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.

 

Intelligent Falling : Evangelical scientist refutes gravity

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


There is such a thing as evidence based faith. Back to my original analogy, if they hadn't had faith in the existence of the atom chemistry never would have happened before the invention of the electron microscope. Belief in macro evolution is entirely faith based as well, as there is absolutely zero observed data of one species transforming into another.

Can scientists observe quarks and sub atomic particles? Nope.... Oh well they see some evidence -- and then work on faith from there.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
I don't really get what you found so ironic about my post ? Gravity exists, it has to come from somewhere, scientist cannot observe these gravitons but they can make the calculations match, IF they introduce an 11th dimension into the problem, This extra dimension can be used to unify Einstein's relativity's theory and other newer theories (like the string , or the Membrane theory). It would make the Marco and Micro-world match and act to the same general principles. Scientist think that a graviton,since it cannot be observed or measured, manifest themselves only in this 11th dimension. and that's why we cannot observe them (yet). I hope i made my view on the matter a little bit more clear, altho i agree, 11th dimensions are a tad bit confusing and mindboggeling.



IF they find the gravitron it would toss out relativity. There is no "gravity" only the effect of gravitation. Gravity does not exist as a force. That is what geodesics describe -- gravitation. "Gravity" is a "fictitious force" according to Einstein. I can't really make it more clear than that. The reason they are looking for the gravitron is to establish M-theory (or brane cosmology). Personally, I find M-theory attractive, but the prevailing opinion is that there is not enough evidence to toss out Einstein at this time.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
there is not enough evidence to toss out Einstein at this time.


www.cbc.ca...

O RLY?



[edit on 4/30/2008 by JPhish]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
How about this one:


However, Lijun Wang, one of the scientists from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, N.J., says their findings are not at odds with Einstein.

She says their experiment only disproves the general misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.


www.cbc.ca...


You might recognize the link, JPhish
haha




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by XyZeR
 


There is such a thing as evidence based faith. Back to my original analogy, if they hadn't had faith in the existence of the atom chemistry never would have happened before the invention of the electron microscope. Belief in macro evolution is entirely faith based as well, as there is absolutely zero observed data of one species transforming into another.

Can scientists observe quarks and sub atomic particles? Nope.... Oh well they see some evidence -- and then work on faith from there.


You really are a master manipulator of the english language. Using one definition of a word in place of an alternative definition of a word doesn't really fly. I'd say that the scientist, after seeing some evidence, works on the curiosity of discovering the unknown.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There is such a thing as evidence based faith. Back to my original analogy, if they hadn't had faith in the existence of the atom chemistry never would have happened before the invention of the electron microscope.


you're confusing faith with belief

they believed in the existence of atoms...they had reasoning and later evidence to back it up.



Belief in macro evolution is entirely faith based as well, as there is absolutely zero observed data of one species transforming into another.


oh really?

Observed Instances of Speciation
Here's MOAR

i wonder if you'll admit defeat or just move the goal posts back...

and we have some more evidence for evolution

here

and here

but i'm not entirely sure you'd take the time to look.



Can scientists observe quarks and sub atomic particles? Nope.... Oh well they see some evidence -- and then work on faith from there.


but we don't have to directly observe things. observation of reality via mathematical proofs and the life is still scientific evidence.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Gravity is just another Law that God instituted in Creation. Just because we don't know yet how it works doesn't mean that its a supernatural force occuring at all times, i believe its just a naturally occuring force. But, I have to admit though according to the bible in the spirit realm the laws of physics are totally different imo. I believe in this, The spirit world is more real than this natural world. According to Genesis the spirit world existed before this universe existed. Some scientists believe that gravity should be heavier here on this earth and can't understand why its not as strong and the only assumption that they came up with is that maybe gravited is spread out across different dimensions. I'm a christian and don't believe what these other christians are saying about gravity. I am curious though What scientifically went on when jesus walked on water or walked through walls and ascended etc......



Keeper



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The scientist knows damn well that breaking the speed of light, "brings into light" just one of the many fallacies of GR. The scientist says that it doesn't falsify GR and Einstein because the scientist doesn't want to lose her job.

It's like working for domino's, but when you eat pizza, you get it from someplace else. (for obvious reasons). HOWEVER, while in front of your boss, if a costumer asks you where you eat your pizza. You say dominos.



[edit on 5/9/2008 by JPhish]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join