Gravity is Wrong

By Leauki on May 26, 2010 5:17:09 AM from

Leauki

Join Date 02/2004

+85

I found this out today after doing some experiments and scientific research. And now I have indisputable proof that the so-called "scientific" theory of gravity is wrong.

This includes both common theories, Newton's and Einstein's, and demonstrates the need for a more factual alternative to be taught in schools, in science class, from now on.

How do I know that gravity is wrong?

Scientists tell us that because of "gravity" planets revolve around the sun. This has never been proven.

We see the planets sometimes and then they disappear and reappear, but the idea that between those points they follow a certain track as if they were determined to do so (remember that planets are soulless entities without will) is not only ridiculous but also completely unproven. For all we know they might be teleported away and then back to where the teleporter wants them. It's futile to try to predict what the teleporter decides.

Scientists also tell us that smaller objects, closer to a planet, will fall towards the planet. And it seems like this is true because we can see pebbless fall to the ground when we drop them.

But there is no evidence that this was the case hundreds of years ago. And in fact scienists claim that a rock would fall from ten feet to the ground if left unstopped but they have never demonstrated a transitional rock floating at three feet. The plain fact is that there is no evidence for rocks falling to the ground since we never found a rock in the transitional state between being at ten feet and lying on the ground. A real scientist would demonstrate a floating rock. But these gravity pseudo-scientists never have.

I believe Papa Smurf makes rocks "fall" to the ground. He wills a rock at ten feet to the ground and he doesn't want it to float at three feet and that's, obviously, why there are no floating rocks we can touch.

Papa Smurf is also invisible and magic. We cannot see, hear, smell, or touch him. And since he makes "gravity" happen, he is also exempt (as long as he wishes) from being subject to it (unless he moves himself closer to the ground). Now try to disprove that! It's water-proof.

In contrast to any "scientific" theory of gravity, there is no possible (or impossible) event that could disprove my Papa Smurf theory. This should be taught in science class instead of a "scientific theory" that has never been proven and was so easily disproven by just pointing out the absence of floating rocks.

Now, some detractors claim that floating rocks are an impossibility according to both Newton's and Einstein's theories and that finding such a floating rock would disprove gravity. But to that I say that the dictionary says the following about gravity:

The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

See? It doesn't mention floating rocks.

Now, I know enough about gravity to tell you that gravity is all about floating rocks. It's also about some rocks being better than others.

"Scientists" will tell you that gravity is not about the value of rocks in any sense except their mass, but I say pishtosh, because it's a nice word I got from a Dilbert book.

It is clear that "gravity" is only taught in schools to deny the existence of Papa Smurf.

Real science should be taught in school. Solid theories that cannot be disproven should be taught.

Daiwa

comment 25

Such a statement still requires believers to assume knowledge of the mind of God, something not even Jesus did. There is no other context for the phrase 'make far more sense'. You can't rationalize it away.

Umm... it's called spacial relations. Math. Given the size of the Ark, there would have had to be fewer species on it that there are today for them all to fit, and the larger ones would have not been full grown. Knowing God's mind has nothing to do with it. Besides which, knowledge of the mind of God is precisely what we have the Bible for.

@ Leauki: If mutations are required for evolution, then somewhere a species barrier was crossed due to a lack of information. If no barrier was crossed, it could only have been because the information was there beforehand.

Do you see what I'm saying? If you had Ancestor X, maybe called avius raptor, but later generations gained information and became what we would call reptiles, the fact remains that information was gained. Information which did not exist in the avius raptor, but now it exists in the reptile. Obviously these two would be classified differently, and not as the same species. Therefore in gaining information it automatically crossed a "species divide" even though it was never actually classified. If the new reptile and avius raptor were considered the same, it would be because no new information was gained and the new generation was in fact a mere adaptation using existing information.

In gaining information through mutation, the offspring of avius raptor is no longer its natural offspring, but a member of a new and different species. It has thus crossed a divide which no other avius raptors could because they lacked that same information.

