Disparaging Lemaitre

[Joe]

I believe that it is not justified of Steady Staters to accuse Lemaitre of replicating the biblical creation-story within his Big Bang model.

Reason 1:
It is not unreasonable to interpret redshift as distancing of celestial bodies. This is the Doppler effect.

Reason 2:
The Bible calls the stars the firmament. Since they are standing firm, they can not be distancing themselves.

Reason 3:
In the Bible, the creation of the Earth is its being-brought into existence. But, the Primeval Atom of Lemaitre already existed.

Reason 4:
In the Bible, the creation of the Earth preceded that of the Sun. But, the Big Bang model has the Earth being either born of the Sun, or formed along with it. (Here, even the biblical story does not contradict the Steady State model. )

Lemaitre was smart enough to recognize a myth when he saw one. After all, even the flora of Earth was created before the Sun was, in the Bible. And where is the logic in creating organisms before creating a source for their alimentation?

Great foresight.


-Joe

[nick c]

Welcome to the forum, Joe.
Speculating about Lemaitre's motivation is of interest, however, in the end his theory must stand on it's own scientific merits, regardless of the source of his inspiration or motivation. Most here feel that the evidence does not support the BB theory. There has been plenty written about that in EU literature.

With regard to your points of comparison to the Genesis story, I don't think that anyone has accused Lemaitre of trying to justify a "literal" interpretation of the OT. Surely, he, as a 20th C intellectual, viewed the OT story of Genesis as allegorical. The specifics of the story would have been viewed as irrelevant, the point being that there was a Creation event. (Incidentally, I do not think the Genesis story, or any of the many similar tales from around the globe, are "creation of the universe" stories. That is the interpretation of some modern mythologists. But that is off the topic of this thread. )

But is it not curious that a priest/physicist would come up with a "scientific" creation story? Lemaitre theorized one BB, which resulted in the universe as we know it. Lemaitre's version of the BB is contrasted to other BB theorists, such as Hawking, who opted for a perpetual cycle of explosion, expansion, contraction, explosion, etc. The latter version of the BB depicts what is essentially a type of steady state universe in which there is no forseeable beginning or end. Mainstream has accepted the Lemaitre version due to their interpretation that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and therefore could not contract.
Lemaitre had to answer the issue of conflict between his science and his religion many times:

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... c0022.html

Is it unreasonable to assume that Lemaitre, as an active Catholic priest, believed that there was a God and that he created the universe out of nothing?
and that this would have an affect on how he formulated his theories?
Be that as it may, as I stated initially, his underlying belief, inspiration, or motivation is irrelevant; the theory must be evaluated according to its' observational and/or experimental support. (Most here judge that the support is lacking and the BB theory has been falsified. Evidence, as presented by Arp, shows that the red shift is not the infallible indicator of distance/expansion as assumed; and it has been persuasively argued that the CMBR does not support the BB theory.)

nick c

[Joe]

Welcome to the forum, Joe.

Thank you, nick c.

Speculating about Lemaitre's motivation is of interest, however, in the end his theory must stand on it's own scientific merits, regardless of the source of his inspiration or motivation.

I concur.

Most here feel that the evidence does not support the BB theory. There has been plenty written about that in EU literature.

The EU literature is wonderful. And, frankly, Wallace Thornhill and Donald Scott deserve the Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions. (I would even nominate David Talbott for one in Literature.)
But, I do not support any metaphysical system, including the Big Bang or Steady State. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy; and philosophy is bunk. (No offense, seriously, to all the philosophers out there; happy trails. )

With regard to your points of comparison to the Genesis story, I don't think that anyone has accused Lemaitre of trying to justify a "literal" interpretation of the OT.

Not in so many words, true. But even Thornhill and Scott seem unable to refrain from mentioning his clerical status when the discussion turns to him.

Surely, he, as a 20th C intellectual, viewed the OT story of Genesis as allegorical.

I concur.

The specifics of the story would have been viewed as irrelevant, the point being that there was a Creation event.

But is it not curious that a priest/physicist would come up with a "scientific" creation story?

But, is it really a creation-event that Lemaitre is describing?
From the OP:

Reason 3:
In the Bible, the creation of the Earth is its being-brought into existence. But, the Primeval Atom of Lemaitre already existed.

Lemaitre theorized one BB, which resulted in the universe as we know it. Lemaitre's version of the BB is contrasted to other BB theorists, such as Hawking, who opted for a perpetual cycle of explosion, expansion, contraction, explosion, etc. The latter version of the BB depicts what is essentially a type of steady state universe in which there is no forseeable beginning or end. Mainstream has accepted the Lemaitre version due to their interpretation that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and therefore could not contract.

