Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

HAARP

Posted Jun 26, '13 at 6:41pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,142 posts

Knight

Gravity, on the other hand, has no source.

Yes, it does. And it is yet to be proven. And besides, if you ask yourself the question "Does God have a source?" you'd say God just is. So gravity is the same, it's existence may be subjective (you're the only subjection of gravity I've seen in my life to be honest) but facts of existence are not impossible to find. Make of that what you will.

If I told you what I really thought....I would lose the small amount of credibility I have.  But Radio waves, microwaves, heat waves, and magnetic forces are different.

This isn't even subjective thinking anymore, this is just plain hypocritical behavior towards science. You cannot seriously think that just because something has been explained and the things yet to be explained must immediately be BS. You can't see radio waves with the naked eye, yet you believe in it. You can't see magnetism with your naked eye, yet you believe in it. Yet gravity, the protector of life in our great planet that has existed longer then you is deemed implausible. There is no logic in this statement. None what so ever.

You're already the person with the most ridiculous beliefs I've ever met. I wouldn't believe you from your word if you said you saw a duck outside, because you're so wrong about everything I'd assume it was a goose. Your credibility isn't small, it's as nonexistent as these abundance of conspiracy theories you think surround us.

*round of applause*

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 11:10am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Another thing about this. If you actually believed things that were true, revealing what you thought wouldn't cost you credibility.

I do believe they are true.  I believe things you believe aren't.  Either way, we can't prove anything.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 11:11am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Yes, it does. And it is yet to be proven. And besides, if you ask yourself the question "Does God have a source?" you'd say God just is.

You just said it has a source...then said it just is...

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 12:06pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,783 posts

Knight

You just said it has a source...then said it just is...

Read closer. He said there is a source, we just didn't find the source yet.

If we don't know the source yet, how can we know there is gravity? By it's effects. Throw a stone and see how it moves through the air, and make your conclusions. You now know something is acting on the stone. Physicists eventually found out how the observed effect behaves; we now have mathematical formulas that use gravity and give us the correct curve of an objects trajectory.

But as with anything, there has to be a cause to it. We haven't found it yet (although as I said, we are possibly getting closer with the Higgs boson), and that's why we're looking for it. We don't just accept that gravity is there; we just haven't had the means to analyse it until the CERN project.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 1:15pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,470 posts

Either way, we can't prove anything.

Ever consider that you can't prove this drivel because it's not true? All you can do is make wild statements and point at things, whilst ignoring the valid explanations and reasons offered? That the only way this gibberish survives is because you ignore every source and attempt at someone telling you how it's false?

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 3:25pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,142 posts

Knight

Read closer. He said there is a source, we just didn't find the source yet.

Exactly my point. And to be honest, I'm doing research in gravity. There are multiple different theoretical explanations to gravity. In due time the cause of gravity will be proven.

If we don't know the source yet, how can we know there is gravity? By it's effects.

Yup, Issac Newton. The apple falling on his head was not just a footnote. And from the information just a simple everyday person can gather, gravity has been around for a while. Even in the Triassic period, which was a little over 230 million years ago. Gravity may have been lighter during this period but it was there. Just as it is now.

But as with anything, there has to be a cause to it. We haven't found it yet (although as I said, we are possibly getting closer with the Higgs boson), and that's why we're looking for it. We don't just accept that gravity is there; we just haven't had the means to analyse it until the CERN project.

I'd be interested in seeing what the Higgs Boson could do. It would definitely be a sight to see if gravity was explained.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:11pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,470 posts

Gravity may have been lighter during this period

What? How do you figure that? The only reasoning I can think of is because of the size of the animals, you're basing it off an assumption that their hearts wouldn't have been able to pump blood up that far in such large amounts.

I don't see any reason why gravity would be less then.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:18pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

because you ignore every source and attempt at someone telling you how it's false?

Ignore?  Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:21pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,016 posts

Ignore?  Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

realize it's wrong to me

wrong to me

wat.jpg

You can't decide something to be wrong only for you. Gravity doesn't rely upon the belief one has in it

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:31pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

You can't decide something to be wrong only for you. Gravity doesn't rely upon the belief one has in it

I wasn't talking about gravity, I was replying to someone

 
Reply to HAARP

You must be logged in to post a reply!