or were there more?

Who are Religioners?  No such word oh ignorant one, Flattie Hollie .


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

And the words "god" and the Slavic "bog" come from the name of reptiles and chthonic gods (for example, Hades, the lord of the undergound, in variant "gades" just reduct to "god", in fonetic just "gad", this word in slavic means "reptilia")


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Thus, the names of gods and properties of nature are inverted in modern language.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

*Light* comes from the *heav*en, but the *heav*en is *heav*y. It is grammatical oxymoron.
Who needed it and why?


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

By the way, the words light and Lucifer are also the same root in the sense of origin.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Grammatically logical the name of the sky is "lighten" instead "heaven". Is it clear?

So, how Neutonianism and Atomism releative here?


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

*I think that if these questions are solved, we will find out how nature works and find out the root of evil.*


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

by the way, and the name of evolution grammatically means "path to evil"


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Here at least one thing is clear. The model built on the basis of Aristotle's physics is more adequate and does not require the use of long-range magic. Namely: the heavy substance descends to the centers of mass and the light substance tends from the centers, thus creating the space that we actually observe. Ether is an insulator between the accumulations of masses. The mass is the heavier and closer to the center, the less it contains ether (the distance between particles is greater)


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

In this context, it is interesting to consider the expansion of a substance upon heating. It turns out that even in a mechanically isolated medium, ether penetrates there, it becomes more when heated.
Accordingly, the more ether (and less heavy matter) the lighter the body becomes.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

By the way, this also directly exposes Newtohn's speculations. When heated, it is not the mass that changes, but the density of the substance, and Newton manipulates only the masses, not to mention the density


----------



## g5000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> No gravity?? Are you completely mad?
> Jump off the roof and tell me why you hit the ground.
> 
> As for Einstein's theory,  you're stark raving barking mad. Dumb as dog shit.


Dude.  It was a joke. A very old one. 

Here: there is no gravity the earth sucks - Google Search


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> by the way, and the name of evolution grammatically means "path to evil"


evolution - etymology - from Oxford Languages rather than being apparently plucked straight from one's buttocks.. :


> early 17th century: from Latin _evolutio(n-_ ) ‘unrolling’, from the verb _evolvere_ (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ maneuver in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> See classical physics and relativity. Best we got.


Been there, done that, moved on.. Best keep reading and think for yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Been there, done that, moved on.. Best keep reading and think for yourself.


Then go ahead and link us to your published research. Not your fantastic message board streams of consciousness. Actual research.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> According to Occam's law, the correct explanation  is simpler and does not require additional entities.


That's not correct.

Occam's law says the simplest explanation which correctly explains the observed data is more likely to be correct. Not surely correct, just more likely to be correct.

However, since all of your very peculiar theories are flatly contradicted by observed data, they're all completely wrong, regardless of how simple they are.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then go ahead and link us to your published research. Not your fantastic message board streams of consciousness. Actual research.


Oh, so it's "us" again, not your "we""we"! That's nice. And arrogant. Me, I just can't help being biased in favor of explanations that actually make sense. You want to publish a paper? Knock yourself out. As you've been informed, I'm not interested. Don't like it? Go fish. In case you've somehow failed to notice, this is a political message board, not some online gathering of mainstream physics dogma regurgitating lemmings.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> from Oxford


It is not interesting for me. Surely the Oxford also welcomes the preaching of priests like Newton
This word is associated with the words villain, Vaal and will, and the Slavic "vlast" and "Veles" (this is an analogue of the Vedic Vritra, which was also called Valu.) Here you can feel a semantic connection in addition to grammatical.
All these words in one way or another correlate with reptiles and worms, this is also confirmed by the Slavic word "volos"


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> The reality is we see other galaxies, solar systems, stars, black holes, and other heavenly bodies, but nothing that the above is referring to. They were all created beforehand by a creator. This shows the vastness of his work and we continue to see it expand as the universe expands.


Wait,.. what was created before what now?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh, so it's "us" again, not your "we""we"! That's nice. And arrogant.


No, i didn't form the body of science. But i did anticipate a steaming turd of ad hominem in place of any actual theory or research. The fact that you have internalized your ideas and take personal offense when you are requested to meet the most basic standards of evidence or argument is a definitive demonstration that the basis of your theory is:

"Because I say so!"

Sounds like you would be more at home in the Religion section of the board, heh heh

Settle down. Any rational person would make the same request of you. No arrogance required. But, insisting you have outsmarted the global scientific community, despite having no relevant education, experience, or published research?

Now THAT is the height of arrogance.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> from Latin _evolutio(n-_ )


By the way, this does not even contradict, this could also happen from the unfolding of the snake


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> By the way, this does not even contradict, this could also happen from the unfolding of the snake


Or a flower, rope, hose! All are just so damned "evil"!


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

All this is not directly related to the topic, but it touches it in the sense that it would be nice to find out why the churchmen, Newtonians and Einsteinians so zealously defend atomism, what are their motives for this.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Or a flower, rope, hose! All are just so damned "evil"!


Where is the grammatical connection with the "vl" type root?


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

g5000 said:


> Dude.  It was a joke. A very old one.
> 
> Here: there is no gravity the earth sucks - Google Search



The OP is a complete nut.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> evolution - etymology - from Oxford Languages rather than being apparently plucked straight from one's buttocks.. :


*"If It Doesn't Fit, Stretch It"*

He is following down the dialectical path of Plato's absurd _Cratylus, _forcing etymologies into the Procrustean bed of his ideology.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

There is some connection with the word "willing", because in Sanskrit the analogous word of serpentine semantics meant desire and pleasure and God(bhoga), only it is not clear how it degenerated into the form of the future tense "will"
Although the connection is visible here. The subjunctive inclination could be used as a future tense


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wait,.. what was created before what now?


Pay attention to context.

I said:
"
This is the kind of paper I've been warning you about as lies written by atheist scientists. It's not a formal science paper, but it gives one a general idea.

For example,

"
Formation​Our solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a dense cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The cloud collapsed, possibly due to the shockwave of a nearby exploding star, called a supernova. When this dust cloud collapsed, it formed a solar nebula – a spinning, swirling disk of material.

At the center, gravity pulled more and more material in. Eventually, the pressure in the core was so great that hydrogen atoms began to combine and form helium, releasing a tremendous amount of energy. With that, our Sun was born, and it eventually amassed more than 99% of the available matter.

Matter farther out in the disk was also clumping together. These clumps smashed into one another, forming larger and larger objects. Some of them grew big enough for their gravity to shape them into spheres, becoming planets, dwarf planets, and large moons. In other cases, planets did not form: the asteroid belt is made of bits and pieces of the early solar system that could never quite come together into a planet. Other smaller leftover pieces became asteroids, comets, meteoroids, and small, irregular moons."

*Do you actually believe this?* It's an informal science article on atheist science. *Where is the hard evidence? Is there another scenario where we see this happening? I asked you to show me that when you find it before. My point is no one has seen this nor has seen it happen today. All of atheist science has those qualities. Why? It's bullsh*t.

The reality is we see other galaxies, solar systems, stars, black holes, and other heavenly bodies, but nothing that the above is referring to. They were all created beforehand by a creator. This shows the vastness of his work and we continue to see it expand as the universe expands.

Why don't you think hard about what I said? What do you expect to see from above? Ask these atheist scientists for hard proof. Something that we should be able to see and understand of the above.*"

*Or do I have to go over what happened on each day of creation?*


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Or a flower, rope, hose! All are just so damned "evil"!


*Meden Agan*

_Evil _is related to "over," just as _hubris _is related to "hyper." The idea was that going to extremes was what must be avoided, not any characteristic in itself.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

It should also be noted that Western European languages, including English, are languages with a completely changed grammar. Some time these peoples spoke Latin and derivatives, Old English was still with Latin grammar, it was completely destroyed in the Middle Ages and only irregular verbs remained. Therefore, these languages are, as it were, redrawn, they did not develop naturally.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Yes he did. This writen in his "Phisics"


You've got nothing but continually pissing against the wind. Poor justifications for your ignorance won't cut it you fool. 
The Internet should get IQ assessments before people like you are admitted.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You've got nothing but continually pissing against the wind. Poor justifications for your ignorance won't cut it you fool.
> The Internet should get IQ assessments before people like you are admitted.


Bad news for you. IQ is falling and the number of autistic people is growing exponentially. Some associate this with Einstein, he also had autism
And this is main Newton's advocate.
Are you aware that Iq is inversely proportional to the autistic mindset?

