1 2 3 4 5 9
Are you atheists/evolutionists so dumb you can't read?
Cassiterides merely said they may be different theories to explain the same phenomena (i.e gravity).
He said the same thing for the origin of vision and light.
11/17/2010 5:01:26 PM
What'd I Do
Yeah, he said that.
The problem is, there aren't.
Or are you so dumb you can't read?
11/17/2010 5:15:35 PM
This produces the same effect as "gravity".
No. If an elevator is moving
'upward' through space, in the absence of other gravitational forces at a constant rate acceleration of 1g (an increase of 9.8m per second per second), it produces the same effect as gravity for the people in the elevator. But for somebody hanging onto the bottom of the elevator, it would produce the effect of anti-gravity - they would feel repelled from the elevator by 1g.
11/17/2010 5:24:10 PM
Gods Damn that is stupid!
Is the Earth also flat? Because that's the only way your stupid hypothesis would even work without everyone on the other side of the planet from us falling out into space.
11/17/2010 5:28:18 PM
See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.
No, they are hypotheses; not theories - learn the difference. Here's another one, courtesy of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM): there's no such thing as gravity. The FSM holds everything down with His invisible Noodly Appendage.
11/17/2010 5:45:35 PM
''The problem is, there aren't.''
How do you know?
That's the joke about this place. It's just filled with cocky pseudo-intellectual evolutionists who think they know the answers to everything.
11/17/2010 6:20:01 PM
There are other theories. None of the ones Cassiterides claims have evidence to support them, and there is abundant evidence to prove them wrong.
11/17/2010 6:21:00 PM
''Here's another one, courtesy of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM): there's no such thing as gravity. The FSM holds everything down with His invisible Noodly Appendage.''
That's called a parody.
There were though a set of books put out in the mid 20th century which challenged the mainstream view of gravity.
One was 'Gravity is a Push' by Walter C Wright.
11/17/2010 6:25:17 PM
So Cassiterides is a parody, like Ray Comfort is?
11/17/2010 6:27:37 PM
''So Cassiterides is a parody, like Ray Comfort is? ''
Except cassiterides never claimed he believed the earth was moving upwards, he merely claimed there are different theories to explain the same phenomena (i.e gravity).
Most this site is built on lies by idiots who are diliberately misrepresenting what creationists actually say.
11/17/2010 6:41:28 PM
Doesn't take much "misrepresenting." The quotes are here, unmodified, and anyone who wants to read the source is free to go to the link and read it in the context of the thread.
11/17/2010 6:45:27 PM
"Most this site is built on lies by idiots who are diliberately misrepresenting what creationists actually say."
How dare they misrepresent our stupid ideas!
11/17/2010 6:48:06 PM
Right, and in that thread Cassiterides never claimed to actually believe the world moved upwards or that the world is flat. So that automatically debunks about 20 comments already made here that either cass is a flat earther or believes the world is moving upwards.
Evolutionists really should learn to read before making more of a fool of themselves. What we have here is another clear case of evolutionists stalking a poor creationist and misrepresenting what he actually believes (probably because they can't debate him in a sensible honest debate).
11/17/2010 6:50:21 PM
"That's the joke about this place. It's just filled with cocky pseudo-intellectual evolutionists who think they know the answers to everything."
Well we don't believe in eye beams or say that gravity isn't factual, so...yeah, at least we know that much.
11/17/2010 6:51:30 PM
Does anyone have posting privlidges over there? I'd love for this to get posted:
facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. A scientific theory is often a set of statements that collectively describe how one facet of the universe works. Unlike common theories, scientific theories must be:
1.consistent with all existing scientific laws and constants;
2.consistent with, and supported by, all reproducible scientific observations and experimental results; and
3.self consistent - that is, it does not contradict itself in any way
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
11/17/2010 6:56:35 PM
There were though a set of books put out in the mid 20th century which challenged the mainstream view of gravity. One was 'Gravity is a Push' by Walter C Wright.
