Gravity is a scam!

[Daniel Ryslink + 19]

Yep folks, unfortunately, them scientist fellas can't be trusted these days anymore. The climate change scam is not the first one they pulled right before our eyes! Young Isaac Newton was shifty young fella who developed a taste for stolen apples way too fast, so he started his so called "classical physics" racket to help himself to a nice rent from the academic funds. According to him, this so called "gravity" affects every object in near our planet, pulling it straight down to the Earth. Well, Mr. Newton, how about birds? If they are pulled down by that gravity mumbo jumbo as you say, how comes they fly freely through the air like angels themselves? 

Usually, your typical scientist fella does not have an answer for that, so he will try to mud the waters, babbling about the force generated by the wings and air resistance and such nonsense, but you should press on. Wings? You don't need wings to fly! Ever seen a soap bubble Mr. Smartypants scientist? No? It just floats there, without ever needing wings or whatnot, and so called gravity cannot touch it. Now that's a sound, logical refutation of that gravitational hogwash if I ever saw one. 

The world is not complicated if we don't start complicatin' it, that's what my Grandpa always said. Birds fly because God wants them to fly, and people must walk because that's why they were given legs, and nobody needs to babble about science to understand it. So when you see another of those scientific freeloaders, chase them outta town with a pitchfork! Climate change, gravity, heliocentrism, same scam, I tell you. 

Stay tuned for next time - a proof that stars are just bright dots on a blue blanket. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

1 hour ago, Daniel Ryslink said:

Yep folks, unfortunately, them scientist fellas can't be trusted these days anymore. The climate change scam is not the first one they pulled right before our eyes!

Daniel - you have, in fact, put your finger on exactly the point about why climate theory remains in doubt, despite activists and scientists who may or may not be activists claiming that its all settled and certain. When Newton proposed the force of gravity it explained a lot - tides for example - and enabled other scientists to make solid, useful forecasts. Remember Halley's comet? Astronomers can forecast the position of planets many years in advance and be proved right. Hence no argument. There is nothing like that in climate. Are we looking at natural changes or  man-made changes? Go back and look a the forecasts made by the IPCC in 1990 (its first report) and compare them with actual changes in temperatures. Sorry! Anyway, this has nothing to do with renewables..  you should go to an climate activist site for more agreeable companionship..  

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, markslawson said:

There is nothing like that in climate.

To make that claim you need to use science otherwise you are just guessing which is something you are renown for.

[markslawson + 1,058]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

To make that claim you need to use science otherwise you are just guessing which is something you are renown for.

This statement makes no sense, and I haven't guessed at any point. The climate guys point to what they think are forecasts but its all most unimpressive, then they claim the same status for their forecasts decades into the future as those made for Quantum  Mechanics (experimental results agree with theoretical calculations to several decimal places), and then wonder why they aren't taken seriously. 

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, markslawson said:

This statement makes no sense, and I haven't guessed at any point.

It does if you understand there is scientific evidence suggesting what you said is not accurate but you keep guessing and offer nothing in support.

IPCC First Assessment Report projections compared with observations on a temperature vs. time basis (top) and temperature vs forcing (bottom). The dashed grey line in the top panel represent the start of the future projection period. The probability distribution in the lower panel represents the 5000 combinations of the 5 temperature observation products and the 1000 ensemble members of estimated forcings. Anomalies for both temperature and forcsing are shown relative to a 1970-1989 pre-future-projection baseline.

Edited January 16, 2020 by remake it
Added captions to the charts

[frankfurter + 562]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Daniel - you have, in fact, put your finger on exactly the point about why climate theory remains in doubt, despite activists and scientists who may or may not be activists claiming that its all settled and certain. When Newton proposed the force of gravity it explained a lot - tides for example - and enabled other scientists to make solid, useful forecasts. Remember Halley's comet? Astronomers can forecast the position of planets many years in advance and be proved right. Hence no argument. There is nothing like that in climate. Are we looking at natural changes or  man-made changes? Go back and look a the forecasts made by the IPCC in 1990 (its first report) and compare them with actual changes in temperatures. Sorry! Anyway, this has nothing to do with renewables..  you should go to an climate activist site for more agreeable companionship..  

Climate-change has now become a conflict between people. The reason for this is the same reason for war: IGNORANCE. People will believe what they want to believe: RELIGION. Concoct a story that mixes observations with lies, make it big, and make it a daily, household story, and people will believe it. What can be a bigger, daily story than one affecting the entire planet? Ignorance ensures people will not question what they want to believe, because they cannot: they have NO INTELLIGENCE [rather, they have insufficient intelligence in both data and mental capacity]. 

