What exactly 'is' gravity?
Where are the transitional fossils, even just one sequence of any organism?
Gravity is a best example: we do perceive, but we cannot explain yet. Einstein did not!
In this household, cumbb, we apply the established Laws of Physics! OK, not as rigorous as Mathematical Proof, but a good working hypothesis.
Is your Dr. Ed Dowdye on a par with Prof. Albert Einstein?
Questions arise. Dr. Ed thinks Light is not bent by Gravity:
"35,733 views 6 Jun 2014
Dr. Edward Dowdye is a laser optics engineer and former NASA physicist who argues the case for classical mechanics in attempting to explain observational quandaries that had hitherto remained the province of abstract theories like Einstein's Relativity. In his presentation this year, Dr. Dowdye tackled one of the most widely touted predictions of General Relativity (GRT), namely the bending of light paths by massive objects. He presented compelling empirical evidence that the direct relationship between light and gravitation in vacuum space does not exist. Crucially, he pointed out that when GRT was conceived, plasma was unknown, and the limb of the Sun was considered to be a boundary between the photosphere and the vacuum of space. Dr. Dowdye takes account of what is now known to be a plasma atmosphere surrounding the Sun to considerable altitude and applies Gauss's law of gravitation and conventional optics to the problem.
Dr. Dowdye is the originator of the Extinction Shift Principle, which challenges General and Special Relativity, and is an electrical engineer, formerly of NASA, with degrees in mathematics and physics. www.extinctionshift.com"
My observations: I was unaware that a meticulous Mathematician like Carl Friedrich Gauss ever ventured any opinion on Gravity, never mind formulated a Law. TBH, we must admit that Dr. Ed is a CRANK!
His Curiculum Vitum is riddled with doubt too. He claims many BS degrees. Claims to have worked for NASA, though not as to why they doubtless sacked him! Published works in an Optics Journal that would hardly be able to peer review General Relativity matters
https://beyondmainstream.org/scientist/dr-edward-dowdye/
Long story short, Dr. Ed has no grasp of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity, preferring to live delusionally in the Middle Ages of Classical Physics. Kepler an' all that.
Unfortunately the James Webb Space Telescope has just burst his bubble. Littered with Gravitational Lensing:
The Orange blobs. We can only hope he continues to make a buck peddling his snakeoil. But I, like Dick Feynman, prefer to Scientifise. 😎
Is your Dr. Ed Dowdye on a par with Prof. Albert Einstein?
Questions arise. Dr. Ed thinks Light is not bent by Gravity:
"35,733 views 6 Jun 2014
Dr. Edward Dowdye is a laser optics engineer and former NASA physicist who argues the case for classical mechanics in attempting to explain observational quandaries that had hitherto remained the province of abstract theories like Einstein's Relativity. In his presentation this year, Dr. Dowdye tackled one of the most widely touted predictions of General Relativity (GRT), namely the bending of light paths by massive objects. He presented compelling empirical evidence that the direct relationship between light and gravitation in vacuum space does not exist. Crucially, he pointed out that when GRT was conceived, plasma was unknown, and the limb of the Sun was considered to be a boundary between the photosphere and the vacuum of space. Dr. Dowdye takes account of what is now known to be a plasma atmosphere surrounding the Sun to considerable altitude and applies Gauss's law of gravitation and conventional optics to the problem.
Dr. Dowdye is the originator of the Extinction Shift Principle, which challenges General and Special Relativity, and is an electrical engineer, formerly of NASA, with degrees in mathematics and physics. www.extinctionshift.com"
My observations: I was unaware that a meticulous Mathematician like Carl Friedrich Gauss ever ventured any opinion on Gravity, never mind formulated a Law. TBH, we must admit that Dr. Ed is a CRANK!