PS
No, the news even worse Newton was also autistic


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Bad news for you. IQ is falling and the number of autistic people is growing exponentially. Some associate this with Einstein, he also had autism
> And this is main Newton's advocate.
> Are you aware that Iq is inversely proportional to the autistic mindset?



You're wrong again. He had aspergers. A common trait amongst brilliant people. 

Are you aware that Iq is inversely proportional to the autistic

Sorry mate.  You really are projecting  lies now.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You're wrong again. He had aspergers.


According to my data, it was autism



Colin norris said:


> A common trait amongst brilliant people.



this is the data of the yellow press of the last decade, according to real statistics, autists have a very low IQ

But even without statistics, this is obvious, because the autistic brain has the architecture of a modern computer, it puts programs in memory and executes them, but is not capable of improvisation. IQ does not show these properties, but the ability to analyze and generalize. This explains why Newton and Einstein mostly plagiarized, and only adapted other people's work to their needs.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> According to my data, it was autism
> 
> Show your  data because I know you don't have it.
> 
> ...


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> brilliant people


There is even medical term High-functioning autism, that relate to the autists with IQ>70, that is standard for autists <70. And your belives in that nonsence "autists are genious" not says that you have high IQ lol


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Or do I have to go over what happened on each day of creation?


Certainly not if you're just going to quote more Bible mythology. As you say but never supply "*Where is the hard evidence?" *iI just asked you a simple question, what came before what? Fill in the blanks (or "what"s in this case). Reason being, as you've now repeated, *you assert:*


> *The reality is we see other galaxies, solar systems, stars, black holes, and other heavenly bodies, but nothing that the above is referring to.*


The underlined seems a rather nutty and unsupported assertion. Mankind has "seen" or observed galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and many other things. What hard evidence do you have for believing the Milky Way came last or first or whatever?


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> There is even medical term High-functioning autism, that relate to the autists with IQ>70,
> That assessment is the same as "normal" people although people like you will never achieve that number.
> 
> that is standard for autists <70. And your belives in that nonsence "autists are genious" not says that you have high IQ lol
> ...


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Pay attention to context.
> 
> I said:
> "
> ...


Id love you to go through it day by day and provide evidence, not your silly bible.  Just the facts. See how good you are now dickhead.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

I don't know, everywhere writen that Neuton and Einstein had properties of autists. The term itself became use later. The fact of plagiat of both confirm that they was autists. Direct strict evidence imposible there.

But your lies are obvious here, at least for me. I have been taken in different times IQ tests with results in the 100-120 range, and this is not considered a low IQ lol. Even first time it was >100


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Certainly not if you're just going to quote more Bible mythology. As you say but never supply "*Where is the hard evidence?" *iI just asked you a simple question, what came before what? Fill in the blanks (or "what"s in this case). Reason being, as you've now repeated, *you assert:*
> 
> The underlined seems a rather nutty and unsupported assertion. Mankind has "seen" or observed galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and many other things. What hard evidence do you have for believing the Milky Way came last or first or whatever?


The Bible isn't mythology.  It's the creator's word and science backs it up.  I just provided the evidence for a global flood.  Also, the explanation of where all the energy in the universe originated.  OTOH, what you believe has no evidence.  It's really looney tunes as space rocks become the sun, Earth, or our solar system.  Or humans came from ape-humans that never appear nor exist today.  What person in their right mind believes that?  Talk about nutty.  You can't excuse it by saying it's only a theory.  It's nutso beyond belief.

The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing.  The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after. 

Otherwise, evolution would've had monkeys who walk, new solar systems being formed, NASA wouldn't still be looking for aliens or life on other planets, etc.  Don't give me that we haven't had enough time yet malarky.  We don't even see a single cell become two sexes.  Do frogs change sex if there are only one sex?  IOW, your atheist side should've won with science backing it up, but you provide nothing.  It means science does not back your non-beliefs up.


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> *Do you actually believe this?* *Where is the hard evidence?*



Everywhere.  Take your pick.  Astronomers have resolved numerous new stars and resulting solar systems gravitationally coalescing out of the nascent solar nebula in various gaseous clouds all over the sky.  Here is but one of them with multiple insets below along with other images at various stages.  Every stage of their development has been observed along predicted lines to the point that there can be no question what is going on.  I see no conflict here with theism.


----------



## rupol2000 (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> aspergers


This is a type of autism
Included in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).
Even assuming they had an IQ of 70, they would not good for the US Marine Corps.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Everywhere.  Take your pick.  Astronomers have resolved numerous new stars and resulting solar systems gravitationally coalescing out of the nascent solar nebula in various gaseous clouds all over the sky.  Here is but one of them with multiple insets below along with other images at various stages.  Every stage of their development has been observed along predicted lines to the point that there can be no question what is going on.  I see no conflict here with theism.
> 
> 
> View attachment 545273
> ...


That has been spoonfed to the fraud troll Bond more than once already.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible isn't mythology.  It's the creator's word and science backs it up.  I just provided the evidence for a global flood.  Also, the explanation of where all the energy in the universe originated.  OTOH, what you believe has no evidence.  It's really looney tunes as space rocks become the sun, Earth, or our solar system.  Or humans came from ape-humans that never appear nor exist today.  What person in their right mind believes that?  Talk about nutty.  You can't excuse it by saying it's only a theory.  It's nutso beyond belief.
> 
> The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing.  The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after.
> 
> Otherwise, evolution would've had monkeys who walk, new solar systems being formed, NASA wouldn't still be looking for aliens or life on other planets, etc.  Don't give me that we haven't had enough time yet malarky.  We don't even see a single cell become two sexes.  Do frogs change sex if there are only one sex?  IOW, your atheist side should've won with science backing it up, but you provide nothing.  It means science does not back your non-beliefs up.


The problem you share with the hyper-religious is mindlessly reiterating the dogma you are indoctrinated with at your madrassah. The bibles are the tales and fables of the Men who wrote them. It may come as a shock for you to learn that no gods had any involvement with any of the bibles.


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Everywhere.  Take your pick.  Astronomers have resolved numerous new stars and resulting solar systems gravitationally coalescing out of the nascent solar nebula in various gaseous clouds all over the sky.  Here is but one of them with multiple insets below along with other images at various stages.  Every stage of their development has been observed along predicted lines to the point that there can be no question what is going on.  I see no conflict here with theism.
> 
> 
> View attachment 545273
> ...


Now, we're getting someplace, but can you answer what came first in the overall scheme of things?


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Now, we're getting someplace, but can you answer what came first in the overall scheme of things?



You need to be more specific.  I know you are far from being a dummy and I know more than my fair share about astronomy, gravity, and religion having almost gone into astronomy and astrophysics as my profession and having taught it, having served in an adjunct field of physics all my life, and being a devout theist.


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You need to be more specific.  I know you are far from being a dummy and I know more than my fair share about astronomy, gravity, and religion having almost gone into astronomy and astrophysics as my profession and having taught it, having served in an adjunct field of physics all my life, and being a devout theist.


Grumblenuts believes in stuff without hard evidence, i.e. by reading some atheist scientist's paper and I can only guess this convinces him.  It doesn't sound like he has the answers that you have.  He ignores my questions, so we can't have a conversation but I just end up with his questions regarding my work.  It gets tiring, one-sided, and I end up doing all the work.

Thus, it's great that you can answer my questions directed at the atheists here.  Thank you.

I have one more comment and I'm not doubting you, but creation scientists say these star formations are not what the atheist scientists state.  What you showed are relatively new techniques (circa 2008),

"allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail.  The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 km (31 miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars. Young-universe creationist physicists and astronomers tend to be skeptical of reports claiming certain stars have recently formed. These claims often make many assumptions including that (1) the age of the star is known based on today’s accepted ideas of millions of years of stellar evolution and (2) that the dust disk surrounding the star had a role in the star’s formation. Evolutionary scientists would often assume the dust disk formed at about the same time as the star, though astronomers were not present to observe such events in the past."


----------



## Clyde 154 (Sep 29, 2021)

waltky said:


> Emergent gravity may explain dark matter...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Might Explain"........is enough reading.  What is theoretical physics?  There is no such animal....as PHYSICS deal with the physical properties of phenomena and the LAWS of SCIENCE that govern them. There are no laws, no facts derived within the concepts of any theory, its all philosophy (ideology that exist within the confines of human thought).  The entire supposed SCIENCE of COSMOLOGY is based upon conjecture, speculation, and assumptions based upon FACTS that are observable and reproducible through scientific experimentation as exist TODAY or within the confines of recorded history.........

