Random Politics & Religion #25

Infinitely.

Of course by the time you get to the orbits of Mars and Venus its pretty weak.

Seriously. The math required to put these probes into the exact spots that we want them is extremely touchy. If we were accounting for gravity in our math, and if by some miracle a YouTube conspiracy was actually correct for once and gravity didn't exist, we would be way off in our calculations every time.

If gravity's not a thing, but the math used to account for gravity is always right no matter where you are in space, then what's the argument? Seems more like Akson isn't trying to disprove gravity, but instead is trying to explain it. Unfortunately, there are people with highly advanced degrees in this, and good luck convincing people that you know better than they do.

The real surprise here, is that for once, Donny isn't out of his element!

Behold. The Gravitational Pull of the Sun exerted apparently absolutely ZERO force upon New Horizons. The Mass + Size comparison between the Sun & Earth should not allow New Horizons to speed so quickly to Pluto & still have enough fuel left over to extend the Mission further out after Pluto to the MU619 or w/e.

Basic English understanding. Test the Earth's Gravitational range or go w/ a Belief System that has NASA failing to land probes on Mars do to Data suggesting Mar's gravity to be 1/3 that of Earth's only to have everything fall like a rock crashing into Failure 53% of the time.

You're completely missing the other factor of thrust, and the amount of force needed to escape or pass through any field of gravitational pull. Which is primarily why you've been blocked.

Think, mathematically, instead of out of your ***, the amount of thrust, and force, and fuel expenditure, power of the rockets needed to sustain that force, among the detachable components of our stellar satellites which house additional powerful rockets and fuel, to achieve this. This is a lot of information, and roughly 60% of the equation you're ignoring to assert that your "theory" is correct in any way, shape, or form. So much for the idea that you suddenly understand the concept of gravity in it's entirety, completely "by accident", and why it gets brushed off, ignored, and banned, for the unintelligible drivel that it is.

That's not a Scientific Fact. That's a Religious Belief. The only evidence suggesting such is here on Earth. That's not even taking into the equation Atmospheric Pressure + Buoyancy. It ignores everything possible that would be necessary to Create the Effects of Gravity. This notion of Planets exist therefor Gravity is there due to Mass is easily Tested yet ignored.

It's no big surprise Why NASA & Scientists are baffled by Jupiter. Why NASA claims Jupiter as a Failed Star. Why Mars was a repeated Failure. Gravity explains less than 5% of the visible Universe. Dark Energy, repulsive to Gravity,(Anti-Gravity) theory 69% and Dark Matter holding Galaxies together 26%.

Everything works w/o SMBH, Dark Energy & Dark Matter purely on an Electromagnetic + Electric connection w/ EM Fields.

I offered no Theory fella. I said TEST the Basic idea w/ EARTH. Yall went off on some other noise. "NASA proved Gravity is Constant by success". No they most certainaly did not.

Anyways... I dint want to "talk out of my ***" (douche). I wanted to Know.
WHY DOES THE MEDIA CLAIM EINSTEIN AS A PROPHET WHEN EINSTEIN BLANTANTLY SAID THAT SMBH & G-WAVES DO NOT EXIST. . .
Strange.... this Brainwashed G-Religion

You stated this. This is on you. This is offering the theory that the scientific methods used to understand Gravity, does not, in fact, support the theories used to understand gravity, and that you, and you alone, have managed to perfectly piece together the logic of the solar system. Which ignores everything physicists and astrophysicists have studied relentlessly for decades from thousands, upon thousands of angles and data that escapes your grasp.

On additional notes, which scientists have come forward and stated that Jupiter is a failed star? They discovered long ago it has a solid planetary mass at it's center, and the components of the clouds, and storms existing all across it's surface of the Gas Giant. They are learning more and more about Mars, and how much it resembles earth in structure, from it's once thought to be dead core (which may now be dormant, but still very much alive), as well as the shifting of it's polar ice caps, which also indicates that it is very much like Earth.

Then you realize that Scientists all disagree. That the EU-Theory is based on Science. That what I claimed How the Universe works was also based on Science.

Im not allowed to Question the Evidence nor form my own Conclusions based on such? Even when Scientists themselves, EU-Theory, NASA & everyone else do not agree w/ the same ideas? Am I supposed to be a braindead zombie waiting for my Master to tell me What is What?

Aint that What yall use to debate Politics w/? Maybe you watch TV instead? I think your political Google IQ is rad

So, you fail to answer the core question, or to address the other concerns. So I don't see how you can logically come to the conclusion that "scientists all disagree", or that the universe works based on science. Science works based on our understanding of the universe, and various natural laws in place. Science does not make up the universe, as it is the name given for a tool used to understand it.