Case in point: your comment "force of gravity". Here you expose your ignorance, unfortunately. Gravity is ACCELERATION; the metric unit is meters per second per second. Gravity is not a force. Force is the product of mass times acceleration: F=MxA. The force unit is the Newton.

Gravity remains a mystery. Newton described its effect and was able to deduce its measure: but not its cause. Einstein proposed a theory of gravity to attempt a causal explanation; basically that of mass in space-time. [essentially, a larger planet will pull a small planet into a gravitational orbit; eg Earth pulls the Moon.] But how a mass can create acceleration is unknown, and thus the theory is but an intriguing concept.

Tesla, who proved his theories and applications beyond doubt, labelled Einstein as the greatest fraud in human history. Tesla postulated gravity to be the effect of magnetism, not mass. Tesla worked on anti-gravity theories, but his notes are apparently locked away by the US govt for literally only a few to see. 

But we laymen do not need to comprehend Tesla. We have observable proof of antigravity: rockets. Every time we use a rocket to propel something into earth's orbit space, we prove a small mass accelerating more than earth's gravity can overcome gravity and escape [effectively, antigravity]. Thus Einstein's theory is negated, exactly as Tesla predicted. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by frankfurter

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Gravity is a scam...the world sucks!!!

[markslawson + 1,058]

19 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Tesla, who proved his theories and applications beyond doubt, labelled Einstein as the greatest fraud in human history. Tesla postulated gravity to be the effect of magnetism, not mass. Tesla worked on anti-gravity theories, but his notes are apparently locked away by the US govt for literally only a few to see. 

I'm not quite sure what to say about this. You are welcome to your eccentric take on gravity - and categorizing it as an electromagnetic force is highly eccentric. Invoking the use of rockets as proof of anything other than's Newton's laws is also strange but don't let me dissuade you. Build an EM anti-gravity machine. I'd be most interested.. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

21 hours ago, remake it said:

IPCC First Assessment Report projections compared with observations on a temperature vs. time basis (top) and temperature vs forcing (bottom). The dashed grey line in the top panel represent the start of the future projection period.

Remake - what you're looking at there is a carefully constructed attempt to make the IPCC forecasts fit the actual observations. Remember that the first IPCC report was in 1990, not 1970. Now go and look at where the line is in 1990 in the top graph.. basically the scientist concerned - if its the guy I think it is, I had an email argument with him over this - started his comparison with observations at the top of the forecast range. Even then, as you'll note from the general run of the graph, observed increases have been falling away from the forecasts since - although there certainly have been increases they have been well short of forecasts. Go and look at the IPCC report for 1990,  its on the IPCC site. The minimum forecast for Business As Usual scenario is for 0.2 degrees a decade. The actual increase since then has been an average of about 0.17 degrees a decade give or take. No one is arguing with that figure.. the American Meteorological Society puts it about 0.1-0.2 degrees a decade, because that sounds better. There has been an increase but its well shirt of forecasts.. All the succeeding IPCC reports made similar forecasts incidentally.. The global warming crowd have even admitted that climate models have not given the right results see Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates in Nature Geoscience. The authors, including Michael Mann, explain why this  difference has occurred within global warming theory. I won't challenge any of that but it hardly adds up to an impressive forecasting track record does it? Anyway, have to move on. 

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Remake - what you're looking at there is a carefully constructed attempt to make the IPCC forecasts fit the actual observations.

The graphic above is from the CMIP runs carried out for the CO2 concentrations specified in the First Assessment Report whereas all you have is guesswork - yet again!

[frankfurter + 562]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

I'm not quite sure what to say about this. You are welcome to your eccentric take on gravity - and categorizing it as an electromagnetic force is highly eccentric. Invoking the use of rockets as proof of anything other than's Newton's laws is also strange but don't let me dissuade you. Build an EM anti-gravity machine. I'd be most interested.. 

magnetism.  not electro-magnetism.  if you wish to quote me, then have the decency to be accurate.  thank you. 

if you accept the Einstein hypothesis, the onus is upon you to prove it. 

 

[markslawson + 1,058]

On 1/17/2020 at 2:19 PM, frankfurter said:

magnetism.  not electro-magnetism.  if you wish to quote me, then have the decency to be accurate.  thank you. 

if you accept the Einstein hypothesis, the onus is upon you to prove it. 

A magnetic force? The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you propose concepts far outside mainstream physics the onus is on you to prove them. Good luck with that.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

13 minutes ago, markslawson said:

A magnetic force? The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you propose concepts far outside mainstream physics the onus is on you to prove them. Good luck with that.

