Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Why I don't believe in gravitolution

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 7:33:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
1) Objects in space are observed to move in set patterns. While these patterns are consistant with the THEORY of gravity to an extent, as objects will move within their systems with gravity affecting them. These objects stay within their systems. You never see gravity cause an object to move from one system to another. This is the strongest evidence against gravitolutionism as it relates to the path of objects movements.

2) What we know about the past history of our planet contradicts gravitolutionism as we know that in the past meteor strikes on the Earth were more frequent, indicating the earths gravity was stronger in the past. The explanation that there were simply more objects in space so the liklihood of an impact was higher is bogus as the same would have to apply to all other planets in the solar system and other solar systems in the galaxy.

3) Small rocks smashing together to form larger rocks is a poor mechanism for forming space objects such as is required by the gravitational explanation for the formation of planets. Such colisions are rare and even then usually tend to result in a larger number of smaller rocks rather than a smaller number of larger rocks.

4) Multiple lines of evidence for gravitolutionism rest on the assumption that similarities in shape across different planetary objects is evidence that their spherical shapes are caused by some underlying fundamental force of physics, which they call gravity. They claim that objects in space tend toward becoming more sphere shaped as their mass increases, but there is nothing justifying this assumption.

5) Gravitolutionism rests on the notion of a fundamental underlying force that causes all matter to interact with all other matter, but this notion is illogical. The only gravitational attraction we observe in our everyday lives is the attraction between the earth and all matter near it, but not between the matter near it and other matter near it. This counts against the notion of a universal attraction between all matter without exception.

Now, people who actually understand how the theory of gravity really works as opposed to my horrible strawmen vaguely reminisent of the real deal may be able to easily counter the perfect logic presented here, but that is irrelevant to me. I don't want to take the time to understand how the theory of gravity works. Instead I'll start with the assumption that it is false and poke holes in my strawman version of it, claiming that this casts reasonable doubt on the theory. I'll even make up fake words like gravitolutionism or gravitolutionist because making up silly words and labeling my opponent as those silly words makes them seem silly, it certainly doesn't make me seem silly for making up fake words.

Inspired by: http://www.debate.org...
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 12:18:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Lol. Nice one. It made me laugh. More please.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 4:36:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 12:18:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
Lol. Nice one. It made me laugh. More please.

I am merely a copycat of true masters of comedy, but I am glad you enjoyed it.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Annnaxim
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 9:39:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
WTF is gravitolutionism?

At 10/25/2016 7:33:04 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
1) Objects in space are observed to move in set patterns. While these patterns are consistant with the THEORY of gravity to an extent, as objects will move within their systems with gravity affecting them. These objects stay within their systems. You never see gravity cause an object to move from one system to another. This is the strongest evidence against gravitolutionism as it relates to the path of objects movements.

Your basis is simply wrong!
A scientific theory is an explanatory model of how (a part of) the observable world works. If it's any good, the model will make solid and testable predictions. If it's a bad model it belongs in the garbage can of history.

2) What we know about the past history of our planet contradicts gravitolutionism as we know that in the past meteor strikes on the Earth were more frequent, indicating the earths gravity was stronger in the past.
The explanation that there were simply more objects in space so the liklihood of an impact was higher is bogus as the same would have to apply to all other planets in the solar system and other solar systems in the galaxy.

Why should that prove anything. The reason could be, and probably is, that the number of objects floating around in space was higher then, than it is today. The moon craters corrborate this latter assumption.


3) Small rocks smashing together to form larger rocks is a poor mechanism for forming space objects such as is required by the gravitational explanation for the formation of planets.

How do you know that? -- Or is it a claim?
How would you go about testing your claim?

4) Multiple lines of evidence for gravitolutionism rest on the assumption that similarities in shape across different planetary objects is evidence that their spherical shapes are caused by some underlying fundamental force of physics, which they call gravity. They claim that objects in space tend toward becoming more sphere shaped as their mass increases, but there is nothing justifying this assumption.

5) Gravitolutionism rests on the notion of a fundamental underlying force that causes all matter to interact with all other matter, but this notion is illogical. The only gravitational attraction we observe in our everyday lives is the attraction between the earth and all matter near it, but not between the matter near it and other matter near it. This counts against the notion of a universal attraction between all matter without exception.

You make up words and then proceed to use them as weapons.
Again.... wtf is "gravitolutionism"? -- LOL

Now, people who actually understand how the theory of gravity really works as opposed to my horrible strawmen vaguely reminisent of the real deal may be able to easily counter the perfect logic presented here, but that is irrelevant to me.
It's irrelevant, period.

I don't want to take the time to understand how the theory of gravity works.
Well you really should take the time.
It would prevent us having to read and understand such weird posts.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 10:20:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 9:39:08 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
WTF is gravitolutionism?