Considering Lemaitre a creationist whilst not Hawking is illogical because the act of alleged-creation is contained in the Hawking model as well.

Lemaitre had to answer the issue of conflict between his science and his religion many times:

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... c0022.html

Lemaitre gave a quick, facile response to a never-ending question.
What have we really learned by his answer?

Is it unreasonable to assume that Lemaitre, as an active Catholic priest, believed that there was a God and that he created the universe out of nothing?

No, not unreasonable.

and that this would have an affect on how he formulated his theories?

Yes, unreasonable. In actuality, this did not affect his theory, as evidenced by the lack of an extreme ex-nihilo event in his Big Bang model. His final formulation is only to be expected. At the limit, his scenario is only happily similar to the creation-one.
The lesson here is that the religious outlook of a scientist can not predetermine the result of a scientific inquiry. If such did happen, it would be obvious by the abuse of logic contained therein. Others would know that he shirked the Scientific Method.

Evidence, as presented by Arp, shows that the red shift is not the infallible indicator of distance/expansion as assumed;

True, but by the avowal of EU thinkers themselves, a minor part of redshift is still due to translation of celestial bodies.


-Joe

[Total Science]

Joe,

Lemaitre was a creationist and the Big Bang is a creationist hypothesis.

"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, date unknown

Not only was Lemaitre a creationist but he was a Vatican agent.

You can deny reality all you want but it won't change history.

Newton was also a creationist and gravitation is a creationist hypothesis.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

It is impossible to believe in gravitation without believing in God because gravitation requires and specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracle works.

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

[Joe]

Hi, Total Science.

the Big Bang is a creationist hypothesis

I refute this in the OP.

"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, date unknown

There is nothing extraordinary about having the intelligence necessary to avoid conflating the Big Bang scenario with a creation-one.

gravitation is a creationist hypothesis

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

This statement is true, but it is not the whole truth, for a primarily gravitational universe.
There are only 3 reasons that exist for bodies not colliding:

Reason 1:
Askewness.

Reason 2:
Distance.

Reason 3:
Angular momentum. Examples: the Moon; GPS satellites.

It is impossible to believe in gravitation without believing in God because gravitation requires and specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracle works.

The equations for gravity are logical and self-consistent. They do not carry any preternatural elements; magic spells are absent from them.

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

This is only the opinion of Leibniz. One day, in the future, he may be proven right. Modern science has still not uncovered the full nature of gravity.

Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do.

-- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

The Confessors were wrong on this point. Distance does play a role: 1/r^2. Had they known of, or better-appreciated, this law, they would have more easily understood that gravity is an integral part of Nature.

Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature.

-- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

This effect is gravity. And it does not transcend the forces of Nature; it is 1 of the forces of Nature. The Confessors were right in believing that gravity forms part of Nature.

For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water

-- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

The Confessors were wrong on this point. Iron was always able to float upon water. God did not alter His laws, but we, humans, eventually further uncovered the true laws of Nature. Gravity continues to be investigated.

and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

Uh...Are the Confessors talking about Spontaneous Human Combustion(SHC)?


-Joe

[Total Science]

Hi, Total Science.

the Big Bang is a creationist hypothesis

I refute this in the OP.

Unsuccessfully.

There is nothing extraordinary about having the intelligence necessary to avoid conflating the Big Bang scenario with a creation-one.

The Big Bang and creationism are identical.

It is impossible to accept the Big Bang hypothesis and not be a creationist.

Monsignor Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Catholic priest and president of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Science, originated the concept for the Big Bang with his "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom" which was based on the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Universe was created by God from a single atom, much as Christ's miracle of multiplying the loaves of bread and fishes. Pope Pius XII endorsed his theory because it tied Holy Scripture to science. Monsignor Lemaitre described his theory as "a day without yesterday... The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation." In a paper written in 1922, he wrote that the universe had begun in light just "as Genesis suggested it."

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

Gravity is real; universal gravitation is a creationist myth.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

This statement is true, but it is not the whole truth, for a primarily gravitational universe.

Then you are a creationist who believes in gravitation, miracles, and divine intervention.

There are only 3 reasons that exist for bodies not colliding:

Reason 1:
Askewness.

Reason 2:
Distance.

Reason 3:
Angular momentum. Examples: the Moon; GPS satellites.

Wrong on all accounts. Electromagnetism causes objects to collide and not collide.

It is impossible to believe in gravitation without believing in God because gravitation requires and specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracle works.

The equations for gravity are logical and self-consistent.

There are no equations for gravity and the equations for gravitation are illogical and empirically falsified and contradict direct observation and experience.

