(Learn More)
Jump to tag:
religion home

religion forum

 
Home    Products (1,249)    Discussions (127)   

Gravity Doesn't Exist!

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on 20 May 2009 00:11 BST.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 129 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Mar 2009 11:19 GMT
 6.9 Atheist says:
Gravity. It's just a theory. It can't be explained. What we see is the clever illusion of it being natural because clearly, it's been designed.

I think it's "intelligent Falling'.

Can we now see the fallacy of any challenge to 'Evolution'?

Those that won't, will do so because they won't want to. Some may not get the point for another reason. (Being a tad on the dim side for example).

History has shown, those that are dogmatic will be ridiculed by future generations.

Think not?

Any up for a 'flat earth' discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 13:04 GMT
 Vinogradov says:
Link to the original research: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 15:47 GMT
6.9 Atheist,

Being a tad on the dim side, I don't understand a word of what you have just said!

Except for the bit about those who are dogmatic being ridiculed - so why are evolutionists so dogmatic about their science?

Wayne

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 15:47 GMT
 AJ Murray says:
I remember reading that a few years back and finding it very amusing. :D
It was a parody wasn't it?

[I call Poe's Law]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 15:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2009 16:00 GMT
 Drew Jones says:
Why are evolutionists so dogmatic about their science? Same reason gravitationalists are dogmatic about their science - To understand this, is to understand the first post.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 16:34 GMT
 David Groom says:
I don' know what's the matter with you all. Gravity obviously doesn't exist. We all surely know that the earth is flat and supported on a giant pile of turtles. The effect known as gravity is the direct attraction between man and the turtles, not the earth. As for the sun and moon, they obviously rotate round the turtles and the stars are just pretty lights on a back cloth used to keep the turtles amused. Turtles are very simple creatures and easily amused. And what is supporting the turtles? Well its turtles all the way in an infinite pile.

Simple really!! Like me.

Posted on 19 Mar 2009 16:51 GMT
 Chris says:
"History has shown, those that are dogmatic will be ridiculed by future generations.

Think not?

Any up for a 'flat earth' discussion? "
Now I am not supporting flat earth, or sun around the earth, but surely no one scientific would ridicule past generations for looking at the evidence and coming up with conclusions, even if they are wrong - it is only those who do not follow development in understanding that we should question (I not wanting to ridicule anyone!)

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 21:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2009 21:16 GMT
 6.9 Atheist says:
Chris -

Are you saying that people don't guffaw at the realisation that people thought that the earth was flat! Every school kid laughs their socks off! I did then and I still do now!

For crying out loud, even watching old programs would generate mirth in a modern viewer about some of the ideas that were bandied around! For some reason, I find the 50's 'information' ones best.

Posted on 19 Mar 2009 21:41 GMT
 Kashif Hussain says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 23:11 GMT
 Vinogradov says:
Interesting hypothesis. How shall we test it?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2009 23:59 GMT
 Neutral says:
David Grom wrote,

"Simple really!! Like me." I don't mock the afflicted .

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 00:48 GMT
 Neutral says:
Vino wrote, "Interesting hypothesis. How shall we test it?" Dying is a certain way to test it.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 07:28 GMT
 JA Foxton says:
Neutral,

"Dying is a certain way to test it."

How so?

Plenty of people have already performed this test and those of us still alive have nothing more than speculation as a result. To assume that an individual will learn something (post mortem) is to already assume the survival of the self. If, on the other hand, consciousness ceases on death then there is no one there to learn any lesson about what (doesn't) happen.

Posted on 20 Mar 2009 09:36 GMT
 Chris says:
"every school kid laughs their socks off" - how unscientific - unless you've spoken to every school child?? But seriously does the sun around the earth cause as much laughter? if not why not?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 10:46 GMT
 Neutral says:
JAF

Nice try but no cigar. "Plenty of people have already performed this test" but until you are one of them you haven't performed the test so you cannot test it. If, as seems certain, you will at some time perform the test you will know whether the theory is correct or otherwise. If it is otherwise then you have still performed the test but the results will be negative. They are still results even if you do not experience them personally.

Anyway according to Dawkins et.al probability is on your side - the final outcome will determine whether that probability is accurate or not and to what degree.

Posted on 20 Mar 2009 19:36 GMT
 Kashif Hussain says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Mar 2009 19:41 GMT
 Mr. L. Palmer says:
EH?!

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 20:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Mar 2009 20:06 GMT
 Neutral says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 20:17 GMT
 AJ Murray says:
Hi Kashif,
In Physics we have more than three dimensions. Spacetime makes up he 4th.
M-Theory has 11-Dimensions, Bosonic String Theory has 26.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 20:30 GMT
 Neutral says:
AJM

That's a much better response. Whether it's true or not is another matter but it's definitely a much better response.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2009 21:31 GMT
 Mr. L. Palmer says:
Well it means something totally different to me.

Posted on 21 Mar 2009 14:54 GMT
 Kashif Hussain says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2009 16:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Mar 2009 22:08 GMT
 AJ Murray says:
Hi Khashif,

I was pointing out that when considering any event we define it in 4 dimensions not three. We do not ignore spacetime. So there is no significance in using the three dimensions you describe when we have more. We exist in 4 dimensions at the very least. It has been observed directly by experiment. You have heard of Einstein, yes?

