Moses asks science

[jes-us]

Actually, one of the ways mass is defined is by the strength of its gravitational field. And that's how scales work too. The don't directly measure mass, they measure the force of gravity between the object and the Earth. Guess what? They convert it into mass using:

Where F is force, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, m is the mass of the object, and r is the distance from the centre of the Earth.

Formula images rendered by QuickLaTeX.​

But they don't do that neither because they need to know the real mass if you want an accurate result for the force .

Additionally the force of gravity isn't what they think , a new equation is required .


Also there isn't a gravitation field , there is an electromagnetic field of each body , you can see this using a mirror .

 

[ratiocinator]

I am not the one using false claims and saying they are real .

Of course not, dear. Isn't it time for your medication?

I only have to demonstrate sciences lack of evidence to show they are making a lot of stuff up .

Which you cannot do as you don't seem to even understand the word 'evidence'.

For example , can you provide a picture of a quark or lepton etc?

You can't have a picture of any elementary particle.

You said they had been observed but I bet you that you can't provide an observation ?

Again, you can easily google for the evidence for this or any of the other claims I and others are making, then you can address that. Making up an absurd and inappropriate type of evidence and then saying it doesn't exist, simply shows how ignorant you are of the subject.

 

[jes-us]

You can't have a picture of any elementary particle.

Proving my point , thanks and stop telling people science can observe these particles they have fabricated like you tried to insist on me .

 

[ratiocinator]

But they don't do that neither because they need to know the real mass if you want an accurate result for the force .

What are you even trying to say here? Scales measure force, not mass, so you need a way to calibrate the force to the mass, and that is done using Newton's theories.

Additionally the force of gravity isn't what they think , a new equation is required .

Baseless, unargued assertion.

Also there isn't a gravitation field , there is an electromagnetic field of each body...

Only if it has a net electrical charge.

...you can see this using a mirror .

No you can't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Proving my point...

Proving (yet again) your own ignorance.

...thanks and stop telling people science can observe these particles they have fabricated like you tried to insist on me .

I didn't say you could observe (not directly, anyway) them, I said (of the Higgs boson) that it was detected.

I'll repeat myself in big writing and colours, maybe that's more at you level

You can easily google for the evidence for this or any of the other claims I and others are making, then you can address that. Making up an absurd and inappropriate type of evidence and then saying it doesn't exist, simply shows how ignorant you are of the subject.

 

[jes-us]

What are you even trying to say here? Scales measure force, not mass, so you need a way to calibrate the force to the mass, and that is done using Newton's theories.


Baseless, unargued assertion.

Here we go with the not hearing and not seeing the truths . Kilogram is found on a set of scales , to claim any object is x amount of kg , that object has to be measured on a set scales because that is the apparatus where you would find the unit kg. Any attempt to use kg without a set of scales is fabrication and guess work as opposed a true measure .

Only if it has a net electrical charge.


No you can't.

Yes you can see the electromagnetic field of an object in a mirror . In your present science box I know it says the image is a reflection but this is also not true . What you are actually observing is the electromagnetic field of the object .

Here's an experiment for you , place a light behind you and look into a mirror . Your body is blocking the light , so the light will travel around you because of gravity B .
However , the imagine in the mirror does not distort because it isn't working off reflection .

 

[jes-us]

Proving (yet again) your own ignorance.


I didn't say you could observe (not directly, anyway) them, I said (of the Higgs boson) that it was detected.

I'll repeat myself in big writing and colours, maybe that's more at you level

You can easily google for the evidence for this or any of the other claims I and others are making, then you can address that. Making up an absurd and inappropriate type of evidence and then saying it doesn't exist, simply shows how ignorant you are of the subject.

I don't need to google the alleged evidence when I already have the details in my science box .

You now say the Higgs was detected , demonstrating my truth when I said it was computer printout . The spike on the printout does not equate to a new particle .

I noticed you avoided the other particles too because you know very well quarks etc are not directly observable too .

I'm not being awkward but science are quite clearly making lots of stuff up and claiming it is evidence based when they have no real evidence or observations .