Mainstream physics has already proven themselves wrong.  Why they made up out of nothing, "dark matter".  Have zero evidence that anything is there other than they are trying to fill in the integral of + constant because they play make believe games their equations previous to the + constant is correct.  Now add planetary dynamics such as magnetosphere of the earth and they are really stumped.  Now add stars/galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light, majority of galaxies spinning only one direction, quasars which have zero explanation, black holes which also have zero explanation other than "these facts seem to exist" and well... yea.  It is obvious that the physics we think works, does not in fact represent reality. All of the above problems do not work with the foundation of modern physics.  An electrostatic theory for gravity etc solves some of the problems, but needs a massive amount of work.  No, this is not what Frank is talking about and his magnetic theory. 

[frankfurter + 562]

50 minutes ago, markslawson said:

A magnetic force? The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you propose concepts far outside mainstream physics the onus is on you to prove them. Good luck with that.

This is an example of how people in this forum twist words to suit their agenda, and thus attack the person.  I have not proposed anything other than to propose Tesla had his own theories respecting magnetism and considered Einstein a fraud ["a babe wrapped in purple cloth"].  I stated Gravity is a mystery, and I stand by this.  If it is not a mystery to you, please offer your theory so to enlighten us all.  And, btw, magnetism is not a force. 

 

[frankfurter + 562]

39 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Mainstream physics has already proven themselves wrong.  Why they made up out of nothing, "dark matter".  Have zero evidence that anything is there other than they are trying to fill in the integral of + constant because they play make believe games their equations previous to the + constant is correct.  Now add planetary dynamics such as magnetosphere of the earth and they are really stumped.  Now add stars/galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light, majority of galaxies spinning only one direction, quasars which have zero explanation, black holes which also have zero explanation other than "these facts seem to exist" and well... yea.  It is obvious that the physics we think works, does not in fact represent reality. All of the above problems do not work with the foundation of modern physics.  An electrostatic theory for gravity etc solves some of the problems, but needs a massive amount of work.  No, this is not what Frank is talking about and his magnetic theory. 

Excellent examples. Much of "scientific thinking" is dogma.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 1/17/2020 at 11:19 AM, frankfurter said:

magnetism.  not electro-magnetism.  if you wish to quote me, then have the decency to be accurate.  thank you. 

if you accept the Einstein hypothesis, the onus is upon you to prove it. 

 

How can gravity be related to magnetism? Gravity acts on anything with mass, magnetism does not.

[frankfurter + 562]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How can gravity be related to magnetism? Gravity acts on anything with mass, magnetism does not.

The question, how magnetism relates to gravity, is best directed to the USA govt, for this govt holds Tesla's notes.

Do you agree atoms have mass?  If yes, suggest you research "Tokamuk", which should prove to you a magnetic field does indeed act upon mass. 

Gravity is acceleration. The Einstein postulate is a large mass, such as a planet, warps space-time and thus creates acceleration. Can this be proven? The theory of relativity is based entirely upon a critical assumption: the speed of light is constant. What if the speed is not constant? goodbye theory. What if a body can be observed to travel faster than light? goodbye postulate and his theory of gravity. Fact; "we" have indeed observed bodies in the universe travelling faster than the speed of light. So the theories simply cannot hold. 

In a magnetic field, objects will accelerate. In a gravitational field, objects will accelerate. The two observations may be modalities of a single field.  Possible? If we continue the dogma, we will never know. 

 

 

[PE Scott + 563]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How can gravity be related to magnetism? Gravity acts on anything with mass, magnetism does not.

That part confuses me too. Aside from that though, I'm onboard. Science does not have a rock solid understanding for the cause of gravity. They can predict the effect of gravity based on classical physics with pretty astounding accuracy, though. Look at the Voyager satellites as an example.

Dark matter is in a way very similar. We have no tangible proof or understanding of the mechanism or manner in which dark matter interacts with classical matter. There's no real proof, that I know of, that dark matter is even a real thing.  Like gravity, we cant SEE it, but we can observe its effect on other things in space so we base our theories on what we can observe. 

Climate science is more complex in a sense because you're trying to make predictions based on the interaction of a bunch of different forces and chemical/physical reactions. Furthermore, weighting the effect of each of these different factors is in many cases a best guess to fit existing observed trends. So, it's not like we have a rock solid equation for determining weather related phenomena like we do interactions resulting from gravity. In that sense, they are very different.

[markslawson + 1,058]

17 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Now add stars/galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light, majority of galaxies spinning only one direction, quasars which have zero explanation, black holes which also have zero explanation other than "these facts seem to exist" and well... yea. 

