How exactly does space/time fabric work?

Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn

I looked through some of the posts and did not see much on general and special relativity, so I'll add my two cents. The way that space time gets warped is when the Lorentz factor is higher. For example, the closer you get to going to the speed of light, the higher the Lorentz factor. What this means is that if you assign the earth as the rest frame and you see someone traveling close to the speed of light, they will in fact be seen as moving slower. However, they will also see us moving slower.

So if you wanted to calculate a trip that was 10 light years away, you could set it up pretty simply. If you are traveling close to the speed of light, the differences that gravity would cause would be negligible as long as you were not too close to any black holes. So if someone traveled 10 light years away at around 98% (I think this is right) of the speed of light. You see that for every 5 hours that passed on earth, only one hour would pass for the traveler. So you would actually see them travel the 10 lights years in 2 years earth time. The reason that they can travel 10 light years in two years is because of lorentz contraction. This also related to the twins paradox, where if one twin is sent off to a star 10 lights years away (at 98% of the speed of light) then he comes back only 4 years older, while the other twin is 20 years older. The paradox is that in relativity, there is no specific frame of reference, so you should not be able to tell who is moving or not.

cannabineer said:

Parting and Parthian shot are distinct concepts. cn

Click to expand...

Parthians, ran off on horseback shooting, while the ones coming in were shooting to cover them.
The ones leaving were "adding insult over the shoulder," according to the Romans,
That morphed into a parting shot, to have the last word of insult.

There is a naval expression of a parting shot, as hail of musket fire or cannon as the enemy passed out of range, that kind of thing. Stiill I see the Roman root in that.

Parthing shot
Parting shot

Word drift seems to be all that has happened. Very common.

references?

mindphuk said:

Prove it. Was there a universe 'before' the BB? Is there anything outside of the currently expanding universe in which we reside?
Yet modern theories tell us that empty space is not actually empty. The emptiness of empty space still has more 'stuff' than the emptiness of the void outside the border of the universe. There is 'nothing' and then there is 'really nothing.'

Mass is affected by gravity but that doesn't follow that mass creates gravity. Gravity could ALWAYS be present, just only detectable when mass is present. Without a solid mechanism explaining exactly what gravity is, there is no way to tell.
How do/can you know this? What is the nature of space? Until you have a theory of gravity and space that encompasses both, you cannnot say for certain that space is not affected by gravity. Especially in light of modern physics that contradicts that claim.
If space is empty but 'appears' to curve under the influence of gravity, how can you conclude this distortion is not real? What does it mean to not be 'actual' distortion? If it's measured, then isn't it real?
But can be inferred.
This is where you are wrong. CURRENT physical models say exactly the opposite, that spacetime is a real thing that can be shaped by a heavy mass. Einstein is telling us that we are not being pulled to the earth by a field force, but we are being pushed down by spacetime.

You seem to be implying massless forms of energy also have gravitational fields. This is not true. We only see gravitation in the presence of mass.
Why, because you say so? Magnetic fields are pretty well understood under the current model of electo-weak force. Maybe if you could point to a model of gravity that is likewise so well understood and explains observations you can make these claims but AFAIK, there is no model of gravity that shows it as a fundamental field force.
It wouldn't be idiotic if that's what the observations showed us. Of course we know that magnetism doesn't have anything to do with warping spacetime.
Well I'm so glad that we finally have a solid theory unifying gravity with quantum field theory, I'm so looking to reading your paper. Care to give a citation?

You and Seedling should join forces. My goodness, it appears that we are so fortunate at RIU to have such knowledgeable people that can teach us how wrong modern physicists are about the nature of the universe. Screw the science journals and conferences, the top physicists in the world need to start growing weed and begin reading RIU so they can find the truth and go back to the universities to share the knowledge they found on a pot growing website....