Using your own methodology, i could equally draw significance to the number 2:
(Good, Evil) (Up, Down) (Left, Right) (In, Out) (Light, Dark) (Hot, Cold) (Man, Woman) (Celtic, Rangers) (Coke, Pepsi) (Hokey, Cokey).

But does this have any real meaning beyond my own imagination? You refer to passages In the Qu'ran that are now shown to be 'true', but is it not the case that this is interpretation after the fact. You are giving significance to a passage that is vague, such as describing the earth as egg-shaped. In reality the earth is an oblate spheroid, more shaped like a satsuma than an egg. May i ask how your reading of the Qu'ran differs from say a Christian reading the death of Jesus Christ into Psalm 22? Or another example would be Nostradamus' Centuries. Many people attach significance to those writings, and have read them in the light of recent history.

(Century 2, Quatrain 24)
Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers:
The greater part of the region will be against the Hister,
The great one will cause it to be dragged in an iron cage,
When the German child will observe nothing.

Which to some people is a prediction of Hitler and WWII. But it is always AFTER the fact that these two get tied together. Never before. So forgive me if i am not convinced of the significance of your reading of the Qu'ran.

I visited your website was surprised to find that we only have 3 sciences;

"Chemistry is about water
Physics is about food
Biology is about air"

As someone has already said: EH?!
What happened to Mathematics? Why do you say Physics is about food?

I studied Physics and the only food we concerned ourselves with was Takeaway. Surely Biology is about food. The Tree of Life is a veritable smörgċsbord of gastronomic delights.

Posted on 22 Mar 2009 12:38 GMT
 Kashif Hussain says:
hello Andrew,

You packed in a lot of information in one post, I do not know where to begin.

[79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped.*

*79:30 The Arabic word ``dahhaahaa'' is derived from ``Dahhyah'' which means ``egg.''

First point, th translation I find myself reading and devoting to, is the Rashad Khalifa authorized translation called the Final Testament, but I agree prior to his affirmation there was very little understanding or consideration that the earth was egg-shaped. But because I accept him as a messenger, due to the physical proof he provided which shows that there is no coincidence that he is one of God's messengers, so in terms of who I choose to believe, him through whom we learned of the mathematical miracle of the Quran, which settled my faith, or those who came before who for one reason or another were not allowed to divulge this, and are open to the same fallacies that everyone is exposed to. Because messengers are supposed to be guided by God, and clear many misunderstandings and burdens placed by people preceding the messengers.
Another fact i am not a scientist, I come from a humble village in the mountains of Kshamir, my name is strange but common, Kash means if in hindi, and if means the same in English, so I may be the only 'if' kinda guy. I think it was Galileo who said, 'God created the universe on mathematics', if we say mathematics is a science, then this pervades over all things that exist, there would be no distinction in science, there is just pure mathematics. The concept which I hold myself to, is that mind, body and soul, have manifested themselves in many ways, even in the 3 sciences, liquid , solid and gas, that was the three i was focussing on. The reason why physics is food, becuase it is the solids we eat to keep our heart pumping, it is about the body and I thought the body was more physics, that gaseous biology which is the soul or liquid chemistry which is the mind.

I have had this same critisim before, why isn't mathematics a science, but for life to survive it needs water, food and air. I recommend the study of R.Khalifa's appedices, to understand the intracate mathematical code found in the Quran.

http://www.quranalone.com/the-quran/appendices/appendix-1.php

Posted on 22 Mar 2009 20:16 GMT
 Kashif Hussain says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the "religion" forum (



Customers viewing this page may be interested in these Sponsored Links

 (What is this?)
   Christian Christmas Gifts opens new browser window
PresentAid.org  -  Buy Your Friends Ethical Gifts Help Poor Communities & Save Lives! 
   Hell opens new browser window
www.CryingInTheStreets.org  -  Is it Real And If So What Is It? Read This Eye-Opening Article. 
   żDos Vidas Fracasadas? opens new browser window
www.jesusychefracasaron.com.ar  -  El fin de Dos Utopìas Baje Gratis libro de la Verdad en: 
  
 

     
  Discussions in related communities  
     


 
This discussion
Discussion in:  the religion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  129
Initial post:  March 2009
Latest post:  10 days ago


 
   
religion
Popular Products

Tag this religionTag Score: 17Vote this inappropriate for the tag religion
The Case for God: What Religion Really Meansby Karen Armstrong The Case for God: What... by Karen Armstrong (Hardcover) Buy new: £20.00£10.76

Tag this religionTag Score: 16Vote this inappropriate for the tag religion
The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divineby Alister McGrath The Dawkins Delusion?:... by Alister McGrath (Paperback) Buy new: £4.9848 used and new from £1.97

Tag this religionTag Score: 15Vote this inappropriate for the tag religion
The God Delusionby Richard Dawkins The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Paperback) Buy new: £4.4957 used and new from £1.95


 
  

Is this content inappropriate? Report abuse

Where's My Stuff?

Delivery and Returns

Need Help?

amazon.co.uk Amazon Home
International Sites:  United States  |  Germany  |  France  |  Japan  |  Canada  |  China
Business Programs: Sell on Amazon  |  Fulfilment by Amazon  |  Join Associates  |  Join Advantage
Customer Service  |  Help  |  View Basket  |  Your Account
About Amazon.co.uk  |  Careers at Amazon
Conditions of Use & Sale |  Privacy Notice  © 1996-2009, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates