Anti-gravity

[vidbid]

Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method


Scientific method- to design experimental variables and write hypotheses - YouTube

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGat-HMC9Y4[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGat-HMC9Y4

[aljhoa]

AH = a carpet__________________________________________.

NH = flat earth_________________________________________.

IV = the testament_________________________________ .

DV = the recite_________________________________________.

CV = the book__________________________________________.

Al

Invalid.

Cheers

IV = the New Testament implies the Earth is round.
DV = Quran states that Earth is flat.
CV = Bible states that Earth is flat and under a dome.



The https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acce...ons_in_Gravity states that
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.


Since the Flat Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s**2,
VIDBID (or anyone), how far will it travel in one year?


Al

[vidbid]

Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

Yes

Now, can you show me?

What is your alternative hypothesis?

What is your null hypothesis?

What is your independent variable?

What is your dependent variable?

What is your controlled variable?

AH = a carpet
NH = flat earth
IV = the testament
DV = the recite
CV = the book

Invalid

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw[/VIDEO]

IV = the New Testament implies the Earth is round.
DV = Quran states that Earth is flat.
CV = Bible states that Earth is flat and under a dome.

We're talking empirical science HERE, not religious belief systems.

1. "Natural Phenomena OBSERVED...? _

2. Alternative Hypothesis...? _

a. Independent Variable ("The Cause"/ Varied and Manipulated)...?
b. Dependent Variable ("The Effect"/ "Prediction")...?

The Non-Sequitur/Tautology Test: (Independent Variable) __ CAUSES __ (Dependent Variable).

3. Null Hypothesis...? _

The question still stands, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

So, your "whatever" is still dismissed.

Cheers

.

[Pot head]

It sounds like you are building a hydrogen bomb.

[aljhoa]

The Solar System Is Not A Vortex, But It Might As Well Be

The solar system might as well be a vortex? How so?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmlimH7laY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-V8Ks_DMS8

The https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acce...ons_in_Gravity states that
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.


Since the Flat Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s**2,
VIDBID (or anyone), how far will it travel in one year?


Al

[vidbid]

Since the Flat Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s**2

how far will it travel in one year?

AH = a carpet
NH = flat earth
IV = the testament
DV = the recite
CV = the book

What?

What are you talking about?

.

[vidbid]

It sounds like you are building a hydrogen bomb.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrLY-phipw[/VIDEO]

Red herring.

.

[vidbid]

Scientific Method



Cheers

.

[vidbid]

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies



Cheers

.

[Pot head]

How about a community college course?
101: How to Bonsai your pet.
102: Using Coupons for Company Outings.
103: What to Wear during a power outage.
104: How to Use a Rocking Chair Efficiently.

[Pot head]

Seriously, I understand the three dimensional construct of life.
You are all houses with a very powerful immortal creature of multidimensional existence living through you from another source of enemation.
An avatar of a cycle that is finite and to an immortal not long enough.
Yes, it is all too real and unimaginable but you examine it for what it is worth.
When you realize the great strength of mind you can channel then the immortal creature is teaching you.
You are that immortal creature.

[vidbid]

How about a community college course?
101: How to Bonsai your pet.
102: Using Coupons for Company Outings.
103: What to Wear during a power outage.
104: How to Use a Rocking Chair Efficiently.

105: How to be Pot Head.

What are you talking about?

How about you keep smokin' whatever you're smokin' and we'll keep doing science.

On something much more interesting:

Begging the question.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

Google's Source. Citation: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/r...-Question.html

Case and point:

Relative to presuming the existence of gravity, Einstein v Newton.

Round One:

So, now the current narrative is Newton didn't take his own laws literally.

Now, literally, [GRAVITY]it's not a force, so the thing about Newton's laws is you can't take it literally, but Newton himself didn't. That's what's that's what so. Newton had various ideas on this, but generally it's thought that Newton did not take his own law that literally, that there is a force reaching from one object out to another; however, you can act as if there were one.

George Musser is a contributing editor for Scientific American magazine in New York and the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory and of Spooky Action at a Distance, according to Google. Google's Source: Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Musser

For the Musser quote, see:

https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA?t=383

https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA?t=383

Here's where the Begging the Question Fallacy comes into play: Newtonian gravity theory has been superseded by Einsteinian gravity theory

Both theories presume the existence of gravity without proof. Neither one can provide a testable and viable explanation.

Throw Cavendish out the window.

The so-called "Cavendish experiment" is NOT an experiment, according to the scientific method. What's the independent variable?

And, Einsteinian gravity theory is completely untestable. Independent variable? How are you going to alter space-time?

So, you can throw it all out as far as I'm concerned.

Who cares?

Both (Newtonian & Einsteinian) are lies.

The bottom line is Newtonian gravity theory and Einsteinian gravity theory are both just pseudoscience.

The truth staring everybody in the face is relative density equilibrium and disequilibrium, but only a few can see that it's that simple.

That's because the vast majority of people would rather believe lies than the truth.

Case closed.

.

[vidbid]

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltBCTyJW5zw[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltBCTyJW5zw

More proof that Relative Density Disequilibrium IS causing movement. No gravity required. - YouTube

Relative density is a force if it is in a state of disequalibrium, according to Sleeping Warrior.

What is the independent variable? That would be the density of the medium.

So simple.

So true.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcDA5ARpr84[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcDA5ARpr84

Density...density....density...the answer is...density! - YouTube

[aljhoa]

IV = the New Testament implies the Earth is round.
DV = Quran states that Earth is flat.
CV = Bible states that Earth is flat and under a dome.

Thus IV is false.


Al

[vidbid]

Thus IV is false.

Citation?

You can't draw that conclusion because you can't use what you're using as an IV or independent variable in a scientific experiment.

How can you change or vary your so-called IV?

You can't; therefore, you can't use what you're using as an IV.

It doesn't fit the criteria of an independent variable in the scientific method.

What's your scientific experiment?

You don't have one, so you can't call what you're calling an IV an IV because you don't have a scientific experiment.

What is the natural phenomenon?

Without a natural phenomenon, there can be no scientific experiment.

What is the independent variable in an experiment?

An independent variable is defined as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. ... Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable. A change in the independent variable directly causes a change in the dependent variable.

So, try again.

An independent variable is defined as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. (Source: Google)

The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory.

What are you trying to discuss?

1. Religion

2. Pseudoscience

3. Science

If discussing science, you must use the scientific method; otherwise, if the scientific method can't be employed, it's only pseudoscience.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted...

.