Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You'll have to ask the author what he meant then, on that one point. What of all the other 199 points he made?
They're all good arguments to me. I'm sure you think otherwise.Like I said, it was good for a laugh for a while, and then it went on and on until the joke was boring and unfunny, and it was just sad that someone wasted their time like this. Is there any one of them you'd like to focus on as something that you think is actually a good argument?
Maybe they did write it down, but the paper it was written on crumbled to dust, and future generations didn't bother to copy it because they didn't believe it.What?
I'm not saying that they're lying, or how it is explained. All I am asking is if you have done these tests yourself.
They're all good arguments to me. I'm sure you think otherwise.
I'm not saying that they're lying, or how it is explained. ...
In the Flat-Earth model of the cosmos, the North Pole is the immovable center of the world and the entire universe. ... The Sun circles ... up to the Tropic of Cancer at the June summer solstice, ... and all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn on the December winter solstice.
No, I am saying that I will not accept anything as absolutely "true" unless I know for it myself.So your argument is that unless you do the test yourself, you can't know it's true? If that were so, no one could build a computer.
I'm astounded anyone would try such an argument.
According to this, there are plenty of flaws regarding the Cavendish experiment. The author of the article I linked to makes good points. How do we know that the Cavendish experiment measures gravitational attraction? It cannot be discounted that it perhaps measures electromagnetic attraction, or some other force. Are only metal balls used in Cavendish experiments? Etc.Here's another one that has also been disproved for more than 200 years.
115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly
explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted
Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of
“gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in
denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense
mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model
which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects
are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not
a single experiment in history, however, has shown an
object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause
other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims
“gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.
In the late 18th century, Cavendish performed an experiment that directly measured the attraction between masses using a torsion balance to measure the very small forces involved. The same method is still in use. In fact, for $2000, you can buy a similar apparatus and do it yourself. This experiment is justly famous. The author of the 200 proofs thing is, at best, ignorant.
That is my general leaning and faith, yes ... but it is not my knowledge.Previous quotes from Ananda:
Your Post #67 Pointed us to the website of Ericdubay. Ericdubay has another website ...http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/ … where he states:
- Post #22 I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.
- Post #29 I have not decided if I am a flat earther or a concave earther.
- Post #34 My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.
He presents this graphic.
Just to clarify, is this your understanding of general shape of the earth and the relationship of the sun to it?
According to this, there are plenty of flaws regarding the Cavendish experiment. The author of the article I linked to makes good points. How do we know that the Cavendish experiment measures gravitational attraction? It cannot be discounted that it perhaps measures electromagnetic attraction, or some other force. Are only metal balls used in Cavendish experiments? Etc.
I agree. But I also agree that if He arranged a little asteroid smash, or law change sometime after creation, that things may have looked or operated somewhat differently in the days of the fathers.Either God told it to; or He created it, then gave it a nudge.
I go with "God told it to."
So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.No, it can be done with stones. In your own basement.
(Which would seemingly discount the possibility of electromagnetic attraction. As does the fact that it would take a vast coincidence for all of the replications of the experiment to produce the established value of gravitational constant, if it were actually based on charges and the electromagnetic constant. And why do the masses never repel? When Coulomb did his own experiments at roughly the same time as Cavendish, he used the same method of the torsion balance to measure the force constant, and could generate both attractive and repulsive forces.)
So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.
The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.
Requoting EricDubayThat is my general leaning and faith, yes ... but it is not my knowledge.
What is the electromagnetic property of rubber?So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.
The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.
What is the electromagnetic property of rubber?
So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.
The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.
One site claims this
"
4.54 billion years ago, our Solar System formed within a cloud of hydrogen not unlike the Orion Nebula, or the Eagle Nebula, with its awesome pillars of creation.
Then, it took some kick, like from the shockwave from a nearby supernova, and this set a region of the cold gas falling inward through its mutual gravity. As it collapsed, the cloud began to spin.
But why?
It’s the conservation of angular momentum.
Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.
Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster."
http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/
Some people apparently take this fable seriously and even call it science. Total 100% fable and story telling of course.
One can detect and neutralize electric fields.
Because they ignore what 99% of the universe is - plasma - and the forces that work in plasma.
Even now some mainstream believer in Fairie Dust will protest, even when they have no data to back up anything they claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?