Click to expand...

so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.

this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work.

but then thats the nature of quantum research. using math to "prove" the impossible so that next week some other sliderule jockey can "prove" somnething directly contradictory, and both can collect Feilds medals, Nobel prizes and honorariums.

my view of the universe may not be in line with Kip "Cunt Destroyer" Thorne's super awesome purple lowrider with a fur dashboard and spinnin rims universe, but it's served pretty good so far. but then newton didnt win a nobel prize so fuck that scrub.

in regards to your final snippy and petulant jab... i aint sellin shit but vegetables.

i dont have a book deal, i dont get honorariums for appearing at science fiction conventions, and i aint selling a vacuum cleaner home hair styling system with 3 easy payments. i dont have to come up with new groundbreaking theories every six months to keep my tenure, nor do i have to publish in any journal except penthouse letters. you dont gotta believe me, you dont gotta believe the universe even exists, you could go all descartes and claim we are all just figments of somebody else's imagination or an unquiet dream after an evening of hotwings, jalapeno poppers and domestic beer at the Hooters on Gamma Epsilon 5.

its all fine with me.

guy incognito said:

Fuck you asshole. Learn to use correct words. I doubt I am the only one that assumed you meant heliocentric as the rest of your rambling idiotic post hinted at you not having the slightest clue about anything. In the same sentence that you mistakenly said heliocentric instead of geocentric you also described the christian creation story as "an adequate theory". At no point ever was it an adequate theory.

Your views are a bit too simple.

Click to expand...

eat a bag of sweaty gorrilla nuts, dickcheese.

now that the insults are out of the way...

the geocentric universe theory, the earth being flat, and the universe being created by the hebrew god in six days were all adequate theories for their time.

every one of them.

also adequate theories in their time but now rejected:

the urine of young gaulish boys turns iron into steel.
africans are not as intelligent as other races.
hitler was a visionary progressive leader with great new ideas.
the colonies in the new world would be lost without the english crown
that robespierre guy seems like a good choice for france.
there were WMD's in iraq
there were NOT WMD's in iraq
Obama will bring about Hope and Change
invocation of the name "Bloody Mary" three times will result in your death
tomatoes are deadly poison
patent dietary supplements sold on late night infomercials are a good investment in your health.
marihuana makes negroes into hypersexual rape-machines who can only be weakened by their one weakness. lynching.
evil nefarious mexicans are using marihuana to lure white girls into sexual slavery and prostitution
marihuana is addictive
if you keep touching yourself youll go blind
if you "pull out" she cant get pregnant
that gun is not loaded

each one is WRONG but was right enough for the purposes they were intended to serve. likewise the "warping of time/space" is in my view, a metaphor that has been taken too seriously, and too literally and has now become orthodoxy, much like the geocentric universe was orthodoxy for hundreds of years, and in some quarters evolution is still viewed as "just a theory"

also if my views are "too simple" then exactly how complex does it have to be?

and youre still the only one who didnt get that i meant the geo-centric model when i lumped it in with the story of genesis, and a flat earth, despite my reference to the geocentric model just a few posts before. unclench or it may not be your head that explodes, and anal prolapse comes with complications, and a hefty dry cleaning bill.

your views are no less daft than any on the list....at least the views you portray in forum.

All this guggling dissertation. It's like this, like that, like this other thing. Analogy can get us
nowhere in Science. The undercurrent of Fiction and the totally lack of reference is nothing
compared to the shoddy thinking cloaked in profanity and smearing dis-credit toward the Big Thinkers,
that push forward the Understanding.