One basic tenet of any theory is the assumption that was is observed today must have always been observed in the past....even when the attempt is made to apply these present observations to ENONS past.  In reality its a scientific fact that the entire universe is in a constant state of motion and change......nothing stays the same in the universe with the exception of the demonstrable LAWS OF PHYSICS.   Theories are theories for a reason..........there is no methodology to derive the facts required to present the suggestion contained in theory to prove it as a fact/law of science.

Some even attempt to declare Radio Carbon Dating as a FACT of science because of what is observed in the present in an application of long dead examples of life......when in reality, it might be a fact that the use of radio carbon dating is used to date extreme examples of past life..........the entire principle is based upon the THEORY of RADIOACTIVE DECAY remaining constant throughout the eons....when its a proven fact that something so simple as WATER LEECHING can drastically alter that rate of decay.  Reality:  The only source of calibration that can exist in Radio Carbon Dating is that which can be observed TODAY as within the confines of Observable History..........There is no CONSTANT source by which to calibrate this concept based upon ASSUMPTION.

Once you get past the dates in which Radio Carbon Dating can be proven correct...........this supposed science then uses CIRCULAR logic to project any date they wish to target.  Example:  A fossil is dated by the supposed age of the strata in which its found.........and in turn the strata is then subject to the DATE claimed for the fossils found therein.

I only hope that if my remains are ever uncovered a few thousand years in the future they do not claim that I was as old as the dirt that I was buried beneath.  

At best.........this theory is not considered accurate past a few Millennium, certainly its not valid for the millions and billions of years claimed.  You should see them scramble in an attempt to explain just how SOFT TISSUE has been found in examples of animal life that was projected to have been extinct for 60 million + years.   It was the DIRT that held special properties in preserving those exceptional remains.......yada, yada, yada,


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> This is a type of autism
> Included in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).
> Even assuming they had an IQ of 70, they would not good for the US Marine Corps.



Now you are moving away from your original statement. You made a couple of lies. Stop exacerbating it. You're not fooling me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

Clyde 154 said:


> What is theoretical physics?


It's an entire field of physics. They work out theoretical solutions and models. Then the models get tested to get empirical evidence.


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> "allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail.  The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 km (31 miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.


That's all right.  It is called synthetic aperture, a technical and mathematical way of increasing final linear resolution using multi-scope baseline interferometry.



james bond said:


> Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form.


Naturally as these processes are very slow on human time scales but we have witnessed one or two new black holes being created.



james bond said:


> Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


That is a simplification of countless observations and measurements combined with an understanding of the physical processes involved.



james bond said:


> Young-universe creationist physicists and astronomers tend to be skeptical of reports claiming certain stars have recently formed. These claims often make many assumptions including that (1) the age of the star is known based on today’s accepted ideas of millions of years of stellar evolution and (2) that the dust disk surrounding the star had a role in the star’s formation. Evolutionary scientists would often assume the dust disk formed at about the same time as the star, though astronomers were not present to observe such events in the past."


No, the physics do not support that.  Though not perfect, the understanding of entropy, matter, stellar dynamics and gravitation makes certain that science is on the right track.  Some of this has even been confirmed in experiments aboard the ISS:  gas and dust attract each other forming dense molecular clouds in space that when hit with expanding shells from various stellar explosions send volumes of matter into condensed regions where gravitational attraction starts inevitable contraction and rotation forming new stars and their orbiting bodies. If I had more time, they have even imaged stars literally emerging from the nebular condensation!  I mean some of this is far better researched and documented than many of the man-made climate change claims!  

I have no doubt of it.  That said, none of this conflicts with a supreme being or original cause;  the problem with creationism is that it was invented by a small group of people trying to invent an explanation that bridges the gap between thousands of years old biblical understanding and explanations to account for recent science discoveries and they just can't.  Sorry, but there is just no way the universe is only a few thousand years old.  It is sheer lunacy to think that God's six days of creation actually relate to our length of day.  For all we know, one of God's days could be hundreds of millions of years long!  Even the chemical make-up of stars confirms this is the case.  Hope this answered some of your questions.


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Naturally as these processes are very slow on human time scales but we have witnessed one or two new black holes being created.


Yes, and that's the problem.  I can believe you saw a black hole being created because you have expertise in the field and others who saw it, too.  However, that's different from a star being created.  If that takes millions of years, then no one can see it.



toobfreak said:


> That is a simplification of countless observations and measurements combined with an understanding of the physical processes involved.


Maybe so, but I know you didn't see a star form if it took a million years.

Moreover, the creation scientists state, "Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks. Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”

...

"So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, for example, gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear."

I'm deliberately leaving out creation from the above, so we can just look at the atheist scientist's view and evaluate.

Full article here


			https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/aid/v3/star-formation-creation.pdf


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> No, the physics do not support that. Though not perfect, the understanding of entropy, matter, stellar dynamics and gravitation makes certain that science is on the right track. Some of this has even been confirmed in experiments aboard the ISS: gas and dust attract each other forming dense molecular clouds in space that when hit with expanding shells from various stellar explosions send volumes of matter into condensed regions where gravitational attraction starts inevitable contraction and rotation forming new stars and their orbiting bodies. If I had more time, they have even imaged stars literally emerging from the nebular condensation! I mean some of this is far better researched and documented than many of the man-made climate change claims!
> 
> I have no doubt of it. That said, none of this conflicts with a supreme being or original cause; the problem with creationism is that it was invented by a small group of people trying to invent an explanation that bridges the gap between thousands of years old biblical understanding and explanations to account for recent science discoveries and they just can't. Sorry, but there is just no way the universe is only a few thousand years old. It is sheer lunacy to think that God's six days of creation actually relate to our length of day. For all we know, one of God's days could be hundreds of millions of years long! Even the chemical make-up of stars confirms this is the case. Hope this answered some of your questions.


Oops, forgot the more difficult stuff to understand .

I can't argue whether or not the science is on the right track as I don't understand what you are talking about.  Basically, how do you know the stars are forming?  I don't think we know for certain because we can't see what happened if it was a million years of time.  There's no way we can keep track.

I don't think any of it conflicts with God and creation in six days except for the timeline, i.e. young vs old.  We know from the Bible that God made a mature universe, Earth, and everything in it.  (The only baby was Baby Jesus.)

What about our solar system formation?  How can everything form the way it did and stay in its place?  I had the visualization of gravity in another post and the larger mass sun attracted the smaller mass planets and other bodies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> I can't argue whether or not the science is on the right track as I don't understand what you are talking about.


Yes.... continue... follow this path you have found...


----------



## james bond (Sep 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes.... continue... follow this path you have found...


You couldn't explain 💩 for years and had to let someone else provide the evidence which doesn't show what you _desperately_ want it to show.  Once he did, you jumped to conclusions like a shocked monkey that was shocked so good.

The creationists can easily show proof that the universe was created because it had a beginning and began to exist.  Occam's razor.  It wasn't the eternal universe that the atheist scientists claimed.  Are you _shocked_ now?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creationists can easily show proof that the universe was created because it had a beginning and began to exist.


That's pretty darn funny. Pounding your bibles and screeching. "because the bibles say so'', is not 'pwoof' of anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing. The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after.


Really? No cheese? So what was the Earth shaped like back then? What do you mean by "outer space"? Aren't "black holes" empty? How can they "fill" anything?


----------



## james bond (Sep 30, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That's pretty darn funny. Pounding your bibles and screeching. "because the bibles say so'', is not 'pwoof' of anything.


Science says that and it backs up what the Bible stated.  Prior to that the atheists and their scientists claimed an eternal universe.  Instead, we know there was a beginning with the big bang.  It grew out of Einstein's general ToR.  This goes to show you didn't know the science.  We're in S&T.


----------



## james bond (Sep 30, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Really? No cheese? So what was the Earth shaped like back then? What do you mean by "outer space"? Aren't "black holes" empty? How can they "fill" anything?


What do you think happened?  We should have some overlap even though the timing and other things may be different.


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Yes, and that's the problem.  I can believe you saw a black hole being created because you have expertise in the field and others who saw it, too.  However, that's different from a star being created.  If that takes millions of years, then no one can see it.