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…" -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicst, February 1921

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians." -- John M. Keynes, economist, 1936

"But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942

"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming." -- Wernher Von Braun, physicist, July 10th 1958

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific [i.e. Newtonian] grounds, that powered heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claim without troubling to examine the evidence." -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

"In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically [i.e. gravitationally] that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.'" -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

"Many Americans were part of Apollo. About one or two out of each 2000 citizens all across the country. They were asked by their country to do the impossible. To envisage, to design, and build a method of breaking the bonds of the Earth's gravity." -- Neil Armstrong, astronaut, 1994

"The only solution would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation. We probably live in a non-Newton universe." -- Pavel Kroupa, astronomer, May 2009

They do not carry any preternatural elements; magic spells are absent from them.

What magic spell allows airplanes to defy gravity?

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

This is only the opinion of Leibniz. One day, in the future, he may be proven right. Modern science has still not uncovered the full nature of gravity.

I consider it to be more than mere opinion.

The Confessors were wrong on this point. Distance does play a role: 1/r^2. Had they known of, or better-appreciated, this law, they would have more easily understood that gravity is an integral part of Nature.

They aren't talking about gravity. They are talking about universal gravitation.

Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature.

-- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

This effect is gravity. And it does not transcend the forces of Nature; it is 1 of the forces of Nature. The Confessors were right in believing that gravity forms part of Nature.

Gravity is not universal gravitation.

For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water

-- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

Iron was always able to float upon water. God did not alter His laws, but we, humans, eventually further uncovered the true laws of Nature.

You overestimate humanity. Iron floating on water defies universal gravitation.

[Joe]

his "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom" which was based on the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Universe was created by God from a single atom

1. My contention concerns the Big Bang model and the creation-myth in the Bible; the doctrine of a particular confession is not necessarily implicated.
2. I doubt very much that that is what the Catholic Church teaches. I would appreciate it if you could give me line-and-chapter from The Catechism of The Catholic Church to support your statement. The Catechism should be online.

much as Christ's miracle of multiplying the loaves of bread and fishes

But, the loaves and fishes already existed to be multiplied. Multiplying nothing (0) by anything gives...well...no loaves or fishes for the masses. So, this miracle-story from the Bible is actually a false analogy for the creation-story at the beginning of the Bible. (Although, this miracle-story is somewhat analogous to the Big Bang theory. Thanks for mentioning it. )

Pope Pius XII endorsed his theory because it tied Holy Scripture to science.

He was in error.

Monsignor Lemaitre described his theory as "a day without yesterday... The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation."

In the Big Bang theory, space existed along with the Cosmic Egg. The Egg filled a volume of space without; or contained it within, allowing for differentiation at the moment of expansion. Time certainly began at the moment of expansion - "a day without yestrday" - but may have existed before as well. Science can not be sure. But, then again, time may have existed before God created the world. This is speculative theology.
But, notice that the Cosmic Egg pre-existed the moment of creation. For Lemaitre, creation is everything that occurred from the moment of the "explosion" of Egg, but does not include the Egg itself.

In a paper written in 1922, he wrote that the universe had begun in light just "as Genesis suggested it."

This monsignor must have been a modernist because he did not know his Bible well. In the creation-story, the world begins in darkness.

Gravity is real; universal gravitation is a creationist myth.

Please, explain to me the difference between gravity and universal gravitation. Thanks.

Then you are a creationist who believes in gravitation, miracles, and divine intervention.

Please, elaborate. Thanks.

Wrong on all accounts. Electromagnetism causes objects to collide and not collide.

Well, of course EM includes such effects, but we are not discussing the behaviour of a universe that is primarily EM in nature, but one that is primarily gravitational. And for such a one, the 3 reasons that I gave for objects not colliding are right. They are so obvious that they are almost truisms.

There are no equations for gravity and the equations for gravitation are illogical and empirically falsified and contradict direct observation and experience.

Tell that to the folks at NASA before they send up any more satellites or probes.

"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

Orbital motion is still being investigated. Newton tried to refine Ptolemy. Einstein tried to refine Newton. Tangherlini tried to refine Einstein. Selleri tries to refine Tangherlini. Hatch and Van Flandern use the Selleri transformations in their own investigations of gravity.

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

There might be a connection between gravity and EM.

This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides

Ellipses and tides are caused by the gravitational field. Scientists can distinguish between geomagnetism and gravity.

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

So, Russell understands that gravity, and not electricity, runs the Solar System. Do you understand that, Total Science?

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians." -- John M. Keynes, economist, 1936

Speaking of magic, how is Keynsian economics working out for the world at present?