You almost had me agreeing with you on the dark matter stuff.. then you added this and realized that you're in frankfurter's class. Sure there's a lot that physics can't explain, but a whole heap that it does, including black holes and quasars despite your statements. But you're not going to listen to me. You and frankfurter should form a society and have your own web site. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

7 hours ago, PE Scott said:

That part confuses me too. Aside from that though, I'm onboard. Science does not have a rock solid understanding for the cause of gravity.

Scientists have been trying to work out a theory or everything (TOE) which links gravity with the other four? forces, electricity, magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces - I am willing to be corrected on the list of forces, as its been a long time since I looked - but gravity remains a hold out .. there is an explanation involving the exchange of gravitons?? but, anyway, it tends to be explained in a completely different way to the others.. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

You almost had me agreeing with you on the dark matter stuff.. then you added this and realized that you're in frankfurter's class. Sure there's a lot that physics can't explain, but a whole heap that it does, including black holes and quasars despite your statements. But you're not going to listen to me. You and frankfurter should form a society and have your own web site. 

So, you just admitted you do not have the first clue where the limitation of Newtonian Physics is.  Ok.  Newtonian Physics do not work for galaxies. 

Any Galaxy.

According to Red/Blue shift supposed "physics", many galaxies are traveling faster than light(supposedly impossible)Thanks Hubble.  And no, we have zero evidence for expanding universe.  In fact we have the OPPOSITE as Hubble Telescope proved when everywhere it looked it showed just as much of the universe(that we can see) is accelerating towards us as away from us, irrespective of wherever you think the origin point of the Big Bang was.  This did not squash the skeptics, so more funding for the James Webb Telescope(check on the Hubble and make sure it wasn't BS) which corroborated the Hubble Telescopes findings.  So, now we have a couple generations of Physics students who have all been taught the expanding universe BS and think this is actually true along with grad/PhD student paper after paper written trying to make up quantum theory BS to bridge gigantic horrible gaps in our understand.  All of whom fall flat on their face in one gigantic aspect or another. 

And no, we have no understanding of Quasars.  A whole pile of BS out there.  Only real fact we ~sorta know is that around Quasars there seems to be a large number of Blue stars which would sorta indicate that at some level matter is being emitted along the length of the quasar. (EDIT: Blue stars along normal axis of the Quasar)

So, Mark, if you can be the first human to come up with a UFT( Unified field theory(Physics Holy Grail)), let the world know and become immortalized in Physics book for the rest of human history. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[frankfurter + 562]

musings:

The joke, PhD = permanently head damaged, has an element of truth.  Too much of scientific study is dogma. I speak from experience.

H2O. Can be a solid, a liquid, a vapour. These are modalities of one compound. In other words, we know all are of the same thing. Starting with liquid, we can 'create' steam.  Starting with steam, we can 'create' liquid.  In fact, we create nothing. We are simply switching between modalities.

Using magnets and copper wire, 'we' believe can 'create' electricity in that wire. Using electricity, wire, and iron, 'we' believe we can 'create' magnetism. But, like water, are we not simply switching between modalities?  Essentially, this is the point Tesla made.

The question is what: what are we switching?  Or perhaps the question should be: what are we harnessing?  It must be a 'field'. 

To quote Einstein: if we are to survive in the long run, humans require a substantially altered way of thinking. Most people take this as a warning against nuclear war, which it is. But it is also a warning against dogma: if we are to advance our knowledge of science, theoretical physics specifically, we require a substantially altered way of thinking. 

 

 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 1/18/2020 at 10:12 AM, frankfurter said:

The question, how magnetism relates to gravity, is best directed to the USA govt, for this govt holds Tesla's notes.

Do you agree atoms have mass?  If yes, suggest you research "Tokamuk", which should prove to you a magnetic field does indeed act upon mass. 

Gravity is acceleration. The Einstein postulate is a large mass, such as a planet, warps space-time and thus creates acceleration. Can this be proven? The theory of relativity is based entirely upon a critical assumption: the speed of light is constant. What if the speed is not constant? goodbye theory. What if a body can be observed to travel faster than light? goodbye postulate and his theory of gravity. Fact; "we" have indeed observed bodies in the universe travelling faster than the speed of light. So the theories simply cannot hold. 

In a magnetic field, objects will accelerate. In a gravitational field, objects will accelerate. The two observations may be modalities of a single field.  Possible? If we continue the dogma, we will never know. 

 

 

Not correct on objects in general accelerating in a magnetic field.  Try it with a piece of wood, or a marble and get back to me.

Don't believe everything written on the internet or the nonsense found on many videos on the web.  A magnetic field will act on a charged particle like an electron or a proton, it will have no effect on a particle with mass and no charge.

Have you ever studied any physics at all?  I am embarrassed for you.