The other thing to note is that genetic traits tend to mix poorly. That's probably a large part of why truly beneficial genetic mutations have not yet been observed - DNA for lungs might work great for a mammal, but if a fish tried to use information for lungs it would probably end up with a half-finished set of both gills and lungs, killing it.

Yes, but the reason is based on observation, not genetical borders that mutations cannot cross.

I never said mutations couldn't cross those borders. I simply said that natural progression from parent to offspring cannot cross them. Mutations can do just about anything.

Still though, truly beneficial mutations have not been observed. Sickle-cell anemia might make you immune to malaria, but who cares when the anemia will kill you? Currently observed mutations are all like this; either one benefit is traded for a weakness elsewhere, or a useless extra is gained (such as a third foot, or two-heads on a snake).

Why would there be in-betweens? Whatever became birds and reptiles had traits of them both (and birds and reptiles each have new traits too). In-betweens would mean that the two formed a relationship while mutating. But they didn't. The two populations separated and there was no exchange of information.

This strikes me as a contradiction. If both groups ultimately came from a single ancestor, then observation should show that the two groups have more and more traits in common as the genetic line is traced backward. In other words, the ancestor itself would be the inbetween, correct?

Mutations have been observed. And mutations easily allow for changes in the genetic information.

You know, when I write these responses, they're meant to be read through, not read in pieces. When given the context I thought it was clear I was talking about beneficial mutations, the existence of which has not been proven. Unless that wasn't clear, in which case I apologize.

However, can't you give me enough credit to at least ask yourself, "Could he already know that mutations have been observed?"

If you look at English and German today, you will find they are two different languages. Yet they descend from a common ancestor. It is true that language borders cannot be crossed, i.e. English will never become German over night (or ever). The common ancestor evolved into both German and English without ever crossing a language border. Evolution of life works the same way.

You keep using this example, even though it has a number of flaws which I think I've mentioned before:

1. Languages are actively modified by beings with intelligence and sentience, which is not true of natural selection. Languages do not evolve, they are procedurally created.

2. Languages are not limited by a lack of information, unlike biological systems. A language doesn't need information - it is information, just in differing forms according to the wishes of those using it. German and English could be equated to DNA and RNA - just forms of information encoding something else entirely.

3. Even the most complex language on Earth is millions of times simpler than even the most basic life form.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Knowing God's mind has nothing to do with it. Besides which, knowledge of the mind of God is precisely what we have the Bible for.

Talk about circular reasoning.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

comment 27

Talk about circular reasoning.

Not really. Either you believe in God or you don't. If you do, then you have the Bible to understand Him.

Of course, you're just trying to find any little thing you can to argue about - I'm quite sure you couldn't care less about Noah's Ark or how those animals fit on it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm quite sure you couldn't care less about Noah's Ark or how those animals fit on it.

You may be right about that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Languages are actively modified by beings with intelligence and sentience, which is not true of natural selection. Languages do not evolve, they are procedurally created.

You are missing the point.

I was demonstrating how something can become two different things without ever turning from one thing into another.

Languages "survive" by being spoken, animal species survive by staying literally alive. There is no relevant difference here.

Words die or survive based on natural selection, they are either fit for survival or not. The same goes for genetic information.

Languages are not limited by a lack of information, unlike biological systems. A language doesn't need information - it is information, just in differing forms according to the wishes of those using it. German and English could be equated to DNA and RNA - just forms of information encoding something else entirely.

Exactly my point.

Now explain to me how English and German can be different languages even though they both evolved from a common ancestor.

If you are right the border between English and German would have stopped that evolution, wouldn't it?

Even the most complex language on Earth is millions of times simpler than even the most basic life form.

Precisely why I cose the example. It's simpler.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leauki

comment 30

If you are right the border between English and German would have stopped that evolution, wouldn't it?

I never said the border stopped evolution. I said the border forced a species reclassification once crossed, and that only mutation could cross it. That should make sense... once something changes enough, it is no longer considered to be the same as the original.