Well, you see, the moment a star lights up internally, there is a delay in that light even getting to the surface.  The sunlight you see outside right now was likely created thousands of years ago and has been trapped in the dense solar matter slowly working its way to the surface.  Then the other problem is that the star is buried deep within the solar nebula, the torus of gas and dust around the star not consumed by it waiting to condense into rocky and gaseous planetary bodies the excess of which will be pushed away and eventually cleared up by the solar pressure of the star once it fully ignites.  So it isn't like someone flicked a switch and BAM, a star appears!  But here is one such star making its first appearance outside its nebular torus:





But it isn't conjecture either.  You don't see a cornstalk or a tomato plant grow neither yet you know they come from seed.  Step by step you first see the seed sprout, then you see the dicotyledon emerge, then the stem then the first set of leaves.  You come back the next day and see more leaves, then over weeks, you see the plant grow and bear fruit.  There is no doubt the plant grows from seed yet if you sit there all day long and watch the plant, it just sits there doing nothing.  There is no doubt about the life and development of stars and planets.




james bond said:


> Moreover, the creation scientists state, "Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago.


I'd love for anyone to explain to me the physical processes of how that works!  Pure hypothetical conjecture by pseudoscientists.



james bond said:


> The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.


Again, I need someone to point out a Pop II star that fits that description.



james bond said:


> Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”


For one thing, I have to laugh at whoever wrote the above calling a star just 10 to 100 million years old an "old" star!   There are stars in the sky billions of years old. Further, stellar production is a very complex process with many variables and it is completely understandable to find a "young" star with no accompanying gas cloud, but again, I can't argue vagaries, I need a specific star and situation to see just how "young" the given star is and its particular circumstances! Without specifics, everything presented so far amounts to so much bloviation.



james bond said:


> So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, for example, gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear."


Now this is getting tiresome.  You can't argue in a vacuum, for all I know, the star has a high proper motion and wandered into the nebula, or the gas is actually being ejected, coming from the star itself!  Or maybe a planet broke up or two collided 15,000 years ago leaving a cloud of dust around the star.  This is all pure pseudo science crap and not worth responding to.  If you want to know a little about stellar formation, try these:









						A Review of Stellar Formation Theory
					

Here I review some of the naturalistic theories of how stars form. I discuss many topics never described in the creation literature before.




					answersresearchjournal.org
				












						Star formation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Stellar evolution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Basically, how do you know the stars are forming?  What about our solar system formation?  How can everything form the way it did and stay in its place?



JB, read my other post.  Looking about this thread, no one here seems to have even a basic grasp of physics as a basis of common understanding to relate to.  It takes years of study to really understand stellar physics, so, I can't PROVE anything to you balancing on one foot.  Astronomers study new star formation every day, most every galaxy shows it along planes of gravity waves within its arms, it borderlines on sheer lunacy to doubt it, even our own planets move around, at one point Jupiter likely wandered inward close to the Sun long ago then moved back out near Saturn.  For anyone to suggest our universe is but a few thousand years old formed in place with a million million million million things already in place and that God somehow arranged myriad obscure and subtle clues in everything so that one day man would evolve science a few thousand years later to discover them all suggesting a false pattern of very complete evolution and chemistry going back billions of years that is unreal just to cling to archaic, outmoded biblical notions is beyond hilarity!   It is to say that 99.9% of all the work God did in creating the universe was all done just to make complete asses of mankind fooling him thousands of years in the future with the most elaborate gag.

God wove a trillion trillion trillion clues deep within the fabric of creation not to make fools of us misleading us, but so that one day we could find them to unravel the true reality of how things really work for our continued survival.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Science says that and it backs up what the Bible stated.  Prior to that the atheists and their scientists claimed an eternal universe.  Instead, we know there was a beginning with the big bang.  It grew out of Einstein's general ToR.  This goes to show you didn't know the science.  We're in S&T.


Actually, nothing in science "backs up" the gods waving their magic wands and magically creating the known universe.


----------



## james bond (Sep 30, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Actually, nothing in science "backs up" the gods waving their magic wands and magically creating the known universe.


What's weird to me is you and Grumblenuts can't answer my questions.  If my side was mythology, then you would've disproved it with your answers.  Instead, science backs me and the Bible up while you and your side just complain and beotch.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2021)

james bond said:


> What's weird to me is you and Grumblenuts can't answer my questions.  If my side was mythology, then you would've disproved it with your answers.  Instead, science backs me and the Bible up while you and your side just complain and beotch.


You didn't pose questions, you simply reiterated fundamentalist religious dogma. 

No one has any burden of "disproving" specious religious claims. Your screeching about "the Bibles say so" is not an argument. Your specious claims that "science backs up the bibles" is undemonstrated nonsense.


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You didn't pose questions, you simply reiterated fundamentalist religious dogma.
> 
> No one has any burden of "disproving" specious religious claims. Your screeching about "the Bibles say so" is not an argument. Your specious claims that "science backs up the bibles" is undemonstrated nonsense.


Heh.  More excuses and more no answers.  Might as well take your reply to mean that you admitted you lost and lost badly.  You haven't even mentioned gravity.  Explaining how it works would be too hard for you and make your head explode.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> Heh.  More excuses and more no answers.  Might as well take your reply to mean that you admitted you lost and lost badly.  You haven't even mentioned gravity.  Explaining how it works would be too hard for you and make your head explode.


What did I lose?


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> What did I lose?


You lost the overall argument about what life is all about.  Second, while gravity is _still_ a mystery to all, I knew what there is to know and you didn't even mention it.  It just means you can look in the mirror and sing...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> You lost the overall argument about what life is all about.  Second, while gravity is _still_ a mystery to all, I knew what there is to know and you didn't even mention it.  It just means you can look in the mirror and sing...


Like many religious extremists, you spend your life cowering in fear of angy, vengeful gods and you insist on projecting your fears and insecurities on others. You've lost the ability for independent thought and embrace the hive mentality. People like Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones and the cabal of religious loons at your creation ministries exist because fear and ignorance is an earned commodity.


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Like many religious extremists, you spend your life cowering in fear of angy, vengeful gods and you insist on projecting your fears and insecurities on others. You've lost the ability for independent thought and embrace the hive mentality. People like Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones and the cabal of religious loons at your creation ministries exist because fear and ignorance is an earned commodity.


Me an extremist?  Hardly.  I just practice S&T to find out the truth.  Truth alleviates one's fears, but as your post states, you don't know that, remain fearful deep down, and blame it on angry and vengeful God/gods.  What about the anti-Christ?

In regards to religious cults like with Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones you mentioned, it turned out that Jim Jones was a fake and really an atheist and Marxist.  We also have Charles Manson who sounds more like an atheist who took a lot of LSD and other powerful drugs.  There's also the Cult of Reason and their Temple of Reason headed by Richard Dawkins and the Creativity Movement.  Are you a member?

What about LaVeyan Satanism founded by Anton LaVey?  I went to same schools as his daughters, but didn't really know them well.  They were into LSD and other drugs and dressed like witches.  The daughters could be your people.


----------



## Flash (Oct 2, 2021)

Gravity is like, you know, magic or something.

You have something and things are attracted to it.  Amazing I tell you.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Actually, nothing in science "backs up" the gods waving their magic wands and magically creating the known universe.



I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old?  The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet.  That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!

Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge gaps in it.  As a scientist, I can tell you the PROCESS of science is excellent at getting at the truth, but its ability to do so depends on the AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BUILD A THEORY.  Science really has no idea yet what gravity really is or does; it is the height of folly then to expect that it can have a cogent answer for how the universe really started, was created or began.

Nothing in religion or science suggests that God waved a magic wand----- truth is that no one knows exactly how or what happened.  So if you want to use the term "magic" like some primitive for anything above your understanding, fine, but the oldest records we have going back to the beginning of civilization 5,000 years ago passed down through the ages from the Vedas tells us this is how it happened and has been repeated over and over again in the historical record.

Actually, nothing in science precludes the existence and role of God neither!  When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real argument against God by science is that it or He is simply one more thing science as yet can neither prove nor disprove, explain nor dismiss, so the general consensus among scientists is to generally discount those things not at least supported by conjecture, theory or experimentation.  That leaves it up to the individual, much like picking the winner of tomorrow's football to pick where their beliefs fall:

ATHEISTS fall on the side of skepticism because God has not come up and overtly revealed himself to THEM, appeared in Washington DC, nor made any overt proof self-evident that one can measure with a yardstick.

THEISTS fall on the side of belief (faith) because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS.

Take your pick.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 2, 2021)

Flash said:


> Gravity is like, you know, magic or something.  You have something and things are attracted to it.  Amazing I tell you.