The best we can do is observe lattices , so why does science lie so much ? Is it to try and look smart and extend peoples education with garbage information ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they don't do that neither because they need to know the real mass if you want an accurate result for the force .

Additionally the force of gravity isn't what they think , a new equation is required .


Also there isn't a gravitation field , there is an electromagnetic field of each body , you can see this using a mirror .

Honest question: is this a satire account?

 

[wellwisher]

If we have two mass bodies they will pull onto each other; gravitational attraction. A neutron star would pull a regular star apart. In the case of the moon and earth the affect of gravity is more gentile, but will still create material tension. In the case of the oceans, a tiny amount of gravitational tension is created between all water molecules and the moon as the moon passes. If we add this tiny amount, over tens of thousands of feet of water, it adds as a seeable local water expansion. This expanded/lifted water seeking its own new level; high tide. After the moon passes, the tension leaves that area, the water returns. If the water is not deep enough you may not see anything, since it will be very tiny and blend with air affects.

Burntcoat Head at the Bay of Fundy, Canada, has the highest tides ever, at 53.6 feet. The Guinness Book World Records declared in 1975 that this unique place on the bay has the highest tidal range in the world. The range at high tide swings between 47.5 and 53.6 feet.

They get almost a daily tsunami. If this case all the water being pull upward in tension, gets funneled into a narrow channel and creates another additive affect, which amplifies the height of the tide.

When at the ocean I like to swim out past the breakers, where the water become more gentle. As you swim in, the depth of the water decrease; land rises, and all that moving water is lifted as it climbs the rising sand. I time a breaker and body surf in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't need to google the alleged evidence when I already have the details in my science box .

You now say the Higgs was detected , demonstrating my truth when I said it was computer printout . The spike on the printout does not equate to a new particle .

I noticed you avoided the other particles too because you know very well quarks etc are not directly observable too .

I'm not being awkward but science are quite clearly making lots of stuff up and claiming it is evidence based when they have no real evidence or observations .

The best we can do is observe lattices , so why does science lie so much ? Is it to try and look smart and extend peoples education with garbage information ?

Are you aware that we were succesfully building and detonating nuclear bombs decades before we had microscopes capable of directly observing atoms?
Up until then, atoms were "only" a theoretical construct.

Yet, that didn't stop us from building devices capable of splitting them open and harnassing all that power hidden within it to unleash in giant explosions.

Just to inform you... there are other ways of knowing in science other then "direct observation".
Ironically, this is where theories come in handy as they are capable of making testable predictions.

That "spike" on a print out.... that's a signal that correlates with a prediction. Not unlike the signals that confirmed the theoretical model of atoms, allowing us to split them open and unleash that energy into giant explosions, or harness it to power our homes.


But by all means, continue on with your head firmly lodged into the ground.

 

[jes-us]

Honest question: is this a satire account?

Unfortunately it is over a decade of my work investigating science and all very real .

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't need to google the alleged evidence when I already have the details in my science box .

So why do you never use the actual evidence for something when you deny it's true? Why do you just make up some stupid and impossible evidence, say it doesn't exist, and then claim that you've refuted it?

I really can't see how you can be being honest here. Either claiming that you don't need to google because you already know, is a lie, or the making up of impossible evidence and pretending you've therefore disproved it, is blatantly dishonest.

If their is right, what's the real explanation?

Here we go with the not hearing and not seeing the truths . Kilogram is found on a set of scales , to claim any object is x amount of kg , that object has to be measured on a set scales because that is the apparatus where you would find the unit kg. Any attempt to use kg without a set of scales is fabrication and guess work as opposed a true measure .

I'm simply astounded at this level of total ignorance. How on earth do you think scales work?

Yes you can see the electromagnetic field of an object in a mirror . In your present science box I know it says the image is a reflection but this is also not true . What you are actually observing is the electromagnetic field of the object .

You are seeing electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light, not a electromagnetic field.

I noticed you avoided the other particles too because you know very well quarks etc are not directly observable too .