Dr Kynes said:

so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.

this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work.

but then thats the nature of quantum research. using math to "prove" the impossible so that next week some other sliderule jockey can "prove" somnething directly contradictory, and both can collect Feilds medals, Nobel prizes and honorariums.

my view of the universe may not be in line with Kip "Cunt Destroyer" Thorne's super awesome purple lowrider with a fur dashboard and spinnin rims universe, but it's served pretty good so far. but then newton didnt win a nobel prize so fuck that scrub.

in regards to your final snippy and petulant jab... i aint sellin shit but vegetables.

i dont have a book deal, i dont get honorariums for appearing at science fiction conventions, and i aint selling a vacuum cleaner home hair styling system with 3 easy payments. i dont have to come up with new groundbreaking theories every six months to keep my tenure, nor do i have to publish in any journal except penthouse letters. you dont gotta believe me, you dont gotta believe the universe even exists, you could go all descartes and claim we are all just figments of somebody else's imagination or an unquiet dream after an evening of hotwings, jalapeno poppers and domestic beer at the Hooters on Gamma Epsilon 5.

its all fine with me.

Click to expand...

But, you are peddling bullshit and innuendo. You are selling right-fight without any reference or understanding. What distinguishes all this from foolish muttering?

Why is peppering all your speech with all this Fiction reference important for you? It's meaningless to me. Is that your point?

Hard science with it's thorny math seems like Fiction, to you? There are experiments underway.

It is neither Fact nor Fiction. It is the Current, Proved, Understanding. If you could prove something then we could Understand you. But, you pepper Fiction, so you must be dismissing it all...in your own mind.

Dr Kynes said:

eat a bag of sweaty gorrilla nuts, dickcheese.

now that the insults are out of the way...

the geocentric universe theory, the earth being flat, and the universe being created by the hebrew god in six days were all adequate theories for their time.

every one of them.

also adequate theories in their time but now rejected:

the urine of young gaulish boys turns iron into steel.
africans are not as intelligent as other races.
hitler was a visionary progressive leader with great new ideas.
the colonies in the new world would be lost without the english crown
that robespierre guy seems like a good choice for france.
there were WMD's in iraq
there were NOT WMD's in iraq
Obama will bring about Hope and Change
invocation of the name "Bloody Mary" three times will result in your death
tomatoes are deadly poison
patent dietary supplements sold on late night infomercials are a good investment in your health.
marihuana makes negroes into hypersexual rape-machines who can only be weakened by their one weakness. lynching.
evil nefarious mexicans are using marihuana to lure white girls into sexual slavery and prostitution
marihuana is addictive
if you keep touching yourself youll go blind
if you "pull out" she cant get pregnant
that gun is not loaded

each one is WRONG but was right enough for the purposes they were intended to serve. likewise the "warping of time/space" is in my view, a metaphor that has been taken too seriously, and too literally and has now become orthodoxy, much like the geocentric universe was orthodoxy for hundreds of years, and in some quarters evolution is still viewed as "just a theory"

also if my views are "too simple" then exactly how complex does it have to be?

and youre still the only one who didnt get that i meant the geo-centric model when i lumped it in with the story of genesis, and a flat earth, despite my reference to the geocentric model just a few posts before. unclench or it may not be your head that explodes, and anal prolapse comes with complications, and a hefty dry cleaning bill.

Click to expand...

No they weren't. Adequate theories rely on supporting evidence. A theory that is completely made and not based on any facts or evidence, and was not, and can not, be tested, never was an adequate theory. Just because they didn't have a better explanation or theory does not mean their original theory was adequate. I have a theory that says you are a fucking moron, and it's adequate enough for me.

The only people who think evolution is "just a theory" are the uneducated and the ignorant. Anyone that understands evolution accepts it for what it is.

guy incognito said:

The only people who think evolution is "just a theory" are the uneducated and the ignorant. Anyone that understands evolution accepts it for what it is.

Click to expand...

It is Theory. But, it does not have to be accepted. It can't be proved, mathematically. And it can be challenged with a new model and tested with new hypothesis. I can think of a new model, quite off the top of my head.

It isn't survival selection, at all. It is a yet unknown part of the epi-genome that senses new requirements from the environment and models adaption for the new generations.