You are quite right, Flash!  Gravity IS literally pure fricking magic as far as science can tell.  It happens, but it isn't a force, it has no force carrier that science can identify, it is just "there."  It happens.  That is all we know.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 2, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> check out this video and be enlightened:


I just tried...and I had great success confirming !
I love gravity.
Contra-gravity can be dangerous with heavy things


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> Me an extremist?  Hardly.  I just practice S&T to find out the truth.  Truth alleviates one's fears, but as your post states, you don't know that, remain fearful deep down, and blame it on angry and vengeful God/gods.  What about the anti-Christ?
> 
> In regards to religious cults like with Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones you mentioned, it turned out that Jim Jones was a fake and really an atheist and Marxist.  We also have Charles Manson who sounds more like an atheist who took a lot of LSD and other powerful drugs.  There's also the Cult of Reason and their Temple of Reason headed by Richard Dawkins and the Creativity Movement.  Are you a member?
> 
> What about LaVeyan Satanism founded by Anton LaVey?  I went to same schools as his daughters, but didn't really know them well.  They were into LSD and other drugs and dressed like witches.  The daughters could be your people.


It's a symptom of a maladjusted personality to spend one's life in trembling fear of angry gods, anti-christs, satans and the other imaginary characters who haunt your existence. 

There's a reason why Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert have such influence on folks like you. It's been said that a child who never lets go of his adolescent fears and prejudices has never grown up.


----------



## Flash (Oct 2, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You are quite right, Flash!  Gravity IS literally pure fricking magic as far as science can tell.  It happens, but it isn't a force, it has no force carrier that science can identify, it is just "there."  It happens.  That is all we know.




Have you ever fell out of a tree?  You hitting your ass on the ground sure as hell "happens".

I took all those courses in Physics getting my Engineering degrees and nobody ever explained what gravity really was.  they explained how it worked but never what the hell it was.  Magic is the only thing I can think of..


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old?  The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet.  That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!
> 
> Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge gaps in it.  As a scientist, I can tell you the PROCESS of science is excellent at getting at the truth, but its ability to do so depends on the AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BUILD A THEORY.  Science really has no idea yet what gravity really is or does; it is the height of folly then to expect that it can have a cogent answer for how the universe really started, was created or began.
> 
> ...


If you have evidence of one or more gods who created the universe you are welcome to present that evidence. In the meantime, we have no evidence of un-natural circumstances causing un-natural events anywhere in human existence. So yes, it is entirely consistent to claim that ''nothing in science supports a god-created universe'', unless of course, you have such evidence. Which god(s) do you think could be the front runner for the 'most likely' title? 

None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

As time goes by, and gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers

If you want to posit a unique god(s), that's fine. I wouid suggest first understanding that all religions are syncretic in that they borrow / steal from preceeding religions. We see in religions the morphing of characteristics that define the gods people invent. You need only read the OT (Hebrew scriptures stolen by christianity), and the NT to understand the morphing of the gods. Zeus was descended from earlier ancient entities, the Titans. Zeus was the son of Kronos and Rhea. Kronos was himself the child of Ouranos and Gaia. The inventors of religions tend to steal ruthlessly from earlier belief systems and earlier inventions of supernatural characters. That's evident in his formulation of christianity and not at all uncommon with other religions.

I would also suggest understanding that as mankind has emerged from earlier fears and superstitions and kearned about the natural world, the inventions of new religions and the gods not mere coincidence that as mankind has grown and learned to explore the natural world, inventions of new gods and their respective religions has ended.

The last "major" religion to be invented was islamism which is a syncretic faith. Most of its core ritual and god (as well as most of its theology) is stolen from the preceeding Abrahamic faiths and from Arab paganism.

While nothing precludes Amun Ra, Zeus or any of the millions of Hindu gods from being the soring-winders of the universe, we're left with a curious refusal by the promoters of currently configured gods to accept Amun Ra being just as likely extant as Zeus or the three-party christian gods. 

As to theists falling on the side off belief,  "because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS." Thats fine of course but countless people report encounters with everything from Bigfoot to space aliens, to Nessie to all sorts of absurdities. 

Are we required to believe all of that?


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> It's a symptom of a maladjusted personality to spend one's life in trembling fear of angry gods, anti-christs, satans and the other imaginary characters who haunt your existence.
> 
> There's a reason why Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert have such influence on folks like you. It's been said that a child who never lets go of his adolescent fears and prejudices has never grown up.


Your comment is too weird, but I suppose it's par for atheism.  To me, it sounds like the atheists and their scientists have it backwards.  Up is down.  Down is up.  So to speak.

No believer thinks like you and the atheists think.  What has happened is we each think the other _believes in fairy tales_.  Only one can be right and that's the Christian believers of Jesus as Christ.


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Are we required to believe all of that?


No, God gave us free will.  It's just like He did with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2021)

Flash said:


> Gravity is like, you know, magic or something.
> 
> You have something and things are attracted to it.  Amazing I tell you.


The long distance attraction is amazing to me.  One can never escape it.



Flash said:


> Have you ever fell out of a tree?  You hitting your ass on the ground sure as hell "happens".
> 
> I took all those courses in Physics getting my Engineering degrees and nobody ever explained what gravity really was.  they explained how it worked but never what the hell it was.  Magic is the only thing I can think of..









The above is a visualization of gravity to mass in slo mo.  For it to work, we have to have mass and spacetime.  I think everywhere in the universe is gravity or else we and any matter would fly apart in zero gravity and that which existed wouldn't exist anymore.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, God gave us free will.  It's just like He did with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.


This is not the bible thumping forum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 3, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge gaps in it


Oh boy, here we go. This is where the religioners fill the gaps with magical nonsense and tell us we cannot prove them wrong.

Rinse, repeat.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Oct 3, 2021)

Likkmee said:


> I just tried...and I had great success confirming !
> I love gravity.
> Contra-gravity can be dangerous with heavy things


what did you try?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 4, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old?  The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet.  That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!



Oh look! argument from Ignorance/Incredulity!



toobfreak said:


> *Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge Gaps* in it.


 You couldn't possibly have missed my 4 YEAR Running thread. (From July 2017 to Aug 4, 2021!
*"God of the Gaps"*
But I guess you felt self-conscious that your post in it would have been a fine example and Pre-Refutedas to simple logic
WTF!






						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`




toobfreak said:


> *Nothing in religion or science suggests that God waved a magic wand*----- truth is that no one knows exactly how or what happened.  So if you want to use the term "magic" like some primitive for anything above your understanding, fine, but the oldest records we have going back to the beginning of civilization 5,000 years ago passed down through the ages from the Vedas tells us this is how it happened and has been repeated over and over again in the historical record.



LIE. 
Genesis, you know, YOUR book suggests he waved a magic wand in 6 days.
WTF!




toobfreak said:


> Actually, nothing in science precludes the existence and role of God neither!  When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real argument against God by science is that it or He is simply one more thing science as yet can neither prove nor disprove, explain nor dismiss, so the general consensus among scientists is to generally discount those things not at least supported by conjecture, theory or experimentation.  That leaves it up to the individual, much like picking the winner of tomorrow's football to pick where their beliefs fall:
> 
> ATHEISTS fall on the side of skepticism because God has not come up and overtly revealed himself to THEM, appeared in Washington DC, nor made any overt proof self-evident that one can measure with a yardstick.
> 
> ...


Actually Nothing suggests god and that's it.
We just don't know what happened YET (like Fire, Lightning, and Fertility) but that's no reason to believe in a god now as it wasn't then.

The FACT is what god you believe in is a geoCULTural accident of birth, not a discernible truth, and takes Indoctrination not learning or experimentation.

God of the Gaps, again is the most common fallacious attempt and yours is as ridiculous as any and all of them.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 4, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> what did you try?


I picture Likkmee free falling, ass first, throwing an armload of bowling pins as hard as he can back up towards from whence he came.. the net result being him hitting the ground harder.. but not head first at least.. then being struck with bowling pins.. on the head.. every single one..


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> The long distance attraction is amazing to me.  One can never escape it.


Every object in the universe is pulling on you right now, from a grain of sand at pebble beach to a galaxy on the other end of the universe.

At some fantastic level, I think if we could somehow step far enough back away, we would eventually step out of this universe to see that it is a self-contained orb held together under the force of gravity.  Gravity is the underlying force by which causes universes to form, part and parcel of its individual parts, all coming together to form one, yet at the same time it is the universe itself whch causes gravity.  They are one and the same.  Gravity is existence of being.


