A Leauki's Writings
Published on May 26, 2010 By Leauki In Physics

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.

 

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 31, 2010

That's not how Creationists understand their ideology.

  That's how understand my ideology, and I know for a fact I'm not alone.

Evolution explains how the different species came to be. Creationism does not (in a scientific way).

  Well, I think the entire Intelligent Design ideology would disagree with you.  It's a purely scientifically-based creationist movement which makes no claim as to who or what did the creating.  Although I will say that it is a science mostly based on "if you only have choices X and Y, and Y is proven false, then X must be true," with X and Y being creation and abiogenesis.  It's not direct proof, but still perfectly valid until someone comes up with a third type of origins ideology.

  I agree with you that evolution happens, I just disagree that it moves outside of a single family (in the biology sense of the term).  In other words, we can prove that evolution happens within families and classes (the classic fruit flies example), but we can't prove that birds evolved from reptiles (the lack of fossil record evidence, for instance).

  So I agree that evolution is responsible for individual species we see today.  As I said, the system of life was designed to be able to adapt.  I don't agree that God created a cell and then just waited for something to happen.  I mean, if you believe that God created life, is it really a stretch to believe He created individual plant and animal families?

Creationists believe that the advent of species was part of the act of Creation rather than an effect. That's what "Creationism" means.

  I don't think any Christian creationists believe this.  At least, not any Christian creationists who have an inkling as to how Noah got so many animals on to the Ark.  If God considered individual species as seen today to be a "kind" then that Ark would never have had enough room for them all.  It makes far more sense if both in the act of creation and in the case of Noah's Ark that only one variation of each animal existed, with room made for later diversification.

  Of course, being Christian myself I can't speak for Scientologist Creationists or any other religion.

on Jun 01, 2010

It makes far more sense

Can you not see the flaw in this?  Makes far more sense to whom?  Such a statement pretends knowledge of the mind of God (assuming God has one), something I'm quite certain you don't possess.

on Jun 01, 2010



That's how I  understand my ideology, and I know for a fact I'm not alone.



That contradicts what you say below:




Well, I think the entire Intelligent Design ideology would disagree with you.  It's a purely scientifically-based creationist movement which makes no claim as to who or what did the creating.  Although I will say that it is a science mostly based on "if you only have choices X and Y, and Y is proven false, then X must be true," with X and Y being creation and abiogenesis.  It's not direct proof, but still perfectly valid until someone comes up with a third type of origins ideology.



You misunderstand "scientific". It doesn't matter if there is a god involved. It only matters whether it's disprovable.

Can you imagine any kind of possible (or impossible) evidence that would disprove "Intelligent Design"?

What "third type of origions theory"? Which theories are there to explain how life started?

And how exactly has abiogenesis been proven wrong?




I agree with you that evolution happens, I just disagree that it moves outside of a single family (in the biology sense of the term).



That statement makes no sense. The idea of a biological family is meaningless in these circumstances.

Families is something we sort organisms into after the fact. It is not something that exists before the organisms do. Biological families do not impose limits evolution cannot cross because biological families do not exist before evolution created them.




In other words, we can prove that evolution happens within families and classes (the classic fruit flies example), but we can't prove that birds evolved from reptiles (the lack of fossil record evidence, for instance).



There is lots of fossic record evidence for the fact that today's birds and today's reptiles have a common ancestor.

How exactly do you define a family or class before evolution created them? How would mutations know not to cross these boundaries?

Imagine a population A of some animal. Now imagine that the population is divided into two populations B and C.

Imagine a generation B(0) and C(0).

After some time we end up with species B(n) and C(n). We observe a definite border between B(n) and C(n). This border did not exist between B(0) and C(0).

How exactly would this border prove relevant to the mutatutions? It's a border between the populations, not between the populations and their ancestors. The border didn't exist when the evolution started or where it happened (i.e. in the two separate populations).

In other words, unless you can tell me why exactly mutations would stop at a certain point, without existing species borders, proving that fruit flies mutate into different fruit flies is enough to show that they could mutate into anything.

It's like gravity. I can show you that a pebble will fall to the ground from ten feet. I cannot show you that it would fall from one thousand feet. But I can tell you that it will, unless you give me a reason to believe that something would stop it.

A stack of pebbles already falling might stop it, but that stack doesn't exist before the pebbles fell.



on Jun 01, 2010

I drew this little picture to clarify (perhaps):

 

(Click to enlarge.)

