Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

Asking me to prove gravity doesn't exist, is like someone asking for proof that flying pink elephants don't exist! Except the flying pink elephants are probably a more convincing argument than gravity...


Gravity can answer anything, and it doesn't even exist.

Magical forces work for virtually anything.

They offer no resistance to opposing forces, which is truly magical, indeed.

They make instruments on airplanes read level flight, but it is not level, it is level to Earth's 'curvature'. So happy to have this magical force, anytime we need it!

a reply to: turbonium1

Then if you throw a brick straight up into the air why does it slow faster than what can be attributed to air resistance, stop, then change to direction to fall straight down.

Why does a bullet shot horizontally fall towards the ground as soon as it leaves the muzzle?

a reply to: turbonium1

Its funny that proponents of the popular model are asking you to prove that gravity does not exist. After all, according to their own model, and high priests, gravity is not a force and does not exist. According to the popular model, things fall due to bending spacetime.

Lol. You should ask the proponents of the popular model to explain what this spacetime thing is.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1

Its funny that proponents of the popular model are asking you to prove that gravity does not exist. After all, according to their own model, and high priests, gravity is not a force and does not exist. According to the popular model, things fall due to bending spacetime.

Lol. You should ask the proponents of the popular model to explain what this spacetime thing is.

As opposed to turbo saying things fa to earth because of density. What drives stratification by density?

All you had to do is try a little understanding than playing the smug game

Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time

www.science.org.au...

Isaac Newton described the effects of gravity, but didn’t propose a mechanism for how it worked
Albert Einstein proposed that massive objects warp and curve the universe, resulting in other objects moving on or orbiting along those curves—and that this is what we experience as gravity
This theory, general relativity, has led to a number of predictions that have held up to experimental testing
One prediction of this theory is that ‘gravitational waves’ ripple through the universe, but Einstein thought they would be too small to detect
In February 2016 the direct measurement of gravitational waves was announced. This provides us with a new method for exploring the universe
In its current form, general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics—signalling that a shift in our understanding may be on the horizon

a reply to: TheMostHigh

Then what did Newton “discover” and crudely define if it was not gravity.

Sir Isaac Newton -- The Discoverer of Gravity!
web.stanford.edu...

Sir Isaac Newton was an English mathematician and mathematician and physicist who lived from 1642-1727.
The legend is that Newton discovered Gravity when he saw a falling apple while thinking about the forces of nature.
Whatever really happened, Newton realized that some force must be acting on falling objects like apples because otherwise they would not start moving from rest.
Newton also realized that the moon would fly off away from Earth in a straight line tangent to its orbit if some force was not causing it to fall toward the Earth. The moon is only a projectile circling around the Earth under the attraction of Gravity.
Newton called this force "gravity" and determined that gravitational forces exist between all objects.
Using the idea of Gravity, Newton was able to explain the astronomical observations of Kepler.
The work of Galileo, Brahe, Kepler, and Newton proved once and for all that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. The Earth, along with all other planets,orbits around the sun.
Two astronomers, J.C. Adams and U.J.J. LeVerrier, later used the concept of Gravity to predict that the planet Neptune would be discovered. They realized that there must be another planet exerting a gravitational force on Uranus because Uranus had odd perturbations in its orbit. (Perturbations are deviations in orbits.)

a reply to: turbonium1

Lol. See Turbo? The proponents simply cannot explain what this spacetimy thing is. This doesnt stop them from basing their whole model on it though.

a reply to: TheMostHigh

By the way. I don’t worship science. I enjoy when one bad theory is struck down by a superior theory through the scientific process.

I think Turbo is the one where their theory is their religion.

Please tell us how turbo’s principles of density are superior at predicting outcomes than Newton’s work on gravity, and the work on gravity after Newton.

a reply to: turbonium1

Better yet, ask the proponents of the popular model for a drawing of their bending spacetime concept if you really want a laugh.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1

Lol. See Turbo? The proponents simply cannot explain what this spacetimy thing is. This doesnt stop them from basing their whole model on it though.

