One of the most interesting things I ever learned was that the idea of College or University in the West came from an attempt to protect the French language from Muslim perversion--because changing the words changes the thoughts and changing the thoughts changes the behavior of the people.
Arabs historically destabilize competitors through the distortion and perversion of language.
That's a pretty lit tactic if you ask me. They're the bomb. That's a fire strategy. No cap boomers won't be hip to the jive and the kids end up mid af.
Yes, the Latin Languages are very interesting, each word or small group of Words conveys a Full Concept....
We go not say ""Pay Attention"", i is Conceptually Incorrect, for Attention Begins within the Mind of the Person, and is Not Owed to anyone, instead we say PUT Attention, so as to affirm the Origins of the Attention being the one Putting it....
And it just goes on from there, everything is Conceptually Spoken, like watching a Movie, but inside your Mind....
And everyone who has this off the wall theory that gravity doesn't exist, has yet to prove it doesn't exist....
Actually, you have it backwards. In science we have to prove it does exist first, but that isn't what happened with gravitation. Trying to disprove something that was never proven to begin with is a fools errand.
And all I need to do is throw a rock into the air, and when it comes back down, Proof Gravity does exist....
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
Gravitation on the other hand, the imaginary pseudo force believed and taught as the cause of gravity, is not proven and cannot be proven - because it is, and always was from its initial creation (a few hundred years ago), fiction.
Ask NASA’s top public relations ‘scientist’ to define gravity for you. If he can’t do it, then no one can.
Gravity is simply explained away by the principals of buoyancy and density. A rock falls because it is heavier than the atmospheric oxygen, the medium in which it finds itself in. However, if you through that rock into a pool of Jello, it would float. It’s not because the rock is now suddenly an anti gravity device, it’s because the medium, Jello, is now more dense than the rock. The rock becomes buoyant in that medium. Very simple science that does not require a spinning earth and a magical, physics-breaking force called gravity.
So far, the easiest explanation I have been given::
the other force is electromagnetism, with the air being negative and ground being positive, there is a flow of magnetism that flows from sky to ground.
And it is VERY Close, still the best though....
Look above, or below, to find the full comms on this....
Sure they do. They just are not destinations you can travel to or land ships on. They’re gaseous lights as far as modern telescopes can tell. They also wander, do not follow the same pattern as the rest of the stars.
In what way? Could you describe this contradiction? You seem to be under the mistaken, and common, impression that gravity and gravitation are the same thing.
I'd like to say the conversation was stimulating
You might if you tried having a conversation on the topic. I guess we'll never know will we?
But watching you jump through Mental Hoops
Why on earth did you capitalize "Mental Hoops"? Are you a bot?
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
I understand what you mean, and why you say this - but i disagree on semantic and scientific grounds.
Gravity is a scientific/natural law thousands of years old. It isn't going anywhere, and we shouldn't want it to. It is simply the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down."
The major modern problem with the word gravity is that is has been erroneously conflated with the cause for the phenomenon in the minds of many misled students. In science (and basic logic), the phenomenon cannot be the cause of itself. Teaching things like this is an attack on science.
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
This is possible, but such speculation is usually not helpful - or necessary. Gravity is caused, as you said, when an object weighs more than the media it displaces. Weight is just an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
no, mass is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)
I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).
Weight is the adjustment to mass caused by other forces, like buoyancy, your mass is the same, but you weight less in the pool.
It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).
or by centrifical force, the mass is the same, but while spinning, the weight is much higher.
So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).
do you have other reason besides that?
I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).
Gravity is NOT a force. its not what makes you fall.
True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.
The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.
And I never said that gravity is caused when an object is more dense that the media it displaces
I thought you did when you said this :
its effected mainly by buoyancy; being denser than air
and this from another comment in this thread :
the reason a rock falls when you drop it is is two part, the stronger force is buoyancy. this is calculated using density relative to the density of the medium (air)
but gravity can just be replaced with acceleration and it's the same answer.
Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.
The simple law of what goes up must come down has NOTHING to do with gravity.
It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).
It's misleading and you are just helping the assholes fool everyone by perpetuating it.
I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.
If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.
No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.
My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.
weight is the same as mass
I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").
you shouldn't have an opinion if you cant understand that is meant by acceleration
I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".
and gravity, is not a force. so its totally, utterly unneeded and useless in every sense of the word
It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).
you explain that gravity was an invention by the freemasons ... isaac newton
Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!
so call it the laws of Aether. In dense Aether, you fall slow or not at all, Aether gets denser as you get father from the ground.
Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?
Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.
Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat and gravity is an immutable measured constant.
Stop listening to the voices in your head. Having schizo conversations with yourself like this is always so embarrassing :(
You can go talk to yourself in a room, offline.