In other words, we reclassified German as English because English was its own language by that point.

Besides which, you're missing my point. The fact that we don't call both languages "German" still is proof that one was reclassified because of too many differences from the original.

However, languages don't have a border to cross in "evolving" because unlike different species, two different languages are still made up of all the same basic parts - nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. A reptile's DNA isn't recording the same information as a bird's DNA, unlike languages. Therefore languages = no border, and life = border.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I never said the border stopped evolution. I said the border forced a species reclassification once crossed, and that only mutation could cross it.

Again, the border is NEVER crossed by evolution. The border doesn't exist between a generation and the previous generation.

Mutation cannot cross the border because crossing a border defined by mutation is meaningless.

At some point mutations in two populations add up to make the populations incompatible. Then they are separate species.

At some other point mutations in two populations make them look different. That's probably what you mean by "different species".

At no point do mutations cross a "species border".

Or to demonstrate this with languages:

While there is a definite border between English and German, there is no definite border between the English (or German) spoken by generation n and the English (or German) spoken by generation n-1. However, both populations, Anglo-Saxons and Franks (or whatever you want to call them) were originally the same population at generation 0 and spoke the same language.

Again, English and German are distinct languages, have the same ancestor, but at no point did one language ever turn into another or even had the chance to meet the border between English and German.

In the same way cats and dogs are distinct species and have the same ancestor but never ever did another species become a cat or a dog.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or let me use numbers to explain.

Say 2237891.....3478762 is a number representing the genetic information of a dog. The dots represent a few million digits I didn't want to type.

And let's say that 7839021.....8938172 is a number representing the genetic information of a cat.

Let's also say that we can both see a huge difference between the numbers and agree that they are totally distinct.

We also both agree that the difference between the two makes it impossible for to 2237891.....3478762 turn into 7839021.....8938172. Let's call this the "species border". It's something we observe when looking at both numbers.

Now, let watch the dogs for a few generations, like fruitflies.

After some generations we find that random mutations changed the numbers. Let's call these "copy mistakes".

We find dogs that instead of 2237891.....3478762 have 2237891.....3478761.

Big deal, right? It's still clearly the same type of number as 2237891.....3478762. The dog looks only slightly different. (He has black hair instead of brown hair. Apparently the last digit had something to do with hair colour.)

Now we divide the dogs into two populations.

After a few generations (this is really faster with fruitflies) we end up with these two versions:

2237891.....3478760

2237891.....3478752

The first tribe has white hair, the second has a somewhat longer tail.

That's boring. We wait another few generations:

2237891.....3478760

2137891.....3478752

This time only one tribe happened to mutate a bit. Black hair, longer tail, and runs faster, on average.

Still not very relevant... let's look at a thousand generations:

2225851.....3478762

2137891.....3478752

Damn it, something went wrong for the first tribe. While one change didn't matter much (more blood was pumped into the kidneys) another screwed things up for us. Lots of dogs were born with only three legs. They were unable to hunt and died. Tribe 1 is now severely decimated. We divide up tribe 2 to continue the experiment.

2137891.....3479752

2137891.....3278752

Tribes 3 and 4 (formerly tribe 2) are still here after another thousand generations. Tribe 1 died out because the remaining individuals without the unfit mutation (three leg syndrome) couldn't keep the population up.

None of the tribes can interbreed any more. They have become different species.

Wait some more time and they will look quite different. Wait a few million years and they won't have anything in common as more and more information changes. (They are still all numbers but they have nothing else in common.)

That's the theory. I observe that one number can change at a time and I claim that this explains how I can end up with two completely different numbers even though I started with only one number.

Here's how you can disprove this theory (the fact that I can tell you this secret is why it is a theory):

1. You can show how one number quickly turns into another. This would devastate my argument that the change happens gradually.

2. You can show how there are certain numbers that single-digit changes must not become. You would have to explain why this is so. This would devastate my argument that single digits can change regardless of what the current number is.