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942

Please, post these erroneous proofs. Thanks.

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific [i.e. Newtonian] grounds, that powered heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claim without troubling to examine the evidence." -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

Well, obviously, they were wrong. There is nothing like a powerful engine, coupled to the laws of aerodynamics, to get you off the ground.

"Many Americans were part of Apollo. About one or two out of each 2000 citizens all across the country. They were asked by their country to do the impossible. To envisage, to design, and build a method of breaking the bonds of the Earth's gravity." -- Neil Armstrong, astronaut, 1994

No bonds were broken; gravity acts to indefinite distances.

I consider it to be more than mere opinion.

How so? (This concerns the belief, of Leibniz, that gravity is not related to matter.)

Iron floating on water defies universal gravitation.

No, it does not defy gravity. The iron still interacts with gravity, but the hydrodynamic shape of the iron countervails the force of gravity beneath it.


-Joe

[Total Science]

This monsignor must have been a modernist because he did not know his Bible well. In the creation-story, the world begins in darkness.

I'm pretty sure Catholic officials are familiar with the Bible.

Gravity is real; universal gravitation is a creationist myth.

Please, explain to me the difference between gravity and universal gravitation. Thanks.

Gravity is the observation that objects near the surface of the Earth fall to the Earth. Universal gravitation on the other hand says F = G x (m1m2)/r^2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, however a distinction is made in scientific circles. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s ... ravitation

Then you are a creationist who believes in gravitation, miracles, and divine intervention.

Please, elaborate. Thanks.

You said you agree with Newtonian gravitation's claim that God placed the stars at immense distances so they don't fall on eachother by gravitation.

There are no equations for gravity and the equations for gravitation are illogical and empirically falsified and contradict direct observation and experience.

Tell that to the folks at NASA before they send up any more satellites or probes.

I'm pretty sure the folks at NASA are aware that gravitation said heavier than air flying machines are impossible and that so-called "zero g" is impossible because gravitation says gravity is universal.

"Many times, physicists say that certain things are impossible – like physicists said that airplanes were impossible at one point. That’s because we didn’t understand the laws of physics very well." -- Michio Kaku, physicist, February 2008

There might be a connection between gravity and EM.

There is.

http://www.qualight.com/

Brown noticed an unusual effect when high voltage was applied to a Coolidge X-Ray tube. With that observation, he came to believe he had discovered a link between electricity and gravity - and a way to lift and propel flying vehicles by purely electrical means.

http://www.high-techmagic.com/TTB/How%2 ... ravity.pdf

The writer and his colleagues anticipated the present situation even as early as 1923, and began at that time to construct the necessary theoretical bridge between the two then separate phenomena, electricity and gravitation. The first actual demonstration of the relation was made in 1924.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE24.html

This report summarizes in simple form the work that has been done and is being done in the new field of electrogravitics. It also outlines the various possible lines of research into the nature and constituent matter of gravity, and how it has changed from Newton to Einstein to the modern Hlavaty concept of gravity as an electromagnetic force that may be controlled like a light wave.

This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides

Ellipses and tides are caused by the gravitational field. Scientists can distinguish between geomagnetism and gravity.

20th century scientists are not really scientists. They are more like televangelists.

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

So, Russell understands that gravity, and not electricity, runs the Solar System. Do you understand that, Total Science?

Gravitation doesn't run anything. Electricity and magnetism do.

"Diamagnetic substances include water, protein, diamond, DNA, plastic, wood, and many other common substances usually thought to be nonmagnetic." -- Martin D. Simon, professor, May 2000

"When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements [of Saturn's Rings] seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work." -- Ron Baalke, astrophysicist, 1998

"My book is as strange as the fact that the Earth is a magnet, the cause of which is indeterminate and the consequences of which are not estimated in the Earth-Moon relations." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"The earth itself is a great big magnet." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945

"Now about the sphere magnet. If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything. In fact, they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnet against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets are cosmic force. They hold together this earth and everything in it." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians." -- John M. Keynes, economist, 1936

Speaking of magic, how is Keynsian economics working out for the world at present?

Ask Obama.

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942

Please, post these erroneous proofs. Thanks.

F = G (m1m2)/r^2 does not describe the motion of any observed objects in the known universe.

The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific [i.e. Newtonian] grounds, that powered heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claim without troubling to examine the evidence." -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

Well, obviously, they were wrong.

I agree. Obviously gravitation is wrong.

"Many Americans were part of Apollo. About one or two out of each 2000 citizens all across the country. They were asked by their country to do the impossible. To envisage, to design, and build a method of breaking the bonds of the Earth's gravity." -- Neil Armstrong, astronaut, 1994

No bonds were broken; gravity acts to indefinite distances.