Also, no - even in the worldview you are supposedly playing apologist for - gravity is not an immutable measured constant.
So stop attacking me
Lol. When did i "attack" you (please provide quotes and/or links, or admit this is another one of your frequent lies)? Again, stop listening to the voices in your head - they're not your friends.
start proving your claims.
Proof is subjective (outside of mathematics). Only you can prove a claim for yourself, but i am happy to help if i can. What claim are you having trouble with?
Thanks for admitting there is no proof for your claims. Presented without evidence = dismissed without evidence. Discussion over. Earth is not flat. Gravity exists.
Presented without evidence = dismissed without evidence
You are misunderstanding that hitchens quote, as well as its context. It was not an imperative.
You can dismiss anything you wish, evidence or not.
If you can't find evidence for a claim, perhaps you should try asking for help? I'm happy to help you if i can.
Discussion over
But can a discussion that never began ever be over?
Earth is not flat.
Who said it was? Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are not your friends.
Gravity exists.
Who said it didn't? Did/can you even read my comments? I explicitly said that gravity did exist. When you don't understand, it's best to start by asking questions!
Ok, so Earth has a Nickle/Iron core, which is MAGNETIC, supposedly....
It is of such a Volume that it extends the Magnetism far out enough to help protect the Planet from Solar Radiation....
That makes it strong enough to Pull in the smallest Metallic, yet Magnetic Particles....
Take a Bag of Blood, whole blood, and have it weighed....
Take a Bag of Plasma, without the Red blood Cells, and weigh that....
Is there a difference???
Would that difference account for the Magnetism called Gravity???
Oh, and
the other force is electromagnetism, with the air being negative and ground being positive, there is a flow of magnetism that flows from sky to ground.
They did build 2 giant interferometers, and i have little doubt it detected something. It just didn't detect "2 black holes colliding with each other causing gravitational waves", and it was fraudulently/disingenuously advertised to the general public as measurement of "gravity waves".
Before you call it ""Phony"", you should at least be able to disprove it....
And everyone who has this off the wall theory that gravity doesn't exist, has yet to prove it doesn't exist....
And all I need to do is throw a rock into the air, and when it comes back down, Proof Gravity does exist....
You know how psychology was doing great and now all of a sudden nobody knows what a male or female is?
Same thing is going on in other disciplines. Physics is one of them.
And Language, and also they almost destroyed Math....
It's just pure Evil....
Just look at art Pre-WWars, and Post WWars....
One of the most interesting things I ever learned was that the idea of College or University in the West came from an attempt to protect the French language from Muslim perversion--because changing the words changes the thoughts and changing the thoughts changes the behavior of the people.
Arabs historically destabilize competitors through the distortion and perversion of language.
That's a pretty lit tactic if you ask me. They're the bomb. That's a fire strategy. No cap boomers won't be hip to the jive and the kids end up mid af.
Yes, the Latin Languages are very interesting, each word or small group of Words conveys a Full Concept....
We go not say ""Pay Attention"", i is Conceptually Incorrect, for Attention Begins within the Mind of the Person, and is Not Owed to anyone, instead we say PUT Attention, so as to affirm the Origins of the Attention being the one Putting it....
And it just goes on from there, everything is Conceptually Spoken, like watching a Movie, but inside your Mind....
Actually, you have it backwards. In science we have to prove it does exist first, but that isn't what happened with gravitation. Trying to disprove something that was never proven to begin with is a fools errand.
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
Gravitation on the other hand, the imaginary pseudo force believed and taught as the cause of gravity, is not proven and cannot be proven - because it is, and always was from its initial creation (a few hundred years ago), fiction.
Thank you for directly contradicting yourself....
I'd like to say the conversation was stimulating, but I'd be lying....
But watching you jump through Mental Hoops is rather entertaining....
Ask NASA’s top public relations ‘scientist’ to define gravity for you. If he can’t do it, then no one can.
Gravity is simply explained away by the principals of buoyancy and density. A rock falls because it is heavier than the atmospheric oxygen, the medium in which it finds itself in. However, if you through that rock into a pool of Jello, it would float. It’s not because the rock is now suddenly an anti gravity device, it’s because the medium, Jello, is now more dense than the rock. The rock becomes buoyant in that medium. Very simple science that does not require a spinning earth and a magical, physics-breaking force called gravity.
So far, the easiest explanation I have been given::
And it is VERY Close, still the best though....
Look above, or below, to find the full comms on this....
Finally we are getting somewhere....
Not true...
Bigger lie....
Yeah, lets fuck up Known Physics just like your Generation has fucked the English language....
Y'all did one hell of a Job of fucking up the English language with that bullshit ""I = eye, and C=sea=see"", and all that other stupidity...
so go ahead fuck everything up, you and your bunch of Communist assholes....
