The Conspiracy Theory

chris_bass

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

orraloon

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Is because the UFO on the tax disc on the object thrown steers it back down to earth, innit. Or so some pxsshead in the pub told me last night.

No doubt Manc33 will hop, skip and jump on to the next fantasy without responding with any cogents...

chris_bass

Hopefully he won't jump too high, could be dangerous now he's debunked that gravity nonsense

Wunnunda

Lucky he's a bit dense then?

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

So I put a pebble on a block of polystrene. The pebble doesn't fall through the polystyene, nor does the polystyrene rise through the pebble. Seems to be a tiny flaw in your theory.

Because they are both solid objects, as opposed to liquids or gases.

Do that with liquids or gases and they behave the way you described.

MisterMuncher

If, indeed Gravity is a lie, and Newton's work all cobblers and just-so-stories, why do the results derived from his theories and mathematics map precisely to what's observed outside of relativistic/sub-atomic scales?

And on that, is it just me who believes you can definitely tell what side of an intelligence bell-curve someone lies on when they can't differentiate between the definitions of the word "theory" in context of science and in the context of everyday use?

Manc33

You can attach "gravity" to explain falling objects and do all that Newtonian stuff but it is a trick. He got everyone to think gravity exists, even though it doesn't. You don't have to have gravity, you just have to trick people its there.

Scientists don't have high enough standards if they are calling theories facts. I just ignore it in that sense when they say stuff like "there was a big bang" etc, prove it or stop imposing it. It really can be seen for the "cult" it is then, when its deemed unfashionable to want proof. Amazing considering this is supposedly what science is about, proving things.

So science can pick or choose whether proof is actually needed or not and doesn't, wait doesn't need proof for certain things? That is wholly unscientific and in this area of science it is a cult, a religion. People just saying "oh go on then I'll buy it".

As long as you're not thinking some man with a white beard is looking down on us all, everything is OK. :roll:

The trick's on the atheists because not everyone reading the bible thinks some god is in heaven with a white beard looking down, that's the typical atheists perspective of thinking other people are stupid lol, pity really.

We know a lot because of science, but we don't know everything and pretending we do isn't going to make one bit of difference, aside from some sort of psychological comfort for those doing it.

MisterMuncher

It's a pretty remarkable trick, given it accurately predicts the behaviour of objects and phenomena Newton had no way of knowing about. Do Newton's equations just happen to accurately predict things based on this "density" notion you have by sheer coincidence?

And as predicted, you don't really understand the word theory in a scientific context. It isn't synonymous with hypothesis. The problem here is you are deeply opposed to a strawman of science, not how science actaully works.

Science doesn't present things as fait accompli without evidence. The nature of science is to derive an explanation that best describes the observed phenomena. When the evidence contradicts the model, the model must be revised or rejected. Gravity, The "big bang" cosmological model, the germ "theory" of disease all manage to do this: They describe the phenomenon, provide testable hypothesis, and predict results/discoveries, That's why Lamarkian evolution is thought a dead end: There simply wasn't the evidence for it, whereas the rival model had evidence in abundance.

Lastly, Science doesn't know everything. It has never claimed it does. If it did, it'd stop. That's no reason to reject it out of hand and turn to something that is at the very best no more rigourous.

Manc33

MisterMuncher wrote:

It's a pretty remarkable trick, given it accurately predicts the behaviour of objects and phenomena Newton had no way of knowing about. Do Newton's equations just happen to accurately predict things based on this "density" notion you have by sheer coincidence?

Nothing was predicted, he just took what already exists and worked out the acceleration of it and so on.

Of course falling objects in future are going to match up with his maths, how couldn't it?

The claim is that gravity is a force when there isn't a force, only different densities.

MisterMuncher wrote:

And as predicted, you don't really understand the word theory in a scientific context. It isn't synonymous with hypothesis. The problem here is you are deeply opposed to a strawman of science, not how science actaully works.

That sounds like a religious argument though. You're saying science can just change the meaning of a word and so on. Science is not allowed to call a theory a fact because if it did, it wouldn't be science any more. I just don't take that seriously, that science is allowed to have whatever meaning it wants when it suits, that's how religion plays it.

MisterMuncher wrote:

Science doesn't present things as fait accompli without evidence. The nature of science is to derive an explanation that best describes the observed phenomena.

I agree with that but they don't just say its "best described this way but we are open to other ways" it says if you don't believe this stuff you must be some bible bashing idiot that probably thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

Put it this way, science could learn a lot from religion... but religion could not learn one single thing from science! Science on a basic level would have already just sprung up alongside religions with no arguments between them anyway, TV's would have got invented, radio, engines... why would religion stop any of that?