Then you explain how stratification by density works without gravity.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1

Lol. See Turbo? The proponents simply cannot explain what this spacetimy thing is. This doesnt stop them from basing their whole model on it though.

Again, turbo is the one who’s universe is stuck in an ideological locked fishbowl. That cannot even except the reality of satellite TV.

The theory of gravity has literally being a growing and living theory for centuries.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please tell us how turbo’s principles of density are superior at predicting outcomes than Newton’s work on gravity, and the work on gravity after Newton.

Predicting outcomes is based on observation. Both Newton and Turbo say that things fall. Both have no explanation. I see no difference.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux

Please tell us how turbo’s principles of density are superior at predicting outcomes than Newton’s work on gravity, and the work on gravity after Newton.

Predicting outcomes is based on observation. Both Newton and Turbo say that things fall. Both have no explanation. I see no difference.

No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance. Then what force caused the brick to change direction to fall back to earth. Density is not a force. Your statement is one out of falsehoods and ignorance.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then you explain how stratification by density works without gravity.

But its your model that says that gravity does not exist. I dont have to explain anything. According to the popular model things fall due to bending spacetime. Which is why I suggested you explain spacetime. Like I said, its obvious that you cant.

a reply to: neutronflux

No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.

But I said that both Turbo and Newton have no explanation so what is your point besides agreeing with me?

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux

Then you explain how stratification by density works without gravity.

But its your model that says that gravity does not exist. I dont have to explain anything. According to the popular model things fall due to bending spacetime. Which is why I suggested you explain spacetime. Like I said, its obvious that you cant.

Again. Then what did Newton discover what he labeled and defined as “gravity”. A theory that has been growing and living for centuries.

Then state what gravity should be replaced with?

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux

No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.

But I said that it doesnt explain it so what is your point besides agreeing with me?

You replay makes no sense.

Again

No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance. Then what force caused the brick to change direction to fall back to earth. Density is not a force. Your statement is one out of falsehoods and ignorance.

a reply to: neutronflux

Again. Then what did Newton discover what he labeled and defined “gravity”. A theory that has been growing and living for centuries.

Newton simply observed things falling and suggested they are pulled down by a force. However according to the popular model gravity is not a force.

Then state what gravity should be replaced with?

Bending spacetime according to your model. Remember?

So are you going to explain spacetime now or going around in circles some more?

What is teh spacetime. Can you show a drawing of the bending spacetime concept to help explain it?

Rofl.

a reply to: neutronflux

No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.

It sure doesnt. I didnt make such a claim. I literally said that both Turbo and Newton have no explanation for this. Trouble reading again?

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1

Its funny that proponents of the popular model are asking you to prove that gravity does not exist. After all, according to their own model, and high priests, gravity is not a force and does not exist. According to the popular model, things fall due to bending spacetime.

Lol. You should ask the proponents of the popular model to explain what this spacetime thing is.

We humans don't need to know what gravity is (whether it's a true force or an apparent force) to see that it exists. Nor bo we need to understand how it works to be able to observe it working. We can see that objects of mass are attracted to each other. Newton could see how gravity affected orbits of planets without understanding the mechanism behind gravity.

Call that what you want, but the word we choose to use is "gravity". Whatever you want to call it (maybe "Steve" for all I care), or whatever explanation you might come up with for how it works (let's say Unicorn farts are involved), it is still obvious that there is an effect that results in an attraction to matter....again, whether that effect be a real force or an apparent one; it doesn't matter for this current discussion.

I would tell Turbonium that we can see the effects of what we call gravity by observing the planets' orbits around the sun, but Turbonium says he doesn't believe that there are actual planets or orbits (or the sun itself, as most people define it), so that would be pointless.


By the way, I've been convinced for a while that Turbonium doesn't actually buy into the stuff he says; it's all just an act. His inconsistencies in his posts over the years have shown me that he is almost certainly a troll who likes to play games. I stopped regularly responding to him directly for that reason, and now only occasionally do so when I'm bored and feel like playing along with his games.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's nice.

(it doesn't matter for this current discussion).

The current discussion is what I was saying. You didnt respond to it. I am asking you to explain spacetime.

Spacetime!!!