Planets exist. You’re objectively wrong and clinically insane.
Sure they do. They just are not destinations you can travel to or land ships on. They’re gaseous lights as far as modern telescopes can tell. They also wander, do not follow the same pattern as the rest of the stars.
Nope, you’re clinically insane.
In what way? Could you describe this contradiction? You seem to be under the mistaken, and common, impression that gravity and gravitation are the same thing.
You might if you tried having a conversation on the topic. I guess we'll never know will we?
Why on earth did you capitalize "Mental Hoops"? Are you a bot?
Gravitas, Gravity, Gravitation....
Basically, they have commons....
Figure it out....
Yes, they have common roots. Yes, they all have different and distinct meanings. I guess, thanks for recognizing your error?
I guess i have. So the answer is, no. No you cannot describe any contradiction in my previous statements. Fair enough.
This is the ALL....
Yes, and the act that you had to point it out is just proof that I didn't lose....
Contradiction is a bitch, and you used it perfectly....
Oook....
I understand what you mean, and why you say this - but i disagree on semantic and scientific grounds.
Gravity is a scientific/natural law thousands of years old. It isn't going anywhere, and we shouldn't want it to. It is simply the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down."
The major modern problem with the word gravity is that is has been erroneously conflated with the cause for the phenomenon in the minds of many misled students. In science (and basic logic), the phenomenon cannot be the cause of itself. Teaching things like this is an attack on science.
This is possible, but such speculation is usually not helpful - or necessary. Gravity is caused, as you said, when an object weighs more than the media it displaces. Weight is just an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)
I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).
It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).
So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).
I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).
True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.
The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.
I think you did when you said :
But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.
I thought you did when you said this :
and this from another comment in this thread :
Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.
It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).
I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.
If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.
No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.
My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.
I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").
I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".
It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).
Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!
Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?
Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.
Unironically jump off a cliff, paid shill.
Unironically, the "paid shills" are the ones who respond like you do. Also, as you know - this is a violation of rule #1 here.
Those that can't attack the thought, attack the thinker instead out of desperation. Do better if you can.
Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat and gravity is an immutable measured constant.
What, gravity? No, no. Gravity is rule number 4 of the Universe itself. You can’t violate it. You’re powerless.
So stop attacking me, you worthless piece of shit, and start proving your claims.
Stop listening to the voices in your head. Having schizo conversations with yourself like this is always so embarrassing :(
You can go talk to yourself in a room, offline.
Also, no - even in the worldview you are supposedly playing apologist for - gravity is not an immutable measured constant.
Lol. When did i "attack" you (please provide quotes and/or links, or admit this is another one of your frequent lies)? Again, stop listening to the voices in your head - they're not your friends.
Proof is subjective (outside of mathematics). Only you can prove a claim for yourself, but i am happy to help if i can. What claim are you having trouble with?
Thanks for admitting there is no proof for your claims. Presented without evidence = dismissed without evidence. Discussion over. Earth is not flat. Gravity exists.
Again, mutter to yourself offline.
You are misunderstanding that hitchens quote, as well as its context. It was not an imperative.
You can dismiss anything you wish, evidence or not.
If you can't find evidence for a claim, perhaps you should try asking for help? I'm happy to help you if i can.
But can a discussion that never began ever be over?
Who said it was? Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are not your friends.
Who said it didn't? Did/can you even read my comments? I explicitly said that gravity did exist. When you don't understand, it's best to start by asking questions!
Ok, so Earth has a Nickle/Iron core, which is MAGNETIC, supposedly....
It is of such a Volume that it extends the Magnetism far out enough to help protect the Planet from Solar Radiation....
That makes it strong enough to Pull in the smallest Metallic, yet Magnetic Particles....
Take a Bag of Blood, whole blood, and have it weighed....
Take a Bag of Plasma, without the Red blood Cells, and weigh that....
Is there a difference???
Would that difference account for the Magnetism called Gravity???
Oh, and
= Gravity....
Go play with Magnets....
Then drag them through dirt....
And then try to clean them....
Wow....
They also (supposedly) measured gravitational waves, not gravity [gravitation] or the gravity waves it is believed to be comprised of/caused by.
Generally, i agree.
They did build 2 giant interferometers, and i have little doubt it detected something. It just didn't detect "2 black holes colliding with each other causing gravitational waves", and it was fraudulently/disingenuously advertised to the general public as measurement of "gravity waves".
Surely you can do better than this?
Why isn't anyone talking about how JWST is blowing astrophysics up. There was no Big Bang, the present understanding of the Universe is wrong.
Apparently you have never looked through a telescope. Saturn is amazing.
No, they’re paid to post here. They don’t have to be better; they just have eto have volume.