----------



## james bond (Oct 4, 2021)

Hollie said:


> This is not the bible thumping forum.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.  As far as I'm concerned, this is the Flattie Hollie thumping forum.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible isn't mythology.  It's the creator's word and science backs it up.  I just provided the evidence for a global flood.  Also, the explanation of where all the energy in the universe originated.  OTOH, what you believe has no evidence.  It's really looney tunes as space rocks become the sun, Earth, or our solar system.  Or humans came from ape-humans that never appear nor exist today.  What person in their right mind believes that?  Talk about nutty.  You can't excuse it by saying it's only a theory.  It's nutso beyond belief.
> 
> The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing.  The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after.
> 
> Otherwise, evolution would've had monkeys who walk, new solar systems being formed, NASA wouldn't still be looking for aliens or life on other planets, etc.  Don't give me that we haven't had enough time yet malarky.  We don't even see a single cell become two sexes.  Do frogs change sex if there are only one sex?  IOW, your atheist side should've won with science backing it up, but you provide nothing.  It means science does not back your non-beliefs up.




The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing. The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after

That is total  rubbish and you have nothing to support it. I can't believe you are so foolish to think you know that.  
You can't even say when the universe was made,


----------



## james bond (Oct 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing. The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after
> 
> That is total  rubbish and you have nothing to support it. I can't believe you are so foolish to think you know that.
> You can't even say when the universe was made,


You and the atheists here have gone looney tunes.  You have absolutely no scientific evidence and only foolish and bad opinions.  I have found that the atheists stole singularity (infinite density and infinite temperature) from the creationists, stole a globally flooded planet of a single land mass that broke into seven continents, and tried to make it sound that planets with 3/4 water and seven continents are normal.  Moreover, your posts have become so dumb that your nicks are SFE and worthless POS.  What's amazing is you were able to accomplish being SFE and worthless POS in one post.  Maybe you set a world's record in being the SFE in one sentence .


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 5, 2021)

james bond said:


> You and the atheists here have gone looney tunes.  You have absolutely no scientific evidence and only foolish and bad opinions.  I have found that the atheists stole singularity (infinite density and infinite temperature) from the creationists, stole a globally flooded planet of a single land mass that broke into seven continents, and tried to make it sound that planets with 3/4 water and seven continents are normal.  Moreover, your posts have become so dumb that your nicks are SFE and worthless POS.  What's amazing is you were able to accomplish being SFE and worthless POS in one post.  Maybe you set a world's record in being the SFE in one sentence .



Let me elaborate. You Jesus junkies believe in immaculate conception and virgin births, resurrections, dead men walking and talking snakes. Bugger  it.  Throw in the parting if The seas and some Jewish ratbag thinking he can walk on water. The same water that covered the earth to the height of Mt. Everest then miraculously receded into thin air. 
Volcanoes and floods are demonstrations of gods wrath against homosexuals and evil atheists. 
You believe theme scriptures where on the resurrection day hundreds of graves suddenly opened and flicked to see the big ghost vaporize  into thin air. 
Moses goes to the mount and speaks directly to God and suddenly commandments chiseled in stone fall from the sky, strangely enough, witnessed by no one. ..

Yet you think it's me that is mad. Do you ever take stock of your hideous beliefs and compare them with reality? Have you ever questioned anything inside your filthy bible and scriptures? 
But it's still me thats mentally ill.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.  As far as I'm concerned, this is the Flattie Hollie thumping forum.


Just be sure to keep your Bible thumping out of the science forums.


----------



## james bond (Oct 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Let me elaborate. You Jesus junkies believe in immaculate conception and virgin births, resurrections, dead men walking and talking snakes. Bugger  it.  Throw in the parting if The seas and some Jewish ratbag thinking he can walk on water. The same water that covered the earth to the height of Mt. Everest then miraculously receded into thin air.
> Volcanoes and floods are demonstrations of gods wrath against homosexuals and evil atheists.
> You believe theme scriptures where on the resurrection day hundreds of graves suddenly opened and flicked to see the big ghost vaporize  into thin air.
> Moses goes to the mount and speaks directly to God and suddenly commandments chiseled in stone fall from the sky, strangely enough, witnessed by no one. ..
> ...


OTOH, you non-believers believe in Satan or what he has said through you atheist scientists such as macroevolution and evolutionary thinking such as ASSUME NO GOD/gods.  The second biggest lie the non-believers told was that they wanted evidence.  I've discovered no amount of evidence will make you believe because well, the atheists and their scientists are FOOLISH.  Science is supposed to consider ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, but you ignore what your opposition is saying.  If science didn't back up the Bible, then I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.  I'm smarter than the average bear, so that's what I present.  I present what I have learned through FAITH FIRST and then finding the scientific evidence on subjects the Bible presents.  That's what the creation scientists throughout history did.  Their faith and Bible guided them to discover the science.  For example, there are no aliens.  There's a miniscule possibility due to panspermia, but outer space itself seems harsh without the magnetic field and a certain level of gravity.  We need protection from the solar winds or else we won't live long.  Too much or too little gravity would have an effect on us, too.  The atheist morons like you do not even consider how much gravity or solar radiation is on some of the planets in our solar system.  We already know that we could not live on the moon or Mars very long.

The gays have the equal protection laws and can't be bashed like they were in the past.  I wouldn't say the global flood and other natural disasters are just against prejudice and hate, but against all sin.  They're God's warnings.  There was so much sin that the innocent were in danger of being killed by the evil doers before the global flood.  Are we heading toward that again?  I don't know, but that is what is prophecized.  Here's one against gays I figured out.  Ironically, it was through watching Brokeback Mountain.  At the end of the movie, the protagonist is killed.  How did they expose him?  Just like we go hunting or fishing, they went gay hunting and used queer bait.  That's how they were able to lure him out into the open and awaiting a horrific beating.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 5, 2021)

james bond said:


> OTOH, you non-believers believe in Satan or what he has said through you atheist scientists such as macroevolution and evolutionary thinking such as ASSUME NO GOD/gods.  The second biggest lie the non-believers told was that they wanted evidence.  I've discovered no amount of evidence will make you believe because well, the atheists and their scientists are FOOLISH.  Science is supposed to consider ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, but you ignore what your opposition is saying.  If science didn't back up the Bible, then I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.  I'm smarter than the average bear, so that's what I present.  I present what I have learned through FAITH FIRST and then finding the scientific evidence on subjects the Bible presents.  That's what the creation scientists throughout history did.  Their faith and Bible guided them to discover the science.  For example, there are no aliens.  There's a miniscule possibility due to panspermia, but outer space itself seems harsh without the magnetic field and a certain level of gravity.  We need protection from the solar winds or else we won't live long.  Too much or too little gravity would have an effect on us, too.  The atheist morons like you do not even consider how much gravity or solar radiation is on some of the planets in our solar system.  We already know that we could not live on the moon or Mars very long.
> 
> The gays have the equal protection laws and can't be bashed like they were in the past.  I wouldn't say the global flood and other natural disasters are just against prejudice and hate, but against all sin.  They're God's warnings.  There was so much sin that the innocent were in danger of being killed by the evil doers before the global flood.  Are we heading toward that again?  I don't know, but that is what is prophecized.  Here's one against gays I figured out.  Ironically, it was through watching Brokeback Mountain.  At the end of the movie, the protagonist is killed.  How did they expose him?  Just like we go hunting or fishing, they went gay hunting and used queer bait.  That's how they were able to lure him out into the open and awaiting a horrific beating.


You show me one piece of evidence which clearly shows science supports any part of religion. 
I know you can't so this should be another religious lie. 

And, do you really believe a movie made for sensational reason is a model of gods wishes? Are you for real? 
Little wonder you believe in immaculate conception and virgin births.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2021)

james bond said:


> OTOH, you non-believers believe in Satan or what he has said through you atheist scientists such as macroevolution and evolutionary thinking such as ASSUME NO GOD/gods.  The second biggest lie the non-believers told was that they wanted evidence.  I've discovered no amount of evidence will make you believe because well, the atheists and their scientists are FOOLISH.  Science is supposed to consider ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, but you ignore what your opposition is saying.  If science didn't back up the Bible, then I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.  I'm smarter than the average bear, so that's what I present.  I present what I have learned through FAITH FIRST and then finding the scientific evidence on subjects the Bible presents.  That's what the creation scientists throughout history did.  Their faith and Bible guided them to discover the science.  For example, there are no aliens.  There's a miniscule possibility due to panspermia, but outer space itself seems harsh without the magnetic field and a certain level of gravity.  We need protection from the solar winds or else we won't live long.  Too much or too little gravity would have an effect on us, too.  The atheist morons like you do not even consider how much gravity or solar radiation is on some of the planets in our solar system.  We already know that we could not live on the moon or Mars very long.
> 
> The gays have the equal protection laws and can't be bashed like they were in the past.  I wouldn't say the global flood and other natural disasters are just against prejudice and hate, but against all sin.  They're God's warnings.  There was so much sin that the innocent were in danger of being killed by the evil doers before the global flood.  Are we heading toward that again?  I don't know, but that is what is prophecized.  Here's one against gays I figured out.  Ironically, it was through watching Brokeback Mountain.  At the end of the movie, the protagonist is killed.  How did they expose him?  Just like we go hunting or fishing, they went gay hunting and used queer bait.  That's how they were able to lure him out into the open and awaiting a horrific beating.


