Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Daniel]

Gravity exerts a force. It is a force that causes masses to attract.

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?

The cause of gravity is currently understood as curvature of spacetime around a mass.

1. The Curvature of "Space-Time" is Einsteinian 'gravity' which you Ruled Out above.
Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

2. Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf

So how can Professor Rees be "Baffled" and "You" know it ?? Could it be that you're just Mindlessly PARROTING 'wiki'?

'gravity' is considered a physical law.

1. Now you're back to Newtonian 'gravity' . Which one are you gonna stick with??
2. Your 'scientific community' (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity' (See Above: George Musser).
3. Who considers it a Physical Law?
4. What's the Law...?

Suffice to say that no exceptions have ever been observed.

No Validation has ever been observed.

Post any evidence against the existence of gravity.

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider, much less attempt, to disprove a Complete Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The Non-Existence is the evidence of Non-Existence.
Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...?

Your appeal is tantamount to claiming that dark matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes throwing Pixie Dust in a Black Hole behind the Crab Nebula, then requesting others DISPROVE it OR...Therefore, your Claim is TRUE!!!

Scientifically Validate your Claims FIRST ...then, I'll PUMMEL them !! K?

Post a coherent, evidence-backed theory that might supply an alternative explanation to the phenomenon that we can all observe as 'gravity'.

I don't need a replacement 'theory' (aka: Fairytale) to PUMMEL yours.
Your appeal is tantamount to a Judge not allowing a Defendant to present a case for his innocence until such time as the Defendant has found a suitable replacement for the CRIME!!!



regards

 

[Elagabalus]

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

<<SNIPPED>>

Baby steps. Did you step off the chair yet? Tell us what happened.

 

[Daniel]

For the 1288th time: through gravity.

For the 1288th Time:

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.

Like the sea has water pressure despite being contained only at the bottom.

1. False Equivalence Fallacy (658th Time): Water (liquid) is NOT a GAS even though both are arbitrarily classified as Fluids.

2. The sea doesn't have sides (??) it's just contained at the bottom?

It doesn't make a difference whether Einsteinian or Newtonian gravity.

Yes, it surely does make a HUGE Difference...

Newtonian Gravity is ... "A Force".
Einsteinian Gravity is NOT ... "A Force".
They are 'Mutually Exclusive'. They're not even in the same Geometry for cryin out-loud:
Newtonian 'gravity' is Euclidean 3 Space; whereas, EinSHtienian 'gravity' is Pseudo- Riemannian 4 Space.
Newtonian 'gravity' is 'purportedly' a Scientific Law.
Einstein's gr is 'purportedly' a Scientific Theory.

Mass is the cause of gravity. This has been measured and confirmed in countless experiments.

Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.

You need to contact Professor Rees and educate him...

Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf



regards

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?

Which trainwreck? Yours?

...

Try to, you know, actually READ my reply: I wrote, gravity exerts a force. Because it does. It was originally assumed that gravity was one of four basic forces of physics (the other three are the weak atomic force, electromagnetic force, and the strong atomic force), however, with Einstein, we may stop interpreting it as such.

Einstein notwithstanding, our observation of gravity is that of a force.

1. The Curvature of "Space-Time" is Einsteinian 'gravity' which you Ruled Out above.
Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

No, I didn't. (Again, reading comprehension). I pointed out that we can treat it as a force, no matter the basic cause.

2. Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/ astrophysicist...

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest."
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.pdf

So how can Professor Rees be "Baffled" and "You" know it ?? Could it be that you're just Mindlessly PARROTING 'wiki'?

Easy: His job is to figure out the basic, in depth explanations. I just have to understand how it influences my world.

No Validation has ever been observed.

You have not ... ever ... observed gravity at work? Seriously?? As in ... for real???

Come on!!

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider, much less attempt, to disprove a Complete Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The Non-Existence is the evidence of Non-Existence.
Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...?

Well, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is how things are working. Like it or not, the law of gravity is the accepted paradigm (and a very well established one at that), so if you want to go against it, you have the burden of proof. Too bad, perhaps, but ... them's the rules. ... Seriously, we can't be obliged to go around proving the obvious to any .... person ... who claims to not understand it.

Hans

 

[Daniel]

Surface target? LOS is to the horizon and a little past.
Air target? LOS can be to 35 miles (plus some) depending on elevation.

Of course, this ^^^^ is in reference to the NATO Sea Sparrow. So I challenged you to CITE Source for your "Conjurings"; which you then provided...

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/radar-horizon-line-of-sight.htm

Ahhh... can you suss out where the NATO Sea Sparrow is even MENTIONED , much less anything concerning its RANGE for any Targets WHATSOEVER, from your Elephant Hurling Fallacy here...?


regards

 

[DGM]

Of course, this ^^^^ is in reference to the NATO Sea Sparrow. So I challenged you to CITE Source for your "Conjurings"; which you then provided...

Interesting. When I asked you to cite a source for an SOP for exact disclosure of specs for military systems you failed and resorted to insults.

 

[Daniel]

Which trainwreck? Yours?

No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented.

Try to, you know, actually READ my reply

You then have the audacity to advise me to read your reply

I wrote, gravity exerts a force.

I know AND THEN I clobbered your 'wiki' PARROTING buffoonery with...

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...ekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity'...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?


Is there something particularly confusing about the "Debunking" here to your "FORCE" Baseless Assertion Fallacy Claim that's particularly confusing?

Because it does.

1. What's "IT"...?
2. And does "WHAT"...?

It was originally assumed that gravity was one of four basic forces of physics (the other three are the weak atomic force, electromagnetic force, and the strong atomic force), however, with Einstein, we may stop interpreting it as such.