See, that is completely different. But, it could be a challenge to the current Theory, when more is known about the genome.

samsonite17 said:

I looked through some of the posts and did not see much on general and special relativity, so I'll add my two cents. The way that space time gets warped is when the Lorentz factor is higher. For example, the closer you get to going to the speed of light, the higher the Lorentz factor. What this means is that if you assign the earth as the rest frame and you see someone traveling close to the speed of light, they will in fact be seen as moving slower. However, they will also see us moving slower.

So if you wanted to calculate a trip that was 10 light years away, you could set it up pretty simply. If you are traveling close to the speed of light, the differences that gravity would cause would be negligible as long as you were not too close to any black holes. So if someone traveled 10 light years away at around 98% (I think this is right) of the speed of light. You see that for every 5 hours that passed on earth, only one hour would pass for the traveler. So you would actually see them travel the 10 lights years in 2 years earth time. The reason that they can travel 10 light years in two years is because of lorentz contraction. This also related to the twins paradox, where if one twin is sent off to a star 10 lights years away (at 98% of the speed of light) then he comes back only 4 years older, while the other twin is 20 years older. The paradox is that in relativity, there is no specific frame of reference, so you should not be able to tell who is moving or not.

Click to expand...

If I wave my hands really fast and shout, NO, NO, NO, three times will that make the L-factor disappear?

Dr Kynes said:

so lets see... disagreeing with kip thorne as to the the existence of space without any detectable matter mass or energy still being space and it's NOT being folded (since shit that passes through empty space is not "warped" off course) means that im totally wrong on every possible level, despite the fact that space without large masses or large gravity feilds does NOT deflect energy or matter passing through it.

this fact is inescapable, which would sensibly presume that the space is NOT "warped" until a sufficient mass and or gravity is present to create the observed distortion. since NOTHING does not effect SOMETHING, but SOMETHING ELSE surely does, the sensible non-poindexter concludes that SOMETHING was effected by SOMETHING ELSE, not that SOMETHING ELSE altered the nature of NOTHING to allow it to then interfere with SOMETHING's normal activity. that would be stupid and illogical. and would require inventing 7 new spacial dimensions and "dark matter" just to make the story work.

but then thats the nature of quantum research. using math to "prove" the impossible so that next week some other sliderule jockey can "prove" somnething directly contradictory, and both can collect Feilds medals, Nobel prizes and honorariums.

my view of the universe may not be in line with Kip "Cunt Destroyer" Thorne's super awesome purple lowrider with a fur dashboard and spinnin rims universe, but it's served pretty good so far. but then newton didnt win a nobel prize so fuck that scrub.

in regards to your final snippy and petulant jab... i aint sellin shit but vegetables.

i dont have a book deal, i dont get honorariums for appearing at science fiction conventions, and i aint selling a vacuum cleaner home hair styling system with 3 easy payments. i dont have to come up with new groundbreaking theories every six months to keep my tenure, nor do i have to publish in any journal except penthouse letters. you dont gotta believe me, you dont gotta believe the universe even exists, you could go all descartes and claim we are all just figments of somebody else's imagination or an unquiet dream after an evening of hotwings, jalapeno poppers and domestic beer at the Hooters on Gamma Epsilon 5.

its all fine with me.

Click to expand...

So I guess that means, no, you don't have the math or any evidence to back up your claim. You like to accuse me of appeal to authority but it appears you cannot tell the difference between that and someone that actually studied physics. You keep dismissing questions posed to you to explain what you mean when you claim that space only appears to bend light in the presence of gravity. Let's see your work. You keep acting like you have some answer to explain this phenomena, so let's see it. You sound as idiotic as if I said a magnifying glass doesn't actually bend light, it only appears to. As I asked before, in this instance, how is the appearance, not a reality? I suppose you will keep talking in circles and never offer any mathematical or other evidence worthy of science so I guess I will dismiss your bullshit like I do with every other braniac on RIU, that apparently knows better than the thousands of men and women that have made exploring these questions their life's work.

Doer said:

It is Theory. But, it does not have to be accepted. It can't be proved, mathematically. And it can be challenged with a new model and tested with new hypothesis. I can think of a new model, quite off the top of my head.