3. You can show that the numbers never change at all, not even in single digits. Although our experiment above has already shown that they do.

Good luck.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Languages are not recoding the same information and DNA is always based on the same basic parts.

"Now" is not the same information as "jetzt", although both are made up of the same basic parts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The thing about your numbers argument is that DNA doesn't work like numbers. A DNA strand can only end up with the same information contained in the parent DNA... therefore even after X number of generations, no new information will be gained that didn't already exist within the species.

Due to the complexities of dominant and recessive genes, the child may wind up with different characteristics than the parents - but the parents did have the DNA for those characteristics.

Thus, a species only contains the information necessary to reproduce its own species, with some room for variation without mutation. We've covered that already.

If a species can only produce more of its own kind with the information it has, then it stands to reason that a mutation would create a different species immediately. Hence, even a small change such as fur color technically results in a new species, provided that that fur color was previously impossible among said species.

It doesn't matter how "gradual" the process is - every time any extra information is gained successfully, the result is a new species.

Here's how you can disprove this theory (the fact that I can tell you this secret is why it is a theory): 1. You can show how one number quickly turns into another. This would devastate my argument that the change happens gradually. 2. You can show how there are certain numbers that single-digit changes must not become. You would have to explain why this is so. This would devastate my argument that single digits can change regardless of what the current number is. 3. You can show that the numbers never change at all, not even in single digits. Although our experiment above has already shown that they do.

1. This was observed by Charles Darwin with his finches. Observing several cycles of beak length changes within a few years far outstrips the typical evolutionary time scale. Unless, of course, you agree that the information for that change already existed.

2. Again, DNA doesn't work like numbers; though as you pointed out a wrong number will kill the animal.

3. The DNA system allows for variation, so of course the numbers will change slightly. However, the DNA system also has limits imposed by the information it is encoding, as I said before. Thus, without mutation the numbers will never move outside a certain acceptable species range.

It's also not a matter of rearranging some existing genomes to get a new and better creature because DNA doesn't rearrange itself on its own. In other words, dog #2230000 will never become #0000223 without a mutation because DNA copies itself incredibly well. All dogs' numbers start with 223, so the DNA copying process cannot possibly change that without mutations. In other words, DNA can only change attributes it was pre-programmed to change.

That said, I don't think any of these three are the weakness of your argument. The true weakness of your argument is that you assume mutations are often beneficial. Of course, it's hard for me to make that point because you're not following the difference between pre-existing information and mutation-gained information (also known as microevolution and macroevolution).

In other words these three points are meaningless - all I have to do is prove that mutations cannot be beneficial.

Languages are not recoding the same information and DNA is always based on the same basic parts. "Now" is not the same information as "jetzt", although both are made up of the same basic parts.

If "jetzt" means "now" to someone, then yes, it is encoding the same information. Whether or not I understand "jetzt" to mean "now" has no relevance if someone else understands it that way.

Stated differently, "jetzt" and "now" are just two ways of encoding the same idea. The information is the same. Whether or not everyone can decode that information is irrelevant. The language is just the method of encryption, and what is actually meant is the information.

And yes, DNA is made up of parts which are identical between species. Like languages, the pieces can be arranged to say anything. However, languages can encode their information any way they want (as I just mentioned) whereas DNA is forced to keep a very strict information arrangement. If someone decides they don't like saying "ain't" anymore, they can drop its use and have no problem being understood. DNA does not have this luxury, nor is it so easily manipulated.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The thing about your numbers argument is that DNA doesn't work like numbers.

DNA is information and information can be represented as numbers.

A DNA strand can only end up with the same information contained in the parent DNA

Wrong. We have observed mutations.

I assume the rest of your argument is based on those two wrong assumptions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leauki

comment 36

Wrong. We have observed mutations.
I assume the rest of your argument is based on those two wrong assumptions.

Good to know that, once again, you're not reading what I'm writing.

I'm taking my leave of this discussion.

Successfully updated karma reason!