Does the Evidence Support a Gravitational Force?
The fact that objects are held forcefully on the ground or accelerate downward when dropped does not prove Newton's gravitational force. These are undeniable effects -- a weight effect and a downward acceleration effect -- which we experience, observe, and measure, but whose cause has been a mystery for millennia (and remains so to this day in our current science). In fact, even our equations for falling objects and flying projectiles don't involve mass or Newton's gravitational force -- they only model the downward acceleration effect (d=1/2*a*t2), compliments of Galileo. In fact, it would be quite an unprecedented feat for any known force to accelerate all objects with equal ease regardless of mass, yet this is precisely the claim made in our science for Newton's gravitational force, since all objects fall at the same rate. Also, why can't we shield ourselves from Newton's gravitational force and levitate? We have shields for every other known force and field (electricity, electric fields, magnetic fields, light, radio waves, radioactivity), so why is Newton's force so special and different? In actuality, gravity is not a mysterious attracting force emanating from matter with no known power source. Nor is it Einstein's warped spacetime concept or any of the other increasingly bizarre theories in today's science. It is something else entirely -- something much more sensible and much simpler to comprehend.
The fact that objects are held forcefully on the ground or accelerate downward when dropped does not prove Newton's gravitational force. These are undeniable effects -- a weight effect and a downward acceleration effect -- which we experience, observe, and measure, but whose cause has been a mystery for millennia (and remains so to this day in our current science). In fact, even our equations for falling objects and flying projectiles don't involve mass or Newton's gravitational force -- they only model the downward acceleration effect (d=1/2*a*t2), compliments of Galileo. In fact, it would be quite an unprecedented feat for any known force to accelerate all objects with equal ease regardless of mass, yet this is precisely the claim made in our science for Newton's gravitational force, since all objects fall at the same rate. Also, why can't we shield ourselves from Newton's gravitational force and levitate? We have shields for every other known force and field (electricity, electric fields, magnetic fields, light, radio waves, radioactivity), so why is Newton's force so special and different? In actuality, gravity is not a mysterious attracting force emanating from matter with no known power source. Nor is it Einstein's warped spacetime concept or any of the other increasingly bizarre theories in today's science. It is something else entirely -- something much more sensible and much simpler to comprehend.
Vastaukset 6
Vanhimmat
"something much more sensible and much simpler to comprehend."
Sehän on selvästi Jumala!
Miksi sinä aina pilailet?
Tuollaistako teille on kotonaopetettu?
Can It Be?
Numerous ideas, often wild and bizarre, are commonly tossed about today regarding gravity and the nature of our universe -- both from inside and outside the scientific community -- but so far none are sensible or even scientifically viable. The true test of any such sweeping new idea is whether it truly explains everything -- consistently, sensibly, and within the laws of physics. The new gravitational principle in this chapter is applied to many of our common daily experiences -- the weight of objects, falling objects, the crushing force within the center of our planet, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, etc.
Kysy vaikka tämän palstan kreationisteilta.
Aiheesta videoita:
http://www.squidoo.com/TheFinalTheory
katsoin hieman videoita ja näytti samalta idealta mistä Savor on kirjoitellut pitkään tännekin.
"
This clip serves to demonstrate that the effect we know as gravity actually results from accelerating expansion. At a distance, gravity is not a force at all, but a simple geometric relationship between expanding objects.
"
"A visual experiment to see what happens when an array of physically proximate particles begin expanding: Individual particles expand into one another and eventually form stable clusters, bound by the outward pressure of their expansion."
Voisko teoria selittää myös maailmankaikkeuden koon?:
http://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/show.fcgi?category=1000000000000003&conference=1500000000000073&posting=22000000027768101
Wikipediassa on (varsinkin englanniksi) runsaasti asiaa, johon parhaiten pääsee hakusanalla alkuräjähdys/Big Bang. Kaikki oikeat kosmologit pitävät avaruuden jatkuvaa laajenemista todellisena samoin kuin aivan alussa tapahtunutta hyvin nopean laajenemisen (inflaation) jaksoa. Näiden takia olemassaoleva maailmankaikkeus ulottuu huomattavasti - ja tietymättömän paljon - kauemmas kuin havaittava maailmankaikkeus, josta valo on ehtinyt meille 13,7 miljardissa vuodessa.
Laajenemisen takia myös se paikka, josta hyvin kaukainen valo on lähtenyt oli silloin paljon lähempänä meitä ja on nyt paljon jopa sen kulkuajan ilmaisemaa etäisyyttä kauempana.