It isn't survival selection, at all. It is a yet unknown part of the epi-genome that senses new requirements from the environment and models adaption for the new generations.

See, that is completely different. But, it could be a challenge to the current Theory, when more is known about the genome.

Click to expand...

Yes it is completely different. One has been rigorously tested and prevailed every single time, one has not. There is absolutely no doubt that evolution is correct. If you plan to propose an alternate theory to evolution you have quite the mountain of evidence to explain away.

And yes it does have to be accepted. At some point you cannot deny the evidence. Like I already said, if you don't accept it at this point then you are either ignorant or don't understand it. There is no way you are aware of the evidence and understand it and still deny it.

Doer said:

But, you are peddling bullshit and innuendo. You are selling right-fight without any reference or understanding. What distinguishes all this from foolish muttering?

Why is peppering all your speech with all this Fiction reference important for you? It's meaningless to me. Is that your point?

Hard science with it's thorny math seems like Fiction, to you? There are experiments underway.

It is neither Fact nor Fiction. It is the Current, Proved, Understanding. If you could prove something then we could Understand you. But, you pepper Fiction, so you must be dismissing it all...in your own mind.

Click to expand...

i suppose some might prefer a dryer less colourful description but thats how i roll.

all the shouting and ad hominems aside i still do not accept the dogma that space "gets warped" it is illogical.

light, matter, and in fact anything which we can actually measure moves in straight lines until acted upon by another force. this is simple, understandable and newtonian.

when Object A which would otherwise move in a straight line through empty space encounters a region of space with a mass and it's gravity field (Object B) then object A deflects TOWARDS the mass of Object B and it's gravity.

once Object A leaves the influence of the gravity field of Object B it continues on a NEW course which is also a straight line until acted upon by a new force.

this is fact. simple correct and inescapable.

the crux of the argument is whether Object B and it's mass and gravity acted upon Object A through the interaction of gravitational force (which seems obvious to me) or if Object B modified the fundamental nature of the space around itself to cause Object A's course to be altered through a process that requires the illogical assumption that space can be folded, deformed and altered by objects within it.

since anything passing through empty space is NOT deflected one can presume that the object's personal gravity is NOT warping the space around it, or it would move in circles.

when encountering another object the two gravity feilds interact causing BOTH to be moved off their previous course towards each other due to gravity's attraction

if they do not collide, and simply pass by each other they then continue on a new heading once again in a straight line. any object that later passes through that same now-empty region of space will NOT experience turbulence from the previously warped space (lacking another force the space should remain warped unless it is permanent press space with wrinkle guard) thus i personally and without using any math whatever have logically determined that space doesnt warp, and gravity fields attract, they do not alter the space they occupy.

the extraordinary claims of space being modified by things passing through it seems not only illogical, but also highly suspect. if this is actually the case then there has to be a lot of explanation about why space UN-WARPS once the influence of the gravitational feild departs, or a shitload of explanation of how the "warping" follows the gravity around as it moves leaving previously warped space to return to it's normal non-warped status as well as where it gets the energy to un-warp without a new force to provide the energy since it is empty space.

i am not peddling bullshit or inuenndo, i am not selling zero-point energy machines, nor orgone ray guns to shoot down aliens spaceships disguised as clouds.

i am disagreeing with the argument that matter makes the area it influences take a different shape.

why do you find it so offensive that i do not believe that space is a mutable new form of matter which defies description but totally does shit, instead of the passive playing feild upon which the universe and it's physical laws play their game?

your rage over analogy and metaphor seems to exempt from it's fury any analogy or metaphor which supports your views, yet i strongly believe that the "warping of space" is just an analogy that has gotten out of hand and has become holy writ for those who worship at the altar of quantum theorists.

this does not mean i disbelieve science (as you have stated so often before) this means i disbelieve this particular branch of science that employs mathematical sleight of hand, mummery and the presumption of 7 new spacial dimensions and magical dark matter to fill in the gaps where logic and reason fail to get the job done. as has been stated so often, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence yet the evidence has been lacking, and all the impenetrably obtuse math on the planet cant make a believer out of those of use who dont advanced degrees in mathematics, or those who hold a view which does NOT involve 11 spacial dimensions and dark matter.