That really is more of the usual absurdities you dump into threads. Non-(non-Christian) religioners have no reason to ''believe in Satan''. Did you forget that the mythical characters such as ''Satan'' who haunt your world and cause you such fear and trepidation are not a part of the worldview of rational non-Christians?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 5, 2021)

Though I'd recommend one good thump a day to keep dust and decay at bay.


Hollie said:


> Just be sure to keep your Bible thumping out of the science forums.


Yes, not here. Do it under your desk or mattress or something.


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You show me one piece of evidence which clearly shows science supports any part of religion.
> I know you can't so this should be another religious lie.
> 
> And, do you really believe a movie made for sensational reason is a model of gods wishes? Are you for real?
> Little wonder you believe in immaculate conception and virgin births.


Life had to be created because only life can create life.  For intelligent life, only humans can create humans, some of which have created Oscar winning films.  Others have created other works of art or other accomplishments.  Moreover, there are no aliens, simple or intelligent.

What do you have?  I think I already said too much beotching.


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Though I'd recommend one good thump a day to keep dust and decay at bay.
> 
> Yes, not here. Do it under your desk or mattress or something.


The Bible answered gravity, but the answer went over your head.


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That really is more of the usual absurdities you dump into threads. Non-(non-Christian) religioners have no reason to ''believe in Satan''. Did you forget that the mythical characters such as ''Satan'' who haunt your world and cause you such fear and trepidation are not a part of the worldview of rational non-Christians?


Lol, you really have much too simple ideas regarding Satan.  He's more complex than that.  For example, you believe in evolution because of him and will take that to your grave.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, you really have much too simple ideas regarding Satan.  He's more complex than that.  For example, you believe in evolution because of him and will take that to your grave.


Rather creepy that you use your fears and superstitions centered on invented characters to threaten others.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> Life had to be created because only life can create life.  For intelligent life, only humans can create humans


Thank you JB, that is a fundamental truth of creation.  Life comes from life and intelligence comes from intelligence.  The failing of all atheistic philosophy is that you can take two motes of dust in space, stick them together somehow, and eventually, life, beauty, truth, knowledge, complexity and intelligence just springs from it by pure fucking magic.  Nowhere in the universe has it ever been shown possible that you can get something from nothing, like gold from lead.  Even water springs from combinations of hydrogen and oxygen, not bismuth and antimony.  All qualities we see in infinitesimal quantities here in the phenomenal world appear because they must already exist on the astral plane in infinite quantities!


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Rather creepy that you use your fears and superstitions centered on invented characters to threaten others.


The threat is that of science to you because YOU have _little knowledge_ of it.  Did you present anything, but your usual beotching?  

We have a theory of how it works.  What do you have?


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That really is more of the usual absurdities you dump into threads. Non-(non-Christian) religioners have no reason to ''believe in Satan''. Did you forget that the mythical characters such as ''Satan'' who haunt your world and cause you such fear and trepidation are not a part of the worldview of rational non-Christians?





james bond said:


> Life had to be created because only life can create life.  For intelligent life, only humans can create humans, some of which have created Oscar winning films.  Others have created other works of art or other accomplishments.  Moreover, there are no aliens, simple or intelligent.
> 
> What do you have?  I think I already said too much beotching.



You have nothing.  You said science supports religion and does not. You can't support that and I know you can't.  So you draw on movies to give you support. Really? 
That's the problem with believers, the whole thing is a big charade not all that disimiliar to a movie,   it's all fake. Grow up.


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You have nothing.  You said science supports religion and does not. You can't support that and I know you can't.  So you draw on movies to give you support. Really?
> That's the problem with believers, the whole thing is a big charade not all that disimiliar to a movie,   it's all fake. Grow up.


I said science backs up the Bible and already provided the evidence.  OTOH, it's evolutionists who have nothing.  So hypocritical.  Science doesn't support atheism.  It's just BS with macroevolution, abiogenesis, NASA looking for aliens, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, and more fairy tales and silliness.  

You are FSE and have shown it repeatedly with your dumb posts.  I just put up with it because I LMAO at you and your inanity.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> it's evolutionists who have nothing.


I wouldn't go that far.  Evolution clearly happens.  What is less resolved is that just because species evolve and adapt over time doesn't preclude the distance of God.



james bond said:


> Science doesn't support atheism.


Nope, it doesn't.  The very nature of science is that it presently cannot prove or disprove God because it has no way to test that.



james bond said:


> NASA looking for aliens, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, and more fairy tales and silliness.


I'm fully unconvinced of dark energy as nothing more than a manufactured theory to fill a gap in our understanding, but Dark Matter has been conclusively detected for several years now.


----------



## james bond (Oct 6, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  Evolution clearly happens.  What is less resolved is that just because species evolve and adapt over time doesn't preclude the distance of God.
> 
> 
> Nope, it doesn't.  The very nature of science is that it presently cannot prove or disprove God because it has no way to test that.
> ...


Natural selection or microevolution happens.  I don't buy the macroevolution which the majority refers to as a new species are formed from a common ancestor.

As for dark matter, it's a _hypothetical term _to explain when astronomers see that the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational  effect.  Usually, they're fast-moving celestial bodies such as two galaxies and their mass and movement using the classical big bang theory and calculations cannot explain.  Creationists state that they're neutrinos of six or seven times concentrations of normal matter and that the big bang theory holds more weight.

Dark energy is supposed to make up the majority of the universe, but since no one has seen or measured it, it does sound ridiculous.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> I said science backs up the Bible and already provided the evidence.
> 
> You provided nothing  but I'll keep  waiting. Just one paper where science verified the bible.  Just one.
> I know you can't so you are a bald faced delusional liar.
> ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 7, 2021)

Colin norris 

You're not smart enough to know the difference between evidence and BS.  You're on the side with nothing.  You're the type that believes in invisible dark energy.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Colin norris
> 
> You're not smart enough to know the difference between evidence and BS.  You're on the side with nothing.  You're the type that believes in invisible dark energy.


As opposed to believing in invisible men floating in the clouds with fat, naked babies playing harps and invisible demons.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> The threat is that of science to you because YOU have _little knowledge_ of it.  Did you present anything, but your usual beotching?
> 
> We have a theory of how it works.  What do you have?


You have no theory of anything. You have tales and fables you believe are literally true. “The Bible says….’’ is not a theory.


----------



## james bond (Oct 7, 2021)

Hollie said:


> As opposed to believing in invisible men floating in the clouds with fat, naked babies playing harps and invisible demons.


You don't know Christianity, creation science, nor science.  You don't know how the universe, Earth, and everything in it came into existence.

What do you know?  Nothing.  You don't belong in S&T.  Maybe they should have religious stereotypes and prejudices section for you or know nothing forum.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> You don't know Christianity, creation science, nor science.  You don't know how the universe, Earth, and everything in it came into existence.
> 
> What do you know?  Nothing.  You don't belong in S&T.  Maybe they should have religious stereotypes and prejudices section for you or know nothing forum.


So... you agree that "the Bible says….’’ is not a theory. You're just suffering from hurt feelings because the obvious was pointed out.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Oct 7, 2021)

The bible doesn't read like butter, there could be a wide array of incorrect interpretations of things you read in the bible.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Natural selection or microevolution happens.  I don't buy the macroevolution which the majority refers to as a new species are formed from a common ancestor.


There is good reason to feel that way.  Many times in our history did new forms of life appear in the historical and stratographic record seemingly out of nowhere, rather than slowly evolve from something else similar and science is loathe to explain it:

The appearance of prokaryotes from underwater smokers.
Cyanobacteria.
The emergence of Eukaryotes.
The appearance of Plants, Animals and Fungi.
The Avalon explosion.
The Cambrian explosion of diversification.
The appearances of grasses on land, conifer trees and flowering planets and insects.
Placental mammals.
The appearance of primates and hominids.
The emergence of Paranthropus.
This is just the short list of places where life made leaps and bounds with no clear direct evolutionary step.




james bond said:


> As for dark matter, it's a _hypothetical term _to explain when astronomers see that the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect.


