To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Gravity Vs. Circular Motion
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

graciassenor
could gravity, specifically on earth, somehow be affiliated with circular motion?
ofelas
QUOTE (graciassenor+May 20 2008, 05:06 PM)
could gravity, specifically on earth, somehow be affiliated with circular motion?

No, not in the sense I suspect you imply. However, planetary orbits are best described as straight lines in curved space-time, and the curvature is caused by gravity, of course.
Zarkov
QUOTE
are best described as straight lines in curved space-time, and the curvature is caused by gravity, of course.


LOL, and you call me a troll.

Get off "Dr E's psychotic pills" lad, using words without meaning is very confusing

What is GRAVITY ?

What is Space ?

and for that mater
What is Matter ?

semantics on semantics
graciassenor
Zark...

if your mind was a universe it would be a closed system. It seems as though your responses are pejoratively argumentative in a condescending manner, and until you allow your mind to expand then people will continue not listening to your absurd questions and/or accusations.

Be a positivist. The universe is vast and very much undiscovered. Questions raised by physicists and scientists alike are what help discover it. If the world was full of people who asked questions and made statements like the ones you tend to ask/make, the universe would still be a giant tortoise.

Best regards,

Senor
Zarkov
QUOTE
absurd questions and/or accusations.

Be a positivist


All I am being is a scientist discussing contentious/interesting scientific issues.

Why do you think some of these topics are labeled "contentious" ?
because the answer is not scientifically clear and it really needs to be thoroughly investigated... either via evidence, observation, or experiment

Discussion brings out all the options...
What you chose/not chose to believe is your opinion.
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 21 2008, 05:17 AM)

All I am being is a scientist discussing contentious/interesting scientific issues.

Why do you think some of these topics are labeled "contentious" ?
because the answer is not scientifically clear and it really needs to be thoroughly investigated... either via evidence, observation, or experiment

Discussion brings out all the options...
What you chose/not chose to believe is your opinion.

Why do you dismiss *every* well-supported physical theory then?
Ron
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 21 2008, 05:17 AM)

All I am being is a scientist discussing contentious/interesting scientific issues.

Why do you think some of these topics are labeled "contentious" ?
because the answer is not scientifically clear and it really needs to be thoroughly investigated... either via evidence, observation, or experiment

Discussion brings out all the options...
What you chose/not chose to believe is your opinion.

Hi Mr. Z.,
I tend to disagree that Quote :"All I am being is a scientist discussing contentious/interesting scientific issues."
When you cannot (or will not) accept the mainstream view, you always fall back on "What is Gravity " and other such philosophical questions.
Philosophy, by it's nature , cannot be proved, so you have an out to not explaining your views.
If you try to keep to the scientific method, you will have a much harder time refuting these arguments.
Peace,
Ron

Aside: Why do you need to be so arrogant on your views, just to curl up in a philosophical ball when called out. You do not fool anyone with a brain.
Sec
QUOTE (Ron+May 21 2008, 12:32 PM)
You do not fool anyone with a brain.

Well then Ron you've hit the nail on the head, this painfully whackzoid one appears to have comprehensively fooled himself (in the upmost extreme).

smile.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
Why do you dismiss *every* well-supported physical theory then?


Lad, there is a whole foundation of science that I totally accept, endorse and would bet my life on it being accurate

BUT

there is a whole lot of science that is like the tower of Babel

it is riddled with cracks and needs to be demolished to be rebuilt

I do find I like cracks.. for it is these that lead to new science.

You wish to paper over them... now what good does that do anyone.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Why do you dismiss *every* well-supported physical theory then?


Lad, there is a whole foundation of science that I totally accept, endorse and would bet my life on it being accurate

BUT

there is a whole lot of science that is like the tower of Babel

it is riddled with cracks and needs to be demolished to be rebuilt

I do find I like cracks.. for it is these that lead to new science.

You wish to paper over them... now what good does that do anyone.



If you try to keep to the scientific method, you will have a much harder time refuting these arguments.


It appears most posters here have no idea what the scientific method is.

IT IS NOT following the leader... oh yes there is evidence... there are many ways this evidence can be compounded into a theory... stuck on a theory ????
that is not the scientific method.... all is suspect until it provides accurate predictions or explains anomalies....simple things should be simply explained and even complex things are just compounded simple things.....

It seems that you think I go off into fairyland... LOL..... what I post is science. always based in science and in some cases "new science"... some of this I will not explain....

There are other things to do (with new science) than run into the streets naked shouting Eureka!

What really worries me on all the science forums that I have visited is the lack of deep science posters hold... all glib surface skimming..... rote science.. its in the book therefore it is true, period!!!! What is in the book does not count as evidence, some is evidence but most is opinion.

I am a qualified and well experienced scientist and I do not hold any reverence to written science.... yes I read, and take note.... all facts are logged, all theory is suspect... and above all it must gel (integrate) with the rest of the body of science.

Then I look for cracks... and I dig... the truth is out there, but you will never find it by listening..... only by active investigation are you going to discover anything "new" at all

the blinkered sheep have nothing to say.


Now to this subject... great example

I have done the math, I have written the theory, I have made predictions that have then been observed.... I have explained anomalies.... I have/had offered to do a primer thread.... criticism still flows...

Basically guys Y'ALL DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE... or the method

so don't come running to me saying what I post is not science.

I really do not care what your knowledge level is... but your methods are more suited to the middle ages.
N O M
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
"... some of this I will not explain....
Purely because you can't. This is due to your wild claims having no basis whatsoever. Nothing but lies.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 21 2008, 09:50 PM)
I do find I like cracks..

We know. Yer posts kinda clue us in.
And it's just crack. The plural is the same wink.gif
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.