 

Note that the red lines symbolise the "species borders" as observed after the fact.

Note that those red dots are created by the outcome of evolution and do not exist before evolution produced them.

In order to "disprove evolution" by claiming that evolution "cannot cross" those dots, you would have to show how those dots exist independently of evolution. Otherwise they would not exist for evolution to be bothered by them.

These species borders do not have definite differences on the genetic level. It is quite possible for a single species to have greater genetic variance than two distinct species. Finding a definite genetic basis for species will be very very difficult. But it would be necessary to show the existence of species borders without evolution creating them.

Again, species are just something we observe. It's not something pre-existing before evolution created them.

Good luck finding a theory to explain how species existed before animals that belong to them!

And no, just claiming that they always existed, just ask Bob or some other god or unknown creator is not enough. You need some sort of experiment that shows how species have always existed. That's why I once asked for a Creationism experiment where some god can be observed creating one species.

 

 

on Jun 01, 2010

Can you imagine any kind of possible (or impossible) evidence that would disprove "Intelligent Design"?
Assuming the "designer" isn't some omnipotent invisible energy being who goes "POOF!, Now life exists on this ball of dirt", ID can be disproven by the lack of life anywhere else in the universe.

on Jun 01, 2010

Assuming the "designer" isn't some omnipotent invisible energy being who goes "POOF!, Now life exists on this ball of dirt", ID can be disproven by the lack of life anywhere else in the universe.

How do you prove that there is (and was) no life anywhere else in the universe?

And how can we assume that the designer is not omnipotent? Is there evidence for a designer being one or the other?

 

on Jun 01, 2010

DoomBringer90
Assuming the "designer" isn't some omnipotent invisible energy being who goes "POOF!, Now life exists on this ball of dirt", ID can be disproven by the lack of life anywhere else in the universe.

So in other words, scientology can be proven wrong this way, assuming you can actually prove it.

 

@ Daiwa:  I think you're just trying to use semantics to counter a statement I never made.  If you re-read what I wrote, I think it's pretty clear what I meant: it would make far more sense to those who believe the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's Ark.

 

@ Leauki: I have to say I'm having a hard time following your logic.  Species borders are a general measure of the average characteristics which might be seen in that species - so of course there aren't any "hard" borders to each species.  However, the genetic information required for those changes already exists within the creature, whereas the information necessary for reptiles to evolve into birds is not already within the reptile (so far as genetic science has determined as of yet).  So really this "border" is more of a situation in which the genetic information of a creature is insufficient to allow further change without mutation.

  This cutoff in information must exist somewhere, since obviously a living creature has the information necessary to make itself; the question is how much extra information the creature has along with it.  So somewhere along the line there is a point at which the creature cannot adapt any further with the information it has.  It must either continue as is or gain information to change further.

  In other words, the limit to that extra information is what defines the species border, which is somewhat flexible.  If there is enough extra information to change significantly, then the creature would be reclassified as a different species after it changes.  Thus the species classification really does matter, because it shows us the differences between genetic information in organisms.

  Of course, mutations could potentially provide the extra information necessary to change (and subsequently be reclassified), but science has yet to prove that mutations can be even slightly beneficial.  Though it hasn't proven that they're not, either.  I personally believe that information cannot be gained in this way, hence my seeming belief in a "hard divider" between creature families or classes.

You misunderstand "scientific". It doesn't matter if there is a god involved. It only matters whether it's disprovable. Can you imagine any kind of possible (or impossible) evidence that would disprove "Intelligent Design"? What "third type of origions theory"? Which theories are there to explain how life started? And how exactly has abiogenesis been proven wrong?

  I stated that no god was involved to make it clear that they're doing what they can to remain objective, which as I recall is a fundamental building block of science.  I don't misunderstand "scientific."

  Evidence which would disprove Intelligent Design would be an experiment which recreated pre-life atmospheric conditions and showed that life could have been created by chance.  The Miller/Urey experiment doesn't cut it because of substantial flaws in what was created.  Abiogenesis can be disproven if such conditions can be proven to be impossible.  So, evidence actually leans toward the ID movement at the moment, though of course neither side has been proven right or wrong.

  There are currently only two types of origins theory: creation and abiogenesis.  All origins theories currently fall into one of those two categories, so far as I'm aware.  A third type of theory would be one which would have to be given its own category - something like "life came from half a creator."

  As I said before, abiogenesis has not been proven wrong.  Neither has the ID movement.  I never claimed that abiogenesis had been proven wrong.

