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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 02, 2010

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.

on Jun 02, 2010

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.

 

on Jun 02, 2010

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.

 

on Jun 02, 2010

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.

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.

 

on Jun 02, 2010

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.

on Jun 03, 2010

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.

on Jun 03, 2010

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.

3 Pages1 2 3