Gravity Waves: Creating and Controlling Weather - WEATHERWAR101
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (7)
sorted by:
This person clearly hasn’t thought it through :(
If, like that insufferable fraud hutchinson, this person is claiming that combinations of conventional radio wave frequencies are “gravity waves” then they should be able to demonstrate them. I’d quite like a gravity gun; it would bring things to me.
Speaking of which, if these radio towers were actually creating gravity waves - why wouldn’t they pull things (like clouds) towards the emitters and/or created radio wavefronts? Wouldn’t things above and below them also be attracted, like people below the wavefront suddenly losing weight and things above them suddenly gaining it?
A common speculative excuse given for why gravity waves remain undiscovered (assuming they exist at all) and unmanipulable/ungeneratable is that the power required for them is thought astronomical, and because gravity is believed to be such a weak force - the results would be less than impressive.
The nice people in their comments tried to explain it to them so they wouldn’t sound so willfully uninformed, but they were dismissed as “flat earthers”. It is a prominent view of physicists that gravity waves do not exist.
Thoughts?
I disagree slightly with that verbiage.
In my view, gravity (the phenomenon/natural law) is very real and has been defined/known for thousands of years. In its most simple form it is the statement, “what goes up, must come down”.
It is gravitation (the theory, and hypothetical gravity wave of which it is speculatively comprised, and presumed cause of the phenomenon/law of gravity), invented a few centuries ago, which doesn’t exist (outside of equation, anyway).
But of course it is, and has been for thousands of years. I understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it - but it is not semantically correct. You may think that it is a minor quibble, and who cares anyway - but in my view it is much more important than that.
When you claim that “gravity” isn’t real / doesn’t exist, it encourages others to misunderstand you and think you are foolish. The law of [phenomenon of] gravity is very real, and as we both know is caused by density (of the object and the surrounding media). Gravity the term and observable phenomenon (“what goes up, must come down”) has been around for millennia. There is no reason to discard it now, and scientifically it is very important that we don’t. We must have a name for phenomena that is different than the theories which describe/explain it. In the case of gravity, an attack on the foundation of science has taken place where the two have been conflated together. This is the reason for the word gravitation (the thing which doesn’t exist, in our view), which is separate and distinct from gravity - but most are not taught rigorously.
Agreed, but in science - natural laws (aka descriptions of phenomena) like gravity do not and cannot speculate on cause/reason. They are simply what is, without any why. Reason/cause/why is bore of theory which is bore of experiment. As you probably know, there are no experiments supporting the theory of gravitation and newton famously didn’t even offer a hypothesis for it {a necessary prerequisite to experiment of any kind).
I find this possible, but not strictly necessary to recognizing the cardinal directions.
Agreed. In fact, most mainstream physicists are also taught that today.
You can, but that is yet another demonstration that gravitation (the little g stands for gravitational acceleration, NOT gravity) is fictional. It would violate the conservation of energy which is a cornerstone of most all science. Acceleration costs energy. To say, or mathematically describe, objects at rest accelerating perpetually is both stupid and wrong. If only it were so, we could extract limitless energy from any stationary object.
Bot
Who’s a bot?
You? The OP? The youtube video author? 925thejoyisgone?
The only one i’m absolutely certain isn’t a bot is me ;P