 

That statement makes no sense. The idea of a biological family is meaningless in these circumstances. Families is something we sort organisms into after the fact. It is not something that exists before the organisms do. Biological families do not impose limits evolution cannot cross because biological families do not exist before evolution created them.

  The idea of the biological family is not useless at all, as I said earlier.  There is a reason for the classifications.

  The problem is you're assuming that all organisms have no barriers, which is absolutely not true.  Even with as limitless as DNA information storage seems to be, it can't hold everything.  Organisms do have limits to the information they contain.

  If every organism had the information necessary for all the others (in essence, no barrier from having all the required information) then there would be nothing stopping a dog from having a litter of kittens.  Obviously that doesn't happen, because dog DNA doesn't have the information necessary to create a cat; thus, there is no chance of a dog reproducing a cat.

  Thus, because the dog is unable to produce a cat, that means there is a barrier right there.  Additional (or at least different) information would be required.  As species become more and more defined (hence their genetic classifications becoming more specific) the amount of extra genetic information decreases, reducing the amount of variation among creatures from the phyla, to the families, and to the species classifications.

  Unless I'm misunderstanding you?  Do you mean that a common ancestor simply branched out for form, say, birds and reptiles at the same time?  Because that also has its own issues, namely that of there being no way for random genetic chance to determine the difference between bird traits and reptile traits, which would result in a great number of dead half-bird half-reptile inbetweens.  Again, possible, but unproven.  One should at least find fossils of such failures.

  EDIT: That actually makes me think too.  If there was a common ancestor which had the information necessary for the birds and reptiles, and that ancestor had an ancestor of its own, then ultimately that would mean the first cell of life contained the genetic information necessary for every creature alive today.  I must say that if you believe that, you might as well just take God's word for it when He said He created each kind of creature separately.  If you don't, then you have to explain how creatures crossed information borders along the way, because either they had the information or they didn't.

  Again, mutations are possible, but unproven.

on Jun 01, 2010

The idea of the biological family is not useless at all, as I said earlier.  There is a reason for the classifications.

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

 

Thus, because the dog is unable to produce a cat, that means there is a barrier right there.

Dog and cat are both current incarnations. Evolution does not claim that one descended from the other, hence that "barrier" is well-explained by evolution and disproves nothing.

The point is that there is no such barrier between a dog and his ancestors and a cat and his ancestors and those ancestors could have been the same, mutating to dogs and cats without ever crossing a "barrier".

 

Additional (or at least different) information would be required.  As species become more and more defined (hence their genetic classifications becoming more specific) the amount of extra genetic information decreases, reducing the amount of variation among creatures from the phyla, to the families, and to the species classifications.

Different information is the result of random mutations. If the different information makes sense, it will survive.

 

  Unless I'm misunderstanding you?  Do you mean that a common ancestor simply branched out for form, say, birds and reptiles at the same time? 

Not "at the same time", only over the same time.

 

Because that also has its own issues, namely that of there being no way for random genetic chance to determine the difference between bird traits and reptile traits, which would result in a great number of dead half-bird half-reptile inbetweens.  Again, possible, but unproven.  One should at least find fossils of such failures.

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.

And without exchange of information between the population that became birds and the population that became reptiles the very image of an "in-between" doesn't make sense.

 

 

 EDIT: That actually makes me think too.  If there was a common ancestor which had the information necessary for the birds and reptiles, and that ancestor had an ancestor of its own, then ultimately that would mean the first cell of life contained the genetic information necessary for every creature alive today.

No. You are forgetting the mutations now. Both populations mutate and whatever mutation proves useful remains in the population. Ultimately one population became birds and one became reptiles.

 

I must say that if you believe that, you might as well just take God's word for it when He said He created each kind of creature separately.  If you don't, then you have to explain how creatures crossed information borders along the way, because either they had the information or they didn't.

Again, mutations are possible, but unproven.

Mutations have been observed.

And mutations easily allow for changes in the genetic information.

 

on Jun 01, 2010

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.

 

on Jun 01, 2010

@ Daiwa: I think you're just trying to use semantics to counter a statement I never made. If you re-read what I wrote, I think it's pretty clear what I meant: it would make far more sense to those who believe the Biblical account of the great flood and Noah's Ark.

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.

on Jun 01, 2010

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.

on Jun 01, 2010

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.

on Jun 01, 2010

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.

on Jun 01, 2010

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.

on Jun 02, 2010

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.

3 Pages1 2 3