The Scientists have different methods, yet the majority of them have come to the same conclusion. This is not them all disagreeing on the result, but on which method is best used to test, for a more definitive answer. If all Scientists disagreed, we'd never get things done. There is one faction that disagrees with another, but there has to be some uniform agreement for a process to gain ground and understanding.

Do you have a fundamental knowledge of the theory of relativity, or Einstein's famous equation? Or of that of gravity as a whole? because so far, you've shown that you have a severe lack of knowledge, and don't even know what questions to ask, or where to begin.

Einstein said he didn't believe that SMBH's existed, but that it was strictly a belief, on the lack of knowledge and information he had about the universe, and that our knowledge could change the more we explored with the tools at our ever expanding disposal. However, the more his famous E=Mc2 came into play, it directly began to contradict his belief that SMBH's didn't exist.

Energy = mass traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, and what is space, if not an ever expanding vacuum? The more condensed an object is in mass, the more it begins to pull at something that it's core can magnetize, which then requires more opposing force to escape. I mean, this is pretty rudimentary stuff as far as physics and astrophysics are concerned.

That itself is the 'Core' & root to the Basic problem of Understanding the Difference between Law vs Theory. Before we even get to that. . .
You dont see the Media blitz claiming Einstein as Nostradamus as somewhat not only disrespectful to the man whom lectured not only his own scientific equations, knowing them better than anyone else, but one whom flat out rejected and fully explained How & Why such SMBHs & G-Waves do not exist. Such Media claims were also dishonest and extremely misleading to the public. You dont think so?
Back to the Root of the Problem... If you're claiming that Space is an "ever expanding vacuum" then you should be aware, yet apparently do not even seem to be, that the idea of the Universe is expanding is based on a Theory. A Belgian Catholic Priest proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe. (Yall dont like links so look it up). Then miraclously Hubble (Hubble's Law) fullfilled the Prophecy of the Church 2yrs later by claiming redshift proved the Church theory as correct. The Universe is expanding but Not based on FACTS but rather based on RELIGIOUS beliefs. Hubble's Law + Newton's Law = Theories. Understand the Difference? Just cuz they claim such as Law =/= such as Facts.

If your Now claiming that the Theory of the Expansion of the Universe ties together the Theory of the existence of SMBHs and G-Waves. Then I now see Why Einstein rejected such ideas as being reality. The Expansion of the Universe was invented after Einstein was long gone.

Einstein was Right. The Universe contains no SMBH, G-Waves, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Planet#9, Planet#10 nor Planets#11~396. Einstein was no Prophet but at least he was an honest decent man rather than a Fraud.

Oh yeah... What I bolded you stating ..Einstein NEVER said any such thing. Nice try. The fake Laws of Men do not Rule the Universal Structure.

Good debate, brah
I'll send you the T-Shirt

How cute, you and your 3 dimensional way of thinking.

It didn't travel straight to Pluto, it is impossible to travel straight towards something in space, as there is no directional axis known to man. Everything, and I do mean everything is in motion in space, hell, here, that you cannot state that anything travels straight towards anything, as everything effects everything.

See, Josi gets it.

/hands Josi a medal 4th dimensionally. He may get it eventually.

...you do know there are other celestial bodies out there that will effect/affect any theories or tests you propose, right?

Besides the sun, that is.

Tell that to NASA. . .

Let me know where you see the Sun's overpowered Gravitational Pull that, supposedly holds the Solar System together, or any other Planet's Gravity for that matter holding New Horizons back from going in straight line.

They cut it off at it's predicted path? . .

Wait, did you already disproved your own post?

Because that's not:


Most certainly, it's not headed directly towards Pluto's position now, it's heading towards Pluto's position in the near future.

Again, you are attributing a 3 dimensional "solution" in a 4 dimensional reality.

wow

The Problem...

Akson - talking about a non-existant Gravitational Constant
Josi + King - off topic discussing Pluto doesnt stand still

You think I thought Pluto laid motionless in Space? . .
Even when the Whole discussion came from me Asking NASA to actually Test 'How far Does Earth's Gravitational Pull exert Force'

Why are we talking in circles here...

Wait, are you saying that your idea of a non-existent Gravitational Constant theory has nothing to do with the movement of the planets?

Isn't that your entire argument? Or are you not going to touch the fact that everything in the universe moves (and yes, including our sun) due to the gravitational effects of everything and anything in the galaxy?

Isn't the current theory stating "forever and ever"?

I know you stated that the earth's gravity doesn't effect the moon, which is the first basis of your crazy. Hate to tell you this, but there's already studies out there stating that you are wrong.

Oh hell no. I never will be, nor will I ever make such a claim. If anything, I would defer any science stuff to Pleebo.

While Pleebs and I strongly disagree on politics in general, I at least have respect for him when it comes to science in general. My very limited knowledge of the subject is made by pure curiosity, not true knowledge.

Something I think you are lacking, but whatev.