His Curiculum Vitum is riddled with doubt too. He claims many BS degrees. Claims to have worked for NASA, though not as to why they doubtless sacked him! Published works in an Optics Journal that would hardly be able to peer review General Relativity matters
https://beyondmainstream.org/scientist/dr-edward-dowdye/
Long story short, Dr. Ed has no grasp of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity, preferring to live delusionally in the Middle Ages of Classical Physics. Kepler an' all that.
Unfortunately the James Webb Space Telescope has just burst his bubble. Littered with Gravitational Lensing:
The Orange blobs. We can only hope he continues to make a buck peddling his snakeoil. But I, like Dick Feynman, prefer to Scientifise. 😎
Last edited:
What esle coud explain these "orange blobs"-?
To understand the misconception of the theories of relativity, one must be able to distinguish between thing and concept. First of all;-)
Last edited:
We've been over all this before, but for the current record:
There are still things to settle regarding evolution.
Darwin believed that evolutionary changes happened slowly, or gradually, over very long periods of time. This view is called "Gradualism".
There are scientists who believe that change happens very rapidly with long periods of stability and no change in between. This view is called "Punctuated Equilibrium". In this view, the driving force of change is some sort of change in the environment that necessitates a need for quick change.
Both views look to the fossil record for support. However the fact that there are many "missing links" in the fossil record lends evidence to the view that there really aren't any intermediate forms and that large changes happen suddenly.
https://www.thoughtco.com/about-tra...e hypotheses as to how fast evolution happens
https://www.thoughtco.com/patterns-of-macroevolution-1224823
Where are the transitional FOSSILS! How can this not be a reasonable question/request given the time span and multi-millions of organisms?
Honestly, this really borders on right wing fanatacism to simply accept and submit to what amounts to pure faith based conjecture.
Honestly, this really borders on right wing fanatacism to simply accept and submit to what amounts to pure faith based conjecture.
To deny something that you don't know a lot about in the first place doesn't make you interesting..
//
//
Nor can we explain the forces of electromagnetism - any more than Maxwell could!
Physics can tell us how such action at a distance forces behave, but I agree that it struggles to explain the underlying phenomenon.
This is of no surprise to anyone with a background in Natural Philosophy.
Last edited:
It appears I have wasted my time replying to your post.
I should know better than make the effort.
I also appear to have wasted my time explaining the formation of spiral galaxies, except that I have actually learned something in the process!
We can apply Maxwell's equations to design transformers etc.
We can apply what we know about gravity to all kinds of engineering applications. This is hardly new. We can calculate normal forces, trajectories etc using the acceleration due to gravity. This is not even controversial. Of course you know this.
And you are correct that the underlying phenomenon are poorly understood. The science denier conflates this with known phenomena not existing. Gravity denial is a thing and it goes hand in hand with flat earth.
Just because you clearly are willing to take others' view points as fact doesn't make them so. As has been pointed out, we do have kooky scientists with an agenda amongst us. I'm very willing to accept evidence which has not been presented. I'm not campaigning one way or the other. Do you not find it just a bit troubling that, fast, slow, medium, call it what you will, there is not a single sequence of evolutionary evidence in the form of transitional fossils been unearthed? Why would you accept it without the most basic evidence? Rationalizing it's non existence is a convenient construct akin to validating the 'standard model' with 'dark matter'. So tell us then, how rapid is the change?
Oh no, we can't just say "we 'think' this is how it is"
Last edited:
Yes, seriously. Although I would consider the attributes of gravity sufficient to it's definition, I'm not as TNT makes clear, scholarly enough to claim any definite mechanism. 🙂
You regard my statement, "There are still things to settle regarding evolution", as a willingness to take things as "fact"? 🙄
The only "fact" I accepted was, "the fact that there are many 'missing links' in the fossil record".
The thread is about cosmology, so I will enter into no further debate on evolution.
Anyway, it's best we stop now as we risk substantiating WOT's point regarding "endless babbling"! 😱
Last edited:
You need to go away and study the science behind evolution. Then you will understand the flaw in your argument. This site ain't a university! Take some initiative...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.