This would be the Walter C. Wright who believed that stars were made of metals that caused them to generate magnetic fields that repelled everything else in the universe, and that Earth flips on its axis every few thousand years.
Okay. Well, it's certainly an...alternative theory.
Edit: Hey, I found his letter to the California Department of Education:
On June 19th, 1987, California's Department of Education sent a representative to evaluate my Push Gravity theory that I used to support my many Push Gravity models. The representative's report dated June 29th, 1987, which was very NEGATIVE, was sent to the news media.
I thought that was odd because nobody, including Newton, has ever built a Pull Gravity model that operates under its own MUTUAL ATTRACTING ENERGIES that DEMONSTRATES a 'recorded space finding.'
That is why on February 20th, 1990, I finally challenged California's Department of Education to the following demonstration. My Push Gravity Tide model #34-A that operates under its own MUTUAL REPELLING ENERGIES and depicts earth's 14 tides versus California's Department of Education's PULL Gravity Tide Model that operates under its own MUTUAL ATTRACTING ENERGIES and depicts these same tides. I am well aware WHY they FAILED to accept this VALID CHALLENGE REQUESTED BY SOME OF THEIR OWN CONFUSED AND CONCERNED PHYSICS/SCIENCE STUDENTS because for 300 years the so-called EXPERTS admit that they can't EXPLAIN that OTHER HIGH TIDE on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF EARTH AWAY FROM THE MOON.
I am CHALLENGING you again to a TIDE-MODEL DEMONSTRATION plus Saturn's co-orbital satellites.
W.C. Wright - Author, 'Gravity is a Push'
732 Ohio Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Well, the RANDOM all-CAPS certainly convinced me.
11/17/2010 7:28:36 PM
What'd I Do
No, there are no alternative theories to gravity, because they are not needed. A theory is not the same as a "wild, uneducated guess."
11/17/2010 7:41:05 PM
The Damned Atheist
I can't believe no one has mentioned the obvious alternate theory...... Intelligent Falling. Teach the controversy!! Reality by consensus!
11/17/2010 7:44:08 PM
What I truly do not understand is how these people do not see how STUPID they sound. I just sit here sometimes thinking "Poor USA, no wonder their world ranking keeps slipping".
Did you miss the part where Cassiterides's location was given as the UK?
11/17/2010 7:47:08 PM
I guess he's a flat earther then? Or maybe he thinks the earth goes back and forth really quickly at 9.8 m/sec/sec? Or maybe I've gone too far down the strange path of fundy thinking. That's okay, apparently the earth will catch up with me eventually.
11/17/2010 8:05:16 PM
So if gravity is "just a theory", WHY THE FUCK IS IT WORKING?
11/17/2010 9:08:12 PM
>>Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.<<
Is it wrong that I find this a refreshing change from "Gravity is a LAW, but Evolution is only a THEORY"?
>>The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity"<<
Um, no. As others have mentioned, there are differences in the effects of gravitational force due to the mass of an object, and gravitational force due to acceleration.
The biggest difference being that the first pulls everything toward a point (the object's center of mass) and the second pulls everything uniformly in one direction. Therefore, there are experiments one can do to check which of these is happening. E.g.: drop two objects from a great height and track their paths. Do they get closer together as they fall?
11/17/2010 9:17:57 PM
How does your "theory" account for the Moon's orbit around the Earth? The theory of gravity explains this nicely as the object being in continual free-fall in the Earth's gravity.
Also, if you believe that the Earth is round, how does your "theory" explain the people in the southern hemisphere?
And if you believe the world is flat, where do pictures like these come from? A hoax?
11/17/2010 9:19:34 PM
Think for a second about how fucked up your universal view is that you need to disprove gravity to secure your faith in God.
11/17/2010 9:31:09 PM
People in Australia are going to be pissed when they go flying OFF the earth as it moves away from them at 9.8 m/s2
11/17/2010 10:04:35 PM
1 2 3 4 5 9