Finally!! A very interesting post. You are right, I have been quite un-clear as to where you are coming from. Thanks for this. I will delve in and strive to discuss it with you.

I have no rage. Funny comment. I have no beef with you. I like discussion. It's not dry to me it's normal for these topics. I can see what you are saying. But, I think it is more basic. Science seeks to rule things out, right? When we rule out everything, including the idea that light is affected by gravity, then we have some Imponderables.

Mass Compressing Space?
Dark Energy?
Dark Matter?

These are just a few of the current Imponderables. It can't be anything we know about, we have ruled out the idea that photons have mass.

So, it MAY be something in the new Models I listed above. It really has nothing to do with logic. It may have something to do with a Higgs field. MAY have.

Need to test it. We have tested the idea that light could just be experiencing a photonic orbit change. It isn't. We tested the idea that maybe the light is just given a different vector, as you suggest. A refraction?

It isn't. It lens. It magnifies. Imponderable.

We don't know what gravity is. We do see that Mass has the ability to form a concave gradient of magnification.

What dear Dr. forms a magnifier like this? A crystal ball does.

So, unless all these large masses we can see magnification around are encased in a transparent sphere,, what causes the magnification?

You know they are using these gravity lens lined up as ulra powerful telescopes. They can see these black holes plumes in visible light now.

All the space time math predicts this gradient. But, no one is saying space is actually compressible, at this time. It is a Model. Experiments are underway.

So, it's not a right-fight. You are using deductive logic, this is inductive.. Or did i get that backwards?

Doer said:

Parthians, ran off on horseback shooting, while the ones coming in were shooting to cover them.
The ones leaving were "adding insult over the shoulder," according to the Romans,
That morphed into a parting shot, to have the last word of insult.

There is a naval expression of a parting shot, as hail of musket fire or cannon as the enemy passed out of range, that kind of thing. Stiill I see the Roman root in that.

Parthing shot
Parting shot

Word drift seems to be all that has happened. Very common.

references?

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia ... cn

[h=2]Parting shot / Parthian shot[/h] "Parthian shot" is not to be confused with the phrase "parting shot". The first record of the phrase "parting shot" was by John McCleod, surgeon on board His Majesty's ship Alceste contained in "A narrative of a Voyage to the Yellow Sea" (181:
In 1828 records in "The Friend, or Advocate of Truth" (a publication of The Religious Society of Friends) used the phrase in the figurative sense:
The two phrases have rather similar phonetic soundings but are actually separately derived at different times. Although the Parthian archers of old have been famous for their shooting, the term "parthian shot" was recorded for the first time in 1832 by Captain Mundy, ADC to Lord Combermere on a hunting trip in India:
The figurative use of the phrase "Parthian shot" appeared later in The Times (1842):
If chronology were to be the source, it would appear that the English usage of "parting shot" preceded the use of the phrase "Parthian shot". "Parthian shot" is less often used. "Parting shot" is far more likely to be encountered.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]

mindphuk said:

So I guess that means, no, you don't have the math or any evidence to back up your claim. You like to accuse me of appeal to authority but it appears you cannot tell the difference between that and someone that actually studied physics. You keep dismissing questions posed to you to explain what you mean when you claim that space only appears to bend light in the presence of gravity. Let's see your work. You keep acting like you have some answer to explain this phenomena, so let's see it. You sound as idiotic as if I said a magnifying glass doesn't actually bend light, it only appears to. As I asked before, in this instance, how is the appearance, not a reality? I suppose you will keep talking in circles and never offer any mathematical or other evidence worthy of science so I guess I will dismiss your bullshit like I do with every other braniac on RIU, that apparently knows better than the thousands of men and women that have made exploring these questions their life's work.