So then its only made to be a science Vs religion thing, so some boffins throw out a ton of maths and that's that. Even if they have no proof for it themselves like with gravity, they will still insist it exists and so on, so they do have some form of religion going on, its just way harder to detect since it conceals itself with "science", the savior of the world. :roll:

MisterMuncher wrote:

When the evidence contradicts the model, the model must be revised or rejected. Gravity, The "big bang" cosmological model, the germ "theory" of disease all manage to do this: They describe the phenomenon, provide testable hypothesis, and predict results/discoveries, That's why Lamarkian evolution is thought a dead end: There simply wasn't the evidence for it, whereas the rival model had evidence in abundance.

Some guy postulating with a load of maths that something exists as a theory... I have no problem with people believing that, but then they start debating and claiming gravity exists when it doesn't, they have deviated away from real science somehow then. Including/allowing theoretic only stuff to be treated as a fact is absurd, the science is removed from it at that point and you're relying on faith.

MisterMuncher wrote:

Lastly, Science doesn't know everything. It has never claimed it does. If it did, it'd stop.

Scientists are among the nicest people, but there's a hoity toity attitude among some of them. I mean people that instantly look upon the intelligence of others as being no greater than a worm just because they aren't able to memorize a load of maths or whatever. These boffin types have about as much gut instinct as a plank of wood and will defend theories anyway. They need to invent something in science to factor in "human" bias.

MisterMuncher wrote:

That's no reason to reject it out of hand and turn to something that is at the very best no more rigourous.

I think religions, as far as understanding the world in a material way, aren't a patch on science.

Like I have said before though science only measures things. It only covers so much and to me just isn't as important as it is made out.

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

Objects of greater density fall through objects of lesser density.
Objects of lesser density rise through objects of greater density.

No gravity is required and it doesn't exist as a force.

You can introduce this made up force and call it "gravity" but there's no need to - unless of course you can't explain it and want to pretend to be able to. Well we're inundated with people like that, liars that will tell the world anything if it gets them credit and recognition on a personal level, but they actually don't have any answer when it comes down to it and that's what matters - an answer.

Right, thanks for that. So I presume that's your best response to my question is it?
Let me remind you what I said:

Ai_1 wrote:

Your gravity piece is a new low in ill-conceived factual incompetence.
Pretty much everything you said in that post uses bits of facts and then misunderstands them to an astounding extent.
I'm not about to waste my time correcting you in detail but perhaps a little clue:
How does your "density" choose a direction? What you are, sort of, describing is buoyancy and is meaningless without gravity or some other acceleration. You have given no argument concerning gravity at all.
No? Then explain please.

Manc33 wrote:

A scene from one of the Syfy channel made for TV films that taught you the truth about the world?

Did you answer my queries?
No

So again:

1. You are just describing bouyancy, badly.
2. How do the less and more dense objects you describe know which way to rise or fall? Indeed what do "rise" and "fall" mean to you?

I will be very impressed if you can give even a vaguely rational explanation without needing gravity. But you're the one claiming it's unnecessary to explain how things work. So go for it.



Lastly. What do you think we think gravity is?

Here's what I think: Gravity is the property by which mass is attracted to other mass. It's observable, measurable, predictable. We don't know how it works. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
Why do you think you are attracted to the surface of the earth. Just saying density does not explain it. We are in air which is less dense than us but so what. Even in a vacuum we move towards and regardless of any property of density you still haven't said why we move in any specific direction.

team47b

my profession is based on a study of conceptual theories of perceptual salience, habitude and dissonance.

If you can see a sun on a tax disc, this is called salience, don't panic it is a normal perceptual function of the hypocampus.

As with all other things the more you know, the more you see, the more you know, please refrain from not treating this as cyclical and stopping at step two.

The circular part of the tax disc is a functional feature not a decorative element but feel free to continue to apply your own understanding and meaning to visual stimuli as it is most enlightening.

veronese68

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The simple laymans proof is the fact that we do not float off into space

I'm not sure you can make that statement as far a Manc33 is concerned

Density is what stops him floating off. He's really dense.

florerider

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Bondurant wrote:

Are you quite sure that no-one can prove gravity exists? Or do you mean you can't understand it, conceptually, when it is explained?

No one has ever proven it to exist.