More than theory, it has been tested and proven.  Dark matter is the predominant "stuff" and the ordinary baryonic matter we see around us and interact with just a very minor player.



james bond said:


> Dark energy is supposed to make up the majority of the universe, but since no one has seen or measured it, it does sound ridiculous.


Like I said, dark energy is pure conjecture invented to fill a void in observations of the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. There is absolutely NO REAL BASIS for believing it is really out there.


----------



## james bond (Oct 7, 2021)

Hollie said:


> So... you agree that "the Bible says….’’ is not a theory. You're just suffering from hurt feelings because the obvious was pointed out.


The creation science parts are scientific theories.  How many times have I said science backs up the Bible.  We should teach creation science in public schools because of it.  It's why I'm here in S&T and an advocate of teaching creation science.

OTOH, you are nothing in S&T forums since you present nothing new, but more beotching.


----------



## james bond (Oct 7, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> More than theory, it has been tested and proven. Dark matter is the predominant "stuff" and the ordinary baryonic matter we see around us and interact with just a very minor player.


I explained my position on dark matter in the last post and stated what it actually was.  Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> I explained my position on dark matter in the last post and stated what it actually was.  Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.



You explained dark matter in contradiction to the best science available in the world!!!
Atheism is not challenging any science findings apart from the fact Religion has nothing connected to science.  It's the Jesus junkies who won't accept anything but the hideous filthy bible.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Atheists are trying to replace the big bang theory with their lies.



I've missed that part as there are few people in this thread I usually bother reading.  They are trying to REPLACE the BBT?  Would it be worth asking why?  AND generally, with what lies?  Anyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 7, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What is less resolved is that just because species evolve and adapt over time doesn't preclude the distance of God.


Of course not. Not one person has ever claimed that it does. Ever. Bond does not seem to get this. He likes to pull this bait and switch, and pit evolution against theism. When, really, his idiotic behavior is due to evolution colliding with his childish dogma. Not with theism.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creation science parts are scientific theories.  How many times have I said science backs up the Bible.  We should teach creation science in public schools because of it.  It's why I'm here in S&T and an advocate of teaching creation science.
> 
> OTOH, you are nothing in S&T forums since you present nothing new, but more beotching.


There are no “creation science” theories because ‘’creation science’’ is not science at all. It is a term used by fundamentalist Christians who have spent decades attempting to press their religious dogma into the public schools. They have spent decades fraudulently rebranding their dogma from "Biblical Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism," to "Intelligent Design'' to ''Intelligent Design Creationism'' to ''Creation Science''.

It’s a laughable joke that represents a truly spectacular failure to convince anyone that fundamentalist Christianity has any place in a science curriculum.

From the “about” page at AIG:
_Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)._


----------



## HaShev (Oct 7, 2021)




----------



## abu afak (Oct 7, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> There is good reason to feel that way.  Many times in our history did *new forms of life appear in the historical and stratographic record seemingly out of nowhere,* rather than slowly evolve from something else similar and science is loathe to explain it:



You were refuted by BOTH myself and Hollie on the last page: Untouched/Undisputed.
You were caught Lying, Fudging, and full of illogic.
NO answer to either of us.

Unphased, as you are in a Blind Cult (faith), you 'see no evil.'
100% Lying for Haysoos.

I guess the 100% culter James Bond is the only one you can debate or agree with.

*On the last page you claimed 'Neither science nor religion waved a magic wand'...

Yet on THIS page they Did appear: "seemingly out of nowhere' to agree with your fellow creationist!!*



toobfreak said:


> The appearance of prokaryotes from underwater smokers.
> Cyanobacteria.
> The emergence of Eukaryotes.
> The appearance of Plants, Animals and Fungi.
> ...


"seemingly out of nowhere" is a QUALIFIED FIGURE OF SPEECH that acknowledges it is NOT out of nowhere.
Science routinely fill in the gaps in evo Every Year and Decade.

ie, and easily researched.
*Evolution of Cyanobacteria*
Wiki








						Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




You're a complete Fraud who can't even keep his creation story straight.
You can't resolve the truth and what you know without Twisting every single sentence.
You're a Fraud.

And of course 100% God of the Gaps for as yet filled in ones.
And
NO EVIDENCE of god except the illogical Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity.

`
`


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 10, 2021)

Here's #1 of a series explaining how Einstein's bumbling "thought experiments" reduced physics to a never ending loop of confirmation bias driven silliness that even he didn't believe in anymore.. "_Oh man, _i_f only we had an accelerator ten times bigger!"


I've only watched this one so far, so can't endorse the rest yet._


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Oct 31, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Here's #1 of a series explaining how Einstein's bumbling "thought experiments" reduced physics to a never ending loop of confirmation bias driven silliness that even he didn't believe in anymore.. "_Oh man, _i_f only we had an accelerator ten times bigger!"
> 
> 
> I've only watched this one so far, so can't endorse the rest yet._


Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 31, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?


The acceleration due to gravity at any point in space is independent of the masses of the objects on which it acts. It is measured in terms of (meters per second)squared. As you can see, there is no deference there to mass.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Oct 31, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The acceleration due to gravity at any point in space is independent of the masses of the objects on which it acts. It is measured in terms of (meters per second)squared. As you can see, there is no deference there to mass.


The answer is so obvious but I don't want to say it to see if anyone can get it. This is a really old question I'm surprised the real answer hasn't been solved yet and it remains a phenomena.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 31, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> Grumblenuts why do two objects of different weight fall at the same rate in a gravity field?


They don't necessarily, but use of the term "falling" implies we're talking about insignificantly small masses "accelerating" toward a large origin such as Earth's "center of gravity." In such cases, neglecting air resistance (i.e. in a "vacuum"), at sea level, and "at a geodetic latitude of 45°", "g" can generally be presumed a constant so neither their weights nor masses affect their rate of "fall," the Earth's mass so dominating the question (M vs. m). Thus we commonly use "F=mg" for weight even though it's damn near never exact.








						Isaac Physics
					

Isaac Physics is a project designed to offer support and activities in physics problem solving to teachers and students from GCSE level through to university.




					isaacphysics.org


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Oct 31, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> They don't necessarily, but use of the term "falling" implies we're talking about insignificantly small masses "accelerating" toward a large origin such as Earth's "center of gravity." In such cases, neglecting air resistance (i.e. in a "vacuum"), at sea level, and "at a geodetic latitude of 45°", "g" can generally be presumed a constant so neither their weights nor masses affect their rate of "fall," the Earth's mass so dominating the question (M vs. m). Thus we commonly use "F=mg" for weight even though it's damn near never exact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When three gravity fields squeeze on each other, the size of each object determines how much it's opposing squeeze is on the other objects gravity fields causing movement , so each object exerts a force of pulling on the other 2 but the earth is so big the other objects would have to be the size of the moon to cause any significant movement. 

Squeezing force increases with space medium density. Because you can't gain energy from a gravity field alone, without a flowing current like a dam, the squeezing force is constant and doesn't lose energy at its source the nucleus. We could assume that the matter in the universe shapes the universe and that a particle of matter is the same way from within. 

I could make more sense if terms were less connected to 'answers' previous which I need to describe my thoughts. So I kind of think space time and the aether are terms that have dissociation with my explanations and therefore cause confusion. So forgive me if you're confused by my raw explanations.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 31, 2021)

trevorjohnson32 said:


> When three gravity fields squeeze on each other, the size of each object determines how much it's opposing squeeze is on the other objects gravity fields causing movement , so each object exerts a force of pulling on the other 2 but the earth is so big the other objects would have to be the size of the moon to cause any significant movement.


It is the huge relative size difference that applies mostly to your question. But,.. whether you view gravity as a push or a pull, a field or an anti-field, it is an object's mass, not its "size" that matters, given no air or other fluid interference and that their masses are comparable.


trevorjohnson32 said:


> We could assume that the matter in the universe shapes the universe and that a particle of matter is the same way from within.


You can think what you like, but I'm left reading "a particle of matter" as purely QM or mathematical abstraction, at least until you provide your (alternative and coherent) definition (usage) of the term.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Nov 29, 2021)

*



here's a second picture like the OP but with some updates, gravity is now emitted from meteors.*


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 29, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> "Spacetime" - oh please.
> 
> *Hello, this is your doctor's office.  We have you scheduled for 3 PM spacetime tomorrow.
> We look forward to seeing you in our space at that time.*


The only space I think he needs to be concerned with is the space located between his ears.


----------



## trevorjohnson83 (Nov 29, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The only space I think he needs to be concerned with is the space located between his ears.


You hate that guy or something cmon Im trying to consturctive.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 3, 2021)

According to rationalists, these are Aethereal vortices


----------