So, if you already know the evidence for quarks, address that and tell us why it's wrong. If you don't, then google it, then address the evidence. I'm not doing to keep on spoon feeding you the actual science because you just ignore it.

The best we can do is observe lattices , so why does science lie so much ?

Stop being so dishonest.

Why do you think science is so successful that it creating all this wonderful technology, based on its theories, so you can post ignorant drivel for the world to read, when said theories are so fundamentally wrong, as you claim?

 

[jes-us]

Are you aware that we were succesfully building and detonating nuclear bombs decades before we had microscopes capable of directly observing atoms?
Up until then, atoms were "only" a theoretical construct.

Yet, that didn't stop us from building devices capable of splitting them open and harnassing all that power hidden within it to unleash in giant explosions.

Just to inform you... there are other ways of knowing in science other then "direct observation".
Ironically, this is where theories come in handy as they are capable of making testable predictions.

That "spike" on a print out.... that's a signal that correlates with a prediction. Not unlike the signals that confirmed the theoretical model of atoms, allowing us to split them open and unleash that energy into giant explosions, or harness it to power our homes.


But by all means, continue on with your head firmly lodged into the ground.

News for you , atomic bombs aren't nuclear . You'd have to use a dirty bomb if you wanted nuclear fallout .

Also you have gone off track when you was doing so well in confessing sciences sins too God .

Nobody on this planet has split an atom , that can never happen, Gods orders for me to keep stump .

 

[ratiocinator]

Unfortunately it is over a decade of my work investigating science and all very real .

How is it that you failed to learn anything?

It's fine to disagree with current science, but the obvious problem here is that you clearly don't understand what you're disagreeing with and are incapable of expressing a sensible objection or a coherent alternative.

 

[ratiocinator]

News for you , atomic bombs aren't nuclear . You'd have to use a dirty bomb if you wanted nuclear fallout

Nobody on this planet has split an atom , that can never happen, Gods orders for me to keep stump .

You really are living in an absurd fantasy world.

 

[jes-us]

So why do you never use the actual evidence for something when you deny it's true? Why do you just make up some stupid and impossible evidence, say it doesn't exist, and then claim that you've refuted it?

I think you are trying to be smart with your words there , twisting what I have demonstrated . It is on you to provide evidence in defence of science claims . I can't be the prosecution and the defence , that would be a paradox .

I really can't see how you can be being honest here. Either claiming that you don't need to google because you already know, is a lie, or the making up of impossible evidence and pretending you've therefore disproved it, is blatantly dishonest.

If their is right, what's the real explanation?

In the answers people are giving in reply , they are actually admitting the lies and confessing the sins of science for all to see . About time science came clean and told the truth . I am stating the truths of science , explaining the truths of their progress .

I'm simply astounded at this level of total ignorance. How on earth do you think scales work?

Is that serious question ? We place an object on the scales and the object pushes down on the scales because of gravity . The scales have human made units on the scales and the result is in whatever unit we set the scales at .

You are seeing electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light, not a electromagnetic field.

No , it is the electromagnetic field , light doesn't work like you think either . I understand that you think we see because photons enter our eyes but that isn't required . If the electromagnetic field ''enters'' our eyes we can see .

So, if you already know the evidence for quarks, address that and tell us why it's wrong. If you don't, then google it, then address the evidence. I'm not doing to keep on spoon feeding you the actual science because you just ignore it.

You really think this sort of evidence is real ?

''Experimenters fired electrons, and then later muons, at protons, and found evidence that the electrons and muons were scattering off three smaller particles contained within the protons, each of these smaller particles having their own electric charge. These particles are the quarks.''

Electrons and muons you can't observe , they mean something else . Fired at protons , seriously we can't see protons or split them from an atom . We also can't measure any electrical charge of an atom , let alone a proton which they didn't have . It is garbage and made up .

Stop being so dishonest.

Why do you think science is so successful that it creating all this wonderful technology, based on its theories, so you can post ignorant drivel for the world to read, when said theories are so fundamentally wrong, as you claim?

Most technology is electronics , nothing to do with protons , quarks etc .

 

[jes-us]

You really are living in an absurd fantasy world.