You can easily prove it doesn't exist, by knowing that "gravity" is just a difference in density between objects. When a helium balloon rises, it is less dense than the other air, when a lead weight is dropped, it falls because it is more dense than the stuff around it.

You can attach a "force" to it if you want to but then you'd be living in a make believe world because there's no proof of it. However there is proof that objects have differing densities.

Let's say you get a sponge and throw it into a pool of water, it floats. Then you get the sponge and pack it all into a 1mm x 1mm x 1mm cube and throw it in the water - now it sinks. Does that mean there's magically "more gravity" when you pack something closer together? No, it just means the density has changed.

They work it so we're supposed to think "more" gravity acts on objects with more density, OK how might that work and can I see some proof?

You clearly do not understand gravity. At all.

The simple laymans proof is the fact that we do not float off into space due to the fact that there is a gravitational attraction between the mass in our body and the mass of the Earth.

Like I said, Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.

Stevo_666

florerider wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Bondurant wrote:

Are you quite sure that no-one can prove gravity exists? Or do you mean you can't understand it, conceptually, when it is explained?

No one has ever proven it to exist.

You can easily prove it doesn't exist, by knowing that "gravity" is just a difference in density between objects. When a helium balloon rises, it is less dense than the other air, when a lead weight is dropped, it falls because it is more dense than the stuff around it.

You can attach a "force" to it if you want to but then you'd be living in a make believe world because there's no proof of it. However there is proof that objects have differing densities.

Let's say you get a sponge and throw it into a pool of water, it floats. Then you get the sponge and pack it all into a 1mm x 1mm x 1mm cube and throw it in the water - now it sinks. Does that mean there's magically "more gravity" when you pack something closer together? No, it just means the density has changed.

They work it so we're supposed to think "more" gravity acts on objects with more density, OK how might that work and can I see some proof?

You clearly do not understand gravity. At all.

The simple laymans proof is the fact that we do not float off into space due to the fact that there is a gravitational attraction between the mass in our body and the mass of the Earth.

Like I said, Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.

You call it sucking, I call it gravity. I wonder what Manc33 calls it?

iron-clover

As a physicist, I really am qualified to state that gravity is a force that exists. Admittedly it is extremely weak compared to the other fundamental forces (Electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) which is why we don't phase through the floor and it hurts when you run into a wall (that's caused by the Pauli exclusion principle and electromagnetic repulsion).

But unlike the others it scales with the mass of the objects concerned- and there is more mass in the universe than you could possibly comprehend which means if you have enough in one place it will overcome all the other forces (think of black holes) which don't scale in the same way.

ai_1

iron-clover wrote:

As a physicist, I really am qualified to state that gravity is a force that exists. Admittedly it is extremely weak compared to the other fundamental forces (Electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) which is why we don't phase through the floor and it hurts when you run into a wall (that's caused by the Pauli exclusion principle and electromagnetic repulsion).

But unlike the others it scales with the mass of the objects concerned- and there is more mass in the universe than you could possibly comprehend which means if you have enough in one place it will overcome all the other forces (think of black holes) which don't scale in the same way.

Stop spouting made up mumbo jumbo that only exists to justify your job. Everyone know physicists rake it in and are only in it for the money!

ai_1

@Manc33

Didn't you write something earlier in the thread about how "they" were suppressing technology to suit "their" agenda and refer to an anti-gravity device which you knew was real but had been hidden from the public as an example?

If you think "anti-gravity" is real, how do believe that gravity is not?

P.S. How heavy is your bike?

Stevo_666

Ai_1 wrote:

@Manc33

Didn't you write something earlier in the thread about how "they" were suppressing technology to suit "their" agenda and refer to an anti-gravity device which you knew was real but had been hidden from the public as an example?

If you think "anti-gravity" is real, how do believe that gravity is not?

P.S. How heavy is your bike?

Good spot. No need for an anti gravity device if gravity doesn't exist. Your thoughts on this please Manc33?

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Your thoughts on this please Manc33?

Implies there is thinking going on rather than cut n pasting of interweb drivel.

florerider

Stevo

I though you had an anti gravity device to get up hills in Wales, or is that a secret no one is to know?

ai_1

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Your thoughts on this please Manc33?

Implies there is thinking going on rather than cut n pasting of interweb drivel.

I suspect you're correct. Any resemblance to thinking is likely coincidental.

To date he hasn't responded to any of my questions with a coherent response. He's simply ignored most of them and he'll probably do the same again. So I'm not holding my breath.

florerider

Are you suggesting his explanation lacks gravity?