So now it's NOT a Force. OK, but you just said above...

"I wrote, gravity exerts a force."

So which is it??

ps. Your feeble semantic gymnastics "exerts" doesn't save your Convoluted Trainwreck here professor.

Einstein notwithstanding, our observation of gravity is that of a force.

So NOW it's "A Force" Have you considered "Politics" as a vocation?

I pointed out that we can treat it as a force, no matter the basic cause.

So we can treat it as a Force but it's NOT a Force, eh?

You have not ... ever ... observed gravity at work? Seriously?? As in ... for real???
Come on!!

I've observed things falling to the ground...but I can call that "Duccolslopelgertz" or "Slopelduccolgertz"; they each have the same Scientific Veracity as your PARROTED 'gravity'.

Well, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is how things are working. Like it or not, the law of gravity is the accepted paradigm (and a very well established one at that)

Really?? I hate to be the one to tell you this but you're in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with your 'scientific community', AGAIN...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Is there something here ^^^^ that's particularly confusing?


regards

 

[Elagabalus]

No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented...

<<SNIP AGAIN!!>>

Time for another coat of shellack. What happened when you stepped off the chair?

 

[Daniel]

Interesting. When I asked you to cite a source for an SOP for exact disclosure of specs for military systems you failed

How could I have failed when I provided a Specific Example (M203 Point vs Area Target)?

This one to be precise: http://www.armystudyguide.com/conte...e_topics/m203/m203-equipment-informatio.shtml

Ya see, SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) are merely Common Practices. Even though the location/time ect ect of the mess halls/meals aren't documented in a Soldier's Manual, everyone showed up and had 3 Squares a Day (when in Garrison).


regards

 

[Daniel]

Time for another coat of shellack. What happened when you stepped off the chair?

I stepped onto the floor. What's next, a query on what happens when I turn a doorknob?


regards

 

[DGM]

How could I have failed when I provided a Specific Example (M203 Point vs Area Target)?

This one to be precise: http://www.armystudyguide.com/conte...e_topics/m203/m203-equipment-informatio.shtml

Ya see, SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) are merely Common Practices. Even though the location/time ect ect of the mess halls/meals aren't documented in a Soldier's Manual, everyone showed up and had 3 Squares a Day (when in Garrison).


regards

So your proof of claim boils down to " I said so". Just as I thought.

 

[Daniel]

Your questions were, and are, irrelevant to whether gravity exists.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit 'Hand Wave Dismissal' Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

The real question is why do you even bother to ask them at all?

1. Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy.
2. To show that you have No CLUE of the Topic. Mission Accomplished!!

Yes or no question before we continue this line of conversation:
Has an attraction between physical objects dependant on mass been observed to exist?

No.

Define Mass...?


regards

 

[DGM]

Define Mass...?

Goes to the next avenue of diverging. Anything to avoid the real issue.

What's your definition of mass?

 

[Daniel]

So your proof of claim boils down to " I said so". Just as I thought.

No. The Proof for the Claim of Documented Weapon/Munition Characteristics/Ranges ect was the M203 'link'. It's a "Well Duh" Scenario.

As for the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow it's documented Range is 50 km. (However, it's Caveated with: the ACTUAL Range is Classified)...Meaning it's much FARTHER than 50 km.
All I need is the "50 km's" to Validate my claim....anything more is BONUS.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Goes to the next avenue of diverging. Anything to avoid the real issue.

How can I be "Diverging" when I answered his "Yes/No" Question with "NO", pray tell?

Is this the same scenario where I failed to provide a "reference" when I provided a "reference"??


regards

 

[DGM]

No. The Proof for the Claim of Documented Weapon/Munition Characteristics/Ranges ect was the M203 'link'. It's a "Well Duh" Scenario.

As for the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow it's documented Range is 50 km. (However, it's Caveated with: the ACTUAL Range is Classified)...Meaning it's much FARTHER than 50 km.
All I need is the "50 km's" to Validate my claim....anything more is BONUS.


regards

Your claim is limitations such as at sea level targets are defined as per SOP. You fail.

 

[DGM]

How can I be "Diverging" when I answered his "Yes/No" Question with "NO", pray tell?

Is this the same scenario where I failed to provide a "reference" when I provided a "reference"??


regards

Skipped your definition of Mass. Care to field that question or is that something you also don't know?

 

[Daniel]

Your claim is limitations such as at sea level targets are defined as per SOP. You fail.

My claim, or better said... the US Navy's Claim, is that the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow is 50 km's. It's Case Closed.
(btw: is also confirmed by a US Navy Missile Instructor )

I "Pass" which IPSO FACTO means your Fairytale "Sphere" is annihilated.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Skipped your definition of Mass.

My retort "Define Mass...?" was After the Fact of answering his question: "NO". So your feeble frivolous appeal of "Diverging" was nonsense.

Care to field that question or is that something you also don't know?

I know the answer to the question...fyi: I don't ask questions that I don't know the answer to


regards

 

[DGM]

My claim, or better said... the US Navy's Claim, is that the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow is 50 km's. It's Case Closed.
(btw: is also confirmed by a US Navy Missile Instructor )

I "Pass" which IPSO FACTO means your Fairytale "Sphere" is annihilated.


regards

I bet you hate the fact people can see what you actual said:

Ya see, when the Military denotes Ranges of its Weapon Systems/Munitions, it's SOP to be Uber Specific and Differentiate if there are limitations with different Targets/Situations (e.g., M203 -- Point vs Area Targets).
In this Particular Case, they DID NOT; Ergo...50 km's (Again, "Low Ball") is the Range for ALL Targets and the limitations are inherent to the Weapon System/Munition itself, nothing else.

Care to back peddle now?