Oddly not long after HIroshima people were living back in the area .

 

[ratiocinator]

It is on you to provide evidence in defence of science claims . I can't be the prosecution and the defence , that would be a paradox .

If the evidence is readily available, trivially easy to find, and sometimes rather complex, it really isn't anybody else's job to repeat it all here. Do your own homework before declaring you have refuted something. What's more, you keep claiming to know it and have studied it yourself for over a decade. Was that true or not?

In the answers people are giving in reply , they are actually admitting the lies and confessing the sins of science for all to see

I've seen nobody do that at all. On the other hand, I've never seen you provide a sensible objection to anything anybody has told you, you either ask for impossible evidence, while ignoring the real evidence, post gibberish, or just ignore it.

Is that serious question ? We place an object on the scales and the object pushes down on the scales because of gravity .

Which is exactly what I said. Scales measure the force generated between the object and the earth, not mass directly. This is a direct use of the definition of mass as the strength of its gravitational field (active gravitational mass, to be more precise), i.e. it's a direct application of:

ETA: Or, in this case, rearranged as

where

in this case (scales) is a constant equal to the reciprocal of the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. Thus giving us

which is Newton's second law.

No , it is the electromagnetic field , light doesn't work like you think either . I understand that you think we see because photons enter our eyes but that isn't required . If the electromagnetic field ''enters'' our eyes we can see .

Baseless, unargued assertion, yet again. Can you do the maths for electromagnetism? If not, you cannot possibly provide a valid modification that contradicts the current theory. If you can, then post you maths.

You really think this sort of evidence is real ?

''Experimenters fired electrons, and then later muons, at protons, and found evidence that the electrons and muons were scattering off three smaller particles contained within the protons, each of these smaller particles having their own electric charge. These particles are the quarks.''

Electrons and muons you can't observe , they mean something else . Fired at protons , seriously we can't see protons or split them from an atom . We also can't measure any electrical charge of an atom , let alone a proton which they didn't have . It is garbage and made up .

This is nothing more than personal incredulity, with a large side-helping of made up, unevidenced nonsense.

You haven't posted a detailed objection. You need to go into details. How the theory makes predictions and how those are tested. Again, you really need mathematics. You also need to justify nonsense assertions like protons not having charge. And it's actually quite easy to separate protons, you just ionise hydrogen.

Most technology is electronics , nothing to do with protons , quarks etc .

Yet more evidence of ignorance. Most of electronics is semiconductors, which have everything to do atomic structure, especially the behaviour of electrons, behaving according to quantum mechanics. There are even devices based on quantum mechanical tunnelling of electrons (e.g. tunnel diode)

Also, the GPS relies on both Special and General Relativity: GPS and Relativity

Oddly not long after HIroshima people were living back in the area .

You seem to think atomic bombs are all about radiation fallout. This is not the case (although there is always some fallout). It's to do with the way the explosion is generated. It counts as nuclear if it uses either nuclear fission or fusion.

Formula images rendered by QuickLaTeX.​

 

[Alien826]

You understand arrangements of words that aren't correct . You don't understand gravity , space or time but I am just too drained to be bothered to even begin to explain . I have explained it so many times on Facebook pages , groups , the world couldn't even see it .

Odd that. I think you are like the soldier in the old joke that was the only one in step.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Unfortunately it is over a decade of my work investigating science and all very real .

Over a decade investigating science?!?! And you still get almost everything wrong? Consider your nonsense that we don't know the radii or masses of Earth and moon (let alone Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus), and then check out this little gem
on the Wikipedia item on Gravity Assist Especially look at the course taken by Voyager II.

NASA has used the technique multiple times (the Soviet Union did, too). Without an absolutely excellent estimation of the gravities of the various bodies used by Voyagers I and II, there is no possible way to project what their trajectories would be after using such techniques multiple times, and yet the manouevres worked perfectly every time. Not only that, they are still functioning -- Voyager I is 15,035,084,442 miles from earth as I type this, traveling at 38,026 mph.

Sorry, but you don't know the science you're talking about at all.