It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1
Its funny that proponents of the popular model are asking you to prove that gravity does not exist. After all, according to their own model, and high priests, gravity is not a force and does not exist. According to the popular model, things fall due to bending spacetime.
Lol. You should ask the proponents of the popular model to explain what this spacetime thing is.
Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time
www.science.org.au...
Isaac Newton described the effects of gravity, but didn’t propose a mechanism for how it worked
Albert Einstein proposed that massive objects warp and curve the universe, resulting in other objects moving on or orbiting along those curves—and that this is what we experience as gravity
This theory, general relativity, has led to a number of predictions that have held up to experimental testing
One prediction of this theory is that ‘gravitational waves’ ripple through the universe, but Einstein thought they would be too small to detect
In February 2016 the direct measurement of gravitational waves was announced. This provides us with a new method for exploring the universe
In its current form, general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics—signalling that a shift in our understanding may be on the horizon
Sir Isaac Newton -- The Discoverer of Gravity!
web.stanford.edu...
Sir Isaac Newton was an English mathematician and mathematician and physicist who lived from 1642-1727.
The legend is that Newton discovered Gravity when he saw a falling apple while thinking about the forces of nature.
Whatever really happened, Newton realized that some force must be acting on falling objects like apples because otherwise they would not start moving from rest.
Newton also realized that the moon would fly off away from Earth in a straight line tangent to its orbit if some force was not causing it to fall toward the Earth. The moon is only a projectile circling around the Earth under the attraction of Gravity.
Newton called this force "gravity" and determined that gravitational forces exist between all objects.
Using the idea of Gravity, Newton was able to explain the astronomical observations of Kepler.
The work of Galileo, Brahe, Kepler, and Newton proved once and for all that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. The Earth, along with all other planets,orbits around the sun.
Two astronomers, J.C. Adams and U.J.J. LeVerrier, later used the concept of Gravity to predict that the planet Neptune would be discovered. They realized that there must be another planet exerting a gravitational force on Uranus because Uranus had odd perturbations in its orbit. (Perturbations are deviations in orbits.)
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1
Lol. See Turbo? The proponents simply cannot explain what this spacetimy thing is. This doesnt stop them from basing their whole model on it though.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1
Lol. See Turbo? The proponents simply cannot explain what this spacetimy thing is. This doesnt stop them from basing their whole model on it though.
Please tell us how turbo’s principles of density are superior at predicting outcomes than Newton’s work on gravity, and the work on gravity after Newton.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux
Please tell us how turbo’s principles of density are superior at predicting outcomes than Newton’s work on gravity, and the work on gravity after Newton.
Predicting outcomes is based on observation. Both Newton and Turbo say that things fall. Both have no explanation. I see no difference.
Then you explain how stratification by density works without gravity.
No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux
Then you explain how stratification by density works without gravity.
But its your model that says that gravity does not exist. I dont have to explain anything. According to the popular model things fall due to bending spacetime. Which is why I suggested you explain spacetime. Like I said, its obvious that you cant.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux
No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.
But I said that it doesnt explain it so what is your point besides agreeing with me?
Again. Then what did Newton discover what he labeled and defined “gravity”. A theory that has been growing and living for centuries.
Then state what gravity should be replaced with?
No. Density does not explain why a brick thrown straight up into the air slows down faster than accounted for by air resistance.
originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: turbonium1
Its funny that proponents of the popular model are asking you to prove that gravity does not exist. After all, according to their own model, and high priests, gravity is not a force and does not exist. According to the popular model, things fall due to bending spacetime.
Lol. You should ask the proponents of the popular model to explain what this spacetime thing is.
(it doesn't matter for this current discussion).