The Instigator
bigandyiq164
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RavenDebater
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Gravity doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
RavenDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 69736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

bigandyiq164

Pro

To preface: my IQ is 164 and I verify this daily. This puts me on par with the likes of Bill Gates, Stepehen Hawking and Albert Einstein so weary debaters beware!

Fact 1: Gravity pulls things towards the centre of the Earth
Fact 2: The moon is affected by Earth's gravity
Fact 3: The moon is not at the centre of the Earth.

Therefore, by the current definition, gravity is false.
RavenDebater

Con

Gravity pulls things towards the centre of the Earth"
"The moon is affected by Earth's gravity"
Starting off I would like to point out that Pro has already conceded the fact that gravity exists. He said the above statements without any contradictory words such as "Supposedly" or "The theory of gravity states...". Since he said these as statements, he implied that they are facts. I accept the above listed statements and point out that Pro has already lost the round.

Next I would like to go ever the basics of orbits. True gravity pulls things towards the center of the Earth but if an object has a certain velocity it can avoid falling into the Earth and lock into a stable orbit. In order to explain this further would like to introduce a scenario. Suppose you have a baseball that you can throw 200 feet. The baseball leaves your hand and immediately is affected by gravity. The baseball travels as far as it can before gravity draws it back to the ground. Now lets say that you were able to throw the baseball at 9.4k/s (the orbital velocity of Earth). Lets assume for this model that the ball maintains this speed indefinably. Now 9.4k/s is extraordinarily fast, in fact so fast that as you throw it gravity draws it back to the Earth at a rate directly proportional to the curvature of the planet. What that means is that while gravity is still drawing the ball to the Earth, the direction it is pulling it at is constantly changing meaning that gravity cannot bring it to it's center. That's the best I can explain it, if you wish to now more specifics I encourage you to read http://www.braeunig.us...
I know it's a little scientific, but that should be no problem to a person with an IQ as high as you claim

Good luck to Pro
Debate Round No. 1
bigandyiq164

Pro

I believe in a form of gravity, just not the one that is defined by science, hence "therefore, BY OUR DEFINITION, gravity is false". The moon doesn't have any velocity. That's why I don't see it move.
RavenDebater

Con

I would like to point out the fact that the Pro never clarified "Our Definition of Gravity" is false. He is simply avoided my argument by making an unjustified statement. In his first speech he specifically said that gravity is not real, not one but three times. Voters please ignore Pro's attempt at becoming a moving target. I extend all of my points.

He has not refuted my argument about orbitals. I extend all my points

Good luck to Pro
Debate Round No. 2
bigandyiq164

Pro

What is this stupid pedantry? I clearly STATED that our version of gravity is false by deducing it logically. And I rebutted your big paragraph with the statement "The moon has no velocity because I don't see it move". I'm sorry for not clarifying that statement.
RavenDebater

Con

My opponent has claimed that the moon has no velocity because "I don't see it move". However he has produced no evidence to support this claim. The moon moves at 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour) around the Earth http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...-
By my opponents same logic of "sight" the Earth Does't Spin because he cant feel it move. Vote Con on logical presumption.

Good luck to Pro
Debate Round No. 3
bigandyiq164

Pro

Well, the exact velocity of the moon is impossible to know because the moon is billions of miles away from the Earth and our measuring instruments are down here. However, if it is moving, surely we would see it. Even if it was moving we'd expect it to be pulled to the centre at the same time as if it weren't moving.
RavenDebater

Con

My opponent claims that the moon is "Billions of miles away" yet has produced no evidence to support this. It is common knowledge that the moon is 238,900 miles (384,400 km) away from Earth. An opponent with an IQ as high as he claims would know this. We know the velocity of the moon because we've LANDED there before! Even if you do not believe in the moon landings, it is common knowledge that the Soviets landed a probe there,and that US has crashed a rocket into it before. The moons orbit is proved by an actual see able affect! The moons phases (Crescent, waning, act.) is observable proof of this! So that means that I have proved the moon's movement by his own standard. I extend all of my previous points on the subject.

Pro has still not answered my orbit argument. I extend all of my points.

Pro still has not refuted my Moving Target argument. I extend all of my points.

Good luck to pro
Debate Round No. 4
bigandyiq164

Pro

bigandyiq164 forfeited this round.
RavenDebater

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round. I extend all my points.
By default you should vote for Con
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
People who brag about their IQ have little to show for their IQ test scores, and even less to offer others.
Posted by deathkillerrocks3 2 years ago
deathkillerrocks3
People who brag about their IQ are stupid.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
You can be a member of mensa with a high IQ and still be intellectually retarded. If you're not full of crap, then you're a great example.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Supposing you do have an IQ of 164, that does not mean you are intelligent, per se. Having the capacity to reason well does not make you immune to logical pitfalls, arrogance, rigid thinking, or any other human fallacies. While it may seem ironic, there are smart idiots in this world--people whose IQs are high, but who fail in other important areas and thus are not truly intelligent.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
@Samyul

haha...

Really, his debate does not reflect his iq. if he did have an iq of 164. hes probably roy latham with a troll account
Posted by Samyul 2 years ago
Samyul
If this guys IQ is 164 then mine is 500.
If you're going to lie about IQ make it believable
Posted by bigandyiq164 2 years ago
bigandyiq164
Its not just about pointing out mistakes. It is about evaluting ideologies.
Posted by RavenDebater 2 years ago
RavenDebater
You do not need to be very smart to point out others mistakes
Posted by bigandyiq164 2 years ago
bigandyiq164
No, MENSA verified.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
lol there is something called the centripetal force
Your IQ is irrelevant, and Im 99% sure you took your iq test off of a fake biased website
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
bigandyiq164RavenDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con. Pro conceded the debate in round one, so arguments to Con.