Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: Phantom423

Einstein says so.

I don't think you understand the argument, or the terminology.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

en.wikipedia.org...

"The notion of "fictitious force" arises in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[24][25] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[26][27] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity could be modeled as a fictitious force. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to inertial reference frames (the equivalence principle). Developing this insight, Einstein formulated a theory with gravity as a fictitious force, and attributed the apparent acceleration due to gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See the Eötvös experiment."

Einstein seems to agree with me at least. I'll take his word above your own. According to you he's an idiot as well?

P.S. What's your equation for gravity as a fictitious force? What's the equation for a ball falling to the ground? Got any?

You might want to start here - gravity for 10 year olds: spaceplace.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phantom423

General Relativity is underpinned and dependent on Gravity being modeled as a fictitious force in the form of the curvature of space-time. Researching the equivalence principle would be a good start if you're actually interested in understanding what this means.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Einstein says so.


I don't think you understand the argument, or the terminology.

Einstein never said that gravity was fictitious.

a reply to: Phantom423

Ok then.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

General Relativity is underpinned and dependent on Gravity being modeled as a fictitious force in the form of the curvature of space-time. Researching the equivalence principle would be a good start if you're actually interested in understanding what this means.

Explain that NASA and the rocket industry. Gravity is fictitious. No need for fuel.

You're so mixed up on "principles" and don't have a clue what they mean or how they work.

BTW, where are you new equations for no gravity?

a reply to: Phantom423

You clearly don't understand what a fictitious force refers to or how it's factored into equations.

I'll let you stew in your own self-righteous bubble of ignorance now.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

You clearly don't understand what a fictitious force refers to or how it's factored into equations.

Start here:



And don't forget to let us know when you have your new set of equations that changes everything in this video - fictitious gravity.

a reply to: Phantom423

Gravity as a fictitious force within the theory of General Relativity, is not some pseudo science. The current equations we use already define gravity as fictitious, no need for new ones.

If i want to measure electromagnetism i'll use an EMF meter.
If i want to measure temperature i'll use a thermometer.
If i want to measure air pressure i'll use a barometer.
If i want to measure ionizing radiation i'll use a Geiger counter.
If i want to measure distance i'll use various scales of ruler.

IF I WANT TO MEASURE GRAVITY I NEED TO KNOW THE MASS AND LOCATION OF TWO OBJECTS THEN MAKE A CALCULATION!

Either that or a detector with the mass of Jupiter, a neutron star and ten years of data.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Gravity as a fictitious force within the theory of General Relativity is not some pseudo science, it's generally accepted despite your reluctance to understand basic physics. The current equations we use already define gravity as fictitious, no need for new ones.

Fictitious forces arise in classical mechanics and special relativity in all non-inertial frames. Inertial frames are privileged over non-inertial frames because they do not have physics whose causes are outside of the system, while non-inertial frames do. Fictitious forces, or physics whose cause is outside of the system, are no longer necessary in general relativity, since these physics are explained with the geodesics of spacetime: "The field of all possible space-time null geodesics or photon paths unifies the absolute local non-rotation standard throughout space-time.".[17]

You need to get your definition of "fictitious" as it applies to physics straight. Look it up.
And don't forget to post your new equations.

originally posted by: Grenade

Either that or a detector with the mass of Jupiter, a neutron star and ten years of data.

Let's all take a step back and remember the time Phantom thought posting a paper that referenced a theoretical detector the mass of Jupiter was an actual experiment.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You need to get your definition of "fictitious" as it applies to physics straight. Look it up.
And don't forget to post your new equations.

You literally didn't even know what a fictitious force was until a page ago.

a reply to: Phantom423

I'll simplify it for you and point to a Journalist you might trust, rather than endless articles explaining the physics in detailed, inconceivable, nuanced equations.

The following article on Scientific American states the following in its summary:

"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct."

Now suck it up and get back on topic.

EDIT TO ADD: I don't necessarily believe Einsteins Theory is correct either, as i already said to co-op. I'm simply clarifying and helping you understand your own beliefs from the prophets of Scientism.

a reply to: Grenade

If you want to discuss real science, go to the Science forum and start a thread.

a reply to: Phantom423

No, I don’t need your advice thanks. Think I’ll continue in this thread highlighting your poor scientific understanding and ignorance.

Proof that something exists depends on it being measured and/or observed. Gravity has been measured on all of our solar system's planets, including our star. It has also been measured on several other stars and extra-solar phenomena. The effects of gravity have also been observed and tested against its scientific theories, which it passes.

Where is the measurement and/or observational proof of your god - or any other gods?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Gravity is calculated, not directly measured or observed. Hence a Graviton is a theoretical particle. We can describe the effect on mass of space/time curvature but not directly measure the force itself. I really can't simplify it any further and if you continue to argue the point then you're a fool.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TerraLiga

Gravity is calculated, not directly measured or observed. Hence a Graviton is a theoretical particle. We can describe the effect on mass of space/time curvature but not directly measure the force itself. I really can't simplify it any further and if you continue to argue the point then you're a fool.

That response is a question of semantics. Gravity is the term given to the effect of mass on spacetime, and that can be measured. That is what I said. I didn't mention gravitons, but the theory that they definitely exist has not been proven.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use defamatory slurs.

That aside, where is the proof that any deity has a ,easurable effect on this or any other planet?

a reply to: TerraLiga

On a text based discussion forum semantics are important to convey context. Again, Gravity can't be measured, only indirectly calculated. Hence the term "fictitious". I'm glad you've researched and are at least able to concede that Gravity can be described by many Theories, none of which are backed by direct measurement or observation.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I never suggested this was proof, my interjection into the conversation was to highlight that science was pioneered by those with a creationist perspective. I find it amusing when people try to use science to disprove God, only to realise the science they've invoked was pioneered by highly religious individuals.

"I believe theories that are proven only by mathematics on blackboards without any evidence postulated by people who also believe in God, yet im unwilling to believe in anything that isn't backed by an equation."

Schrodingers Cat is a good example of how science can create plausible theorems that you can never prove.