Stevo_666

florerider wrote:

Stevo

I though you had an anti gravity device to get up hills in Wales, or is that a secret no one is to know?

I'll have to get the neuralyzer out now...

chris_bass

Just going to pop this here

Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control - CNN 1/7/2013: https://youtu.be/_XZvMwcluEg

Kieran_Burns

florerider wrote:

Are you suggesting his explanation lacks gravity?

I believe we do not treat them with sufficient gravitas myself.

Manc33

You could call it buoyancy but that makes people focus on water, when you have to include the densities of solid objects and gases, as well as water.

Get a tennis ball with string attached so you can spin it really fast and put a few drops of water on it - in your theory of gravity existing, the faster you spin the ball, the more the water sticks to it, right?

Is that what happens in the real world?
Nope.

Is Newton talking out of his arse then?
Yep.

Except I am not just presenting you with a theory on paper here, you can really get a tennis ball, really put string through it, water on it and make it spin really fast.

You film that and show it me, then I will believe spinning objects cause gravity in a way things stick to it.

Now you're going to say something like "No because Earths gravity stops all that" when you just said it is a very weak force. You'll just change your stance just like they have to in religion when they do not have an answer, this is why I say science is a religion. Whether you can realize that is down to you.

You're the ones arguing the toss without any real proof. Add to this my tennis ball experiment and you have nothing - a theory that a child can see doesn't work by just spinning a ball and finding the opposite happening, things won't stick to it, they will fly off.

Doesn't matter what you argue against this because there isn't one. If you cannot accept that a ball will make water escape from it as opposed to press down onto it when it spins, I don't know what else I can say, stop living in a fantasy and use your own eyes.



If what you guys say is true (and Newton) there would be no need for mudguards because water would stick to the wheels on a bike. Look at all the silly things in life that prove Newton wrong then look at all the people that will still argue the toss over it even though they can observe the theory doesn't work in reality.

The theory doesn't work in reality and yet everyone has been hoodwinked by it, gotta hand it to these people down history lol, not sure what exactly they are doing, removing all our spirit or something, having us believing junk science.

My theory on all that is it only takes intelligence slightly higher, to do this. I mean back then they would have said "But Newton your theory can be proven wrong anytime with a ball and string" and he would be like "Yeah it can but people are so god damn stupid all we need to do is present it in the right way and they will buy it". Now put me on a banknote like you promised.

Same with Darwin, on a banknote because he conned everyone and made a lie a fact just like Newton. Why was Robert Stephenson on a banknote you might ask - because it can't all be liars, it would be too obvious. Besides, we're pretending these theories are facts so there isn't really any suspicion anyway.

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

You could call it buoyancy but that makes people focus on water, when you have to include the densities of solid objects and gases, as well as water.

Get a tennis ball with string attached so you can spin it really fast and put a few drops of water on it - in your theory of gravity existing, the faster you spin the ball, the more the water sticks to it, right?

Is that what happens in the real world?
Nope.

Is Newton talking out of his ars* then?
Yep.

Except I am not just presenting you with a theory on paper here, you can really get a tennis ball, really put string through it, water on it and make it spin really fast.

You film that and show it me, then I will believe spinning objects cause gravity in a way things stick to it.

Now you're going to say something like "No because Earths gravity stops all that" when you just said it is a very weak force. You'll just change your stance just like they have to in religion when they do not have an answer, this is why I say science is a religion. Whether you can realize that is down to you.

You're the ones arguing the toss without any real proof. Add to this my tennis ball experiment and you have nothing - a theory that a child can see doesn't work by just spinning a ball and finding the opposite happening, things won't stick to it, they will fly off.

Doesn't matter what you argue against this because there isn't one. If you cannot accept that a ball will make water escape from it as opposed to press down onto it when it spins, I don't know what else I can say, stop living in a fantasy and use your own eyes.

:shock:

Manc33

You just realized a revolving mass pushes objects away from it as opposed to making them stick?

city_boy

No, I already knew about centrifugal force, thanks!

Manc33

City Boy wrote:

No, I already knew about centrifugal force, thanks!

At least that force exists.

If gravity is anything it is a dimension, not a force. The first dimension fits perfectly with what "gravity" does. Think about a 2D plane falling through a 1D plane. We call it "falling" but it just moves one way, as a one dimensional spacial dimension would. Now base a 2D plane on that and voila. No force necessary. This opens up endless other questions, but is the only theory that makes sense. What creates 3D then... I don't know, a tear or morphing, some sort of opening up of the 2D plane.