Click to expand...

so, in your view, as i lack the necessary expertise to craft an elegant unified field theory i should simply sit down and listen while my betters tell me what to believe and how to behave. perhaps i should look upon th epages and pages of math so impenetrable it could just as easily contain nonsense, quotes from Carrot Top stand-up routines and naughty limericks about men from nantucket.

sounds a lot like the Latin Mass to me.

simple observation that onbjects move in straight lines until another force changes that direction and then its straight lines again when that force expires tells me that FORCES make shit change course, not mysterious warps in space/time, nor do i have to have a PHD to see that things and forces interact with other things and forces, all without the interference of an unseen unmeasurable ever-present additional power that makes shit happen through inscrutable methods that can only be divined by the high priests like Kip Thorne (who stilll has a porn-star name) and their acolytes.

again, the Latin Mass.

all you need now is a few theoretician cardinals, a dark matter pope, and a holy quantum inquisition to cleanse the world of unbelievers and youre in business.

Why does light not travel in straight lines near massive objects? Does light have mass interacting with the gravitational field?

Lightin Mass. cn

guy incognito said:

Yes it is completely different. One has been rigorously tested and prevailed every single time, one has not. There is absolutely no doubt that evolution is correct. If you plan to propose an alternate theory to evolution you have quite the mountain of evidence to explain away.

And yes it does have to be accepted. At some point you cannot deny the evidence. Like I already said, if you don't accept it at this point then you are either ignorant or don't understand it. There is no way you are aware of the evidence and understand it and still deny it.

Click to expand...

religion and dogma require and demand acceptance.

real science does not require consensus, the belief of the masses, or acceptance by any particular person. i can feel free to disbelieve any of a number of theories with no effect on reality whatsoever.

what you are describing is theocracy with heavier textbooks, not science, fact, reality or truth.

to this day nobody can tell you what your appendix actually does. it remains a mystery. yet you still have one. that to me is pretty sure proof that "intelligent design" is bullshit since nobody installs parts that dont do shit except kill the user.

if the jeesans insist on claiming their god created us in his image, all i can say is he has a fucked up design team, and somebody is making a packet supplying non-functional appendixes to his assembly line. maybe we should ask the christians for an investigation into this scandal...

if one wishes to believe the earth is flat, and bordered on the rim by a massive wall of ice (to keep the oceans in) thats cool, you could believe the fuck out of that. that doesnt mean its not crazy. some people even vote democrat.

some people want to believe that kwanza is a traditional african holiday. that also does not bother me. it's stupid, since i remember when kwanza was invented right here in america, but thats fine. people can be as wacky as they want. fuck i worship a god that has never been nailed to a tree and doesnt demand sacrifices or tell me who to hate. and THAT'S wacky.

meanwhile in the dark ages, the geocentric model was rigorously tested using the finest biblical research available, conducted by the most eminent theologians in italy, and they were so persuasive that Galileo recanted cuz his earth revolving around the sun theory was obviously flawed. they totally proved him wrong, and THATS good science!

ohh wait no it's not.

science is not proving the other guy wrong, or demanding that you be proved wrong or the other guy should STFU, science s the search for truth and fact. the truth may be odd, may be counter to currently held beliefs or it could be that the truth was hidden in a nugget of folklore from 700 years ago that everybody else dismissed as magical thinking from the peasantry.

case in point: within the pages of Prior John's "Secrets of the Common Weal" (a book banned by papal edict specifically) in among the love potions, curse, hexes and other pagan beliefs of the peasantry in the 900ad-ish timeframe was the claim that a silver coin in a pail of milk kept the milk from spoiling for several days.

well it turns out it's true. totally 100% true as a motherfucker

sometimes even hedge witches stumble upon science, even if they dont feel the need to prove anybody else wrong.