Gravitolutionism reffers to the belief that the so-called THEORY of gravity is accurate, as opposed to IA (Intelligent Attraction)

What few people realize is that gravitolutionism - like evolutionism - is a fake word. This does nothing to discredit me though, because if I say it over and over people will soon forget that it is a fake word (again, just like the word evolutionism)

Your basis is simply wrong!
A scientific theory is an explanatory model of how (a part of) the observable world works. If it's any good, the model will make solid and testable predictions. If it's a bad model it belongs in the garbage can of history.

Just like how gravitolutionism predicts that objects should be able to move from one system to another with just the movement of gravity alone. But has that ever been observed? LOL I think you know!

Why should that prove anything?

Because according to the THEORY of gravity the mass of an object is the only thing that should affect an objects gravitational pull but this proves that earths gravity has changed, which gives evidence for IA.

The reason could be, and probably is, that the number of objects floating around in space was higher then, than it is today.

LOL this is always the gravitolutionist response, so predictable! I see you did not actually read my post as I already discounted this naive explanation!

How do you know that? -- Or is it a claim?
How would you go about testing your claim?

Rocks being smashed together on earth break eachother apart, do you think space rocks are different? LOL!

Discipulus_Didicit (I notice the cool kids are doing this, it's so you don't forget my name.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Annnaxim
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 8:29:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 10:20:48 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:

What few people realize is that gravitolutionism - like evolutionism - is a fake word. This does nothing to discredit me though, because if I say it over and over people will soon forget that it is a fake word (again, just like the word evolutionism)

That's okay. Language is after all a consesus of those who use it. There's nothing wrong with introducing new words. If you can convince the world to accept your version, then you should just be happy.


Just like how gravitolutionism predicts that objects should be able to move from one system to another with just the movement of gravity alone. But has that ever been observed?
It hasn't? https://www.washingtonpost.com...-
science/wp/2016/09/16/scientists-caught-black-holes-swallowing-stars-and-burping-energy-back-up/


The reason could be, and probably is, that the number of objects floating around in space was higher then, than it is today.

LOL this is always the gravitolutionist response, so predictable!
Which maks it higliy likely to be the right answer. LOL

I see you did not actually read my post as I already discounted this naive explanation!
I know you discounted it, but on feeble evidence, in fact only by claim.

Rocks being smashed together on earth break eachother apart, do you think space rocks are different? LOL!

Yes. Rocks in space behave differently from the way they do on earth.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 11:13:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/27/2016 8:43:38 AM, keithprosser wrote:
People should check out http://www.intelligentattraction.com...
and its daddy http://www.theonion.com...

Indeed. Some people just don't get it, eh?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 11:47:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/27/2016 11:27:07 AM, keithprosser wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org... strikes again.

Lmao. I never heard of that but it seems clearly true.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 12:02:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It work the other way too - I often think a post has got to be a send-up only to discover that the person actually means it.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 1:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/27/2016 8:29:17 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/26/2016 10:20:48 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:

What few people realize is that gravitolutionism - like evolutionism - is a fake word. This does nothing to discredit me though, because if I say it over and over people will soon forget that it is a fake word (again, just like the word evolutionism)

That's okay. Language is after all a consesus of those who use it. There's nothing wrong with introducing new words. If you can convince the world to accept your version, then you should just be happy.

I won't have to convince them, I'll just get people that agree with me to say it over and over with no justification and you will soon be forced to accept it by sheer weight of numbers.

Just like how gravitolutionism predicts that objects should be able to move from one system to another with just the movement of gravity alone. But has that ever been observed?
It hasn't? https://www.washingtonpost.com...-
science/wp/2016/09/16/scientists-caught-black-holes-swallowing-stars-and-burping-energy-back-up/

I didnt even need to click the link, I just read the "swallowing stars and burping energy back up" part, which shows that it all stayed within the same system as it was "burped back up" and by E=MC2 energy is matter (ignore the fact that I am using the most famous equation of the person that invented the most modern theory of gravity)

The reason could be, and probably is, that the number of objects floating around in space was higher then, than it is today.

LOL this is always the gravitolutionist response, so predictable!
Which maks it higliy likely to be the right answer. LOL

Saying something over and over doesnt make it true even if it is more logical than what I am saying. (Ignore the fact that this is my primary tactic in discounting gravitational theory)

I see you did not actually read my post as I already discounted this naive explanation!
I know you discounted it, but on feeble evidence, in fact only by claim.

I dont have to prove anything I say, you have to prove me wrong! You have failed to do so thusfar, how about you educate yourself on what Inteligent attractuon actually is? it would probably make this conversation much shorter.

Rocks being smashed together on earth break eachother apart, do you think space rocks are different? LOL!

Yes. Rocks in space behave differently from the way they do on earth.

No proof, and even if you did present proof I would claim it to be part of a NASA conspiracy to keep the gravitolution myth alive. After all, the everyday person doesnt get to interact with space rocks. Only the so-called scientists get that honor.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^