No it doesn't. The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. If gravitation acts to indefinite distances then the Hill Sphere is a myth. So you have one myth contradicting another myth.

I consider it to be more than mere opinion.

How so? (This concerns the belief, of Leibniz, that gravity is not related to matter.)

Leibniz is correct to claim that gravitation relies upon miracle works and imaginary occult qualities. Newton agrees on both points.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, February 1693

the hydrodynamic shape of the iron countervails the force of gravity beneath it.

So shape causes antigravity?

[Joe]

Gravity is the observation that objects near the surface of the Earth fall to the Earth. Universal gravitation on the other hand says F = G x (m1m2)/r^2.

But, they are essentially the same concept. "Gravitation" speaks to a more thorough and theoretical treatment of gravity; whereas "gravity" is common parlance for the immediate observation of gravitation. Any 2 masses experience Newtonian force, whether Earth-and-apple, or Earth-and-Sun.

You said you agree with Newtonian gravitation's claim that God placed the stars at immense distances so they don't fall on eachother by gravitation.

But, they are not out of reach of the Newtonian force.

I'm pretty sure the folks at NASA are aware that gravitation said heavier than air flying machines are impossible and that so-called "zero g" is impossible because gravitation says gravity is universal.

"Zero-g" is just shorthand for Newtonian force-vectors summing to 0. And, this means acceleration=0. And, in the case of gravitational acceleration, g=0. Very simple.

Gravitation doesn't run anything. Electricity and magnetism do.

That is not what Russell is saying. Quoting Russell does not favor your argument; it may even disfavor it.

"My book is as strange as the fact that the Earth is a magnet, the cause of which is indeterminate and the consequences of which are not estimated in the Earth-Moon relations." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

Earth-Moon dynamics are well-understood using gravitational theories alone.

F = G (m1m2)/r^2 does not describe the motion of any observed objects in the known universe.

The Newtonian force-law is not an equation of motion. Force, by its nature, is not directly observable. Scientists observe only acceleration, and then relate it to force. That is why equations of motion necessarily contain acceleration, and not force, as a variable.

The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

So, what? Just because this is happening, you conclude that gravity is a lie. Replace gravity with your magnetism, and now magnetism becomes a lie just as well.

I agree. Obviously gravitation is wrong.

I meant that the experts were wrong about manned flight, not about the existence of gravity.

The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. If gravitation acts to indefinite distances then the Hill Sphere is a myth. So you have one myth contradicting another myth.

Gravitational interaction is still occurring between Earth and Moon, even as the Moon is leaving. It is not the absence of gravity, but the presence of inertia, that is responsible for this event.

Hill Sphere?

So shape causes antigravity?

No, the shape creates the perfect balance of all gravitational and inertial forces, as per the Earth, water, iron, atmosphere, and the rest of the Universe. Anti-gravity, always a nebulous proposition, is as real as anti-inertia. And, how real is anti-inertia?...Ever hear of it much?


-Joe

[Total Science]

But, they are essentially the same concept. "Gravitation" speaks to a more thorough and theoretical treatment of gravity; whereas "gravity" is common parlance for the immediate observation of gravitation. Any 2 masses experience Newtonian force, whether Earth-and-apple, or Earth-and-Sun.

Gravity is an ancient observation. Gravitation is a falsified 17th century creationist myth. They are not the same at all.

"Zero-g" is just shorthand for Newtonian force-vectors summing to 0. And, this means acceleration=0. And, in the case of gravitational acceleration, g=0. Very simple.

Zero g is a violation of universal gravitation.

Earth-Moon dynamics are well-understood using gravitational theories alone.

Well understood by whom?

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

"Tides are created because the Earth and the moon are attracted to each other, just like magnets are attracted to each other. " -- Keith Cooley, astronomer, 2002

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." -- George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000

"Why did great cataclysms occur on Earth, such as the sinking of Atlantis and the the rise of the Andes? According to some theories, the cause was a gigantic asteroid that fell onto Earth, or the appearance of the hitherto non-existent Moon in the sky over Earth. Is this so?" -- Alexander Kazantsev, natural philosopher, 1974

"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907

"…in the course of our experiments, we were led away from the primary object of the Committee, namely, the measurement of the Lunar Disturbance of Gravity…." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

"...the pre-Hellenic Pelasgian inhabitants of Arcadia called themselves Proselenes, because they boasted that they came into the country before the Moon accompanied the Earth. Pre-Hellenic and pre-lunarian were synonymous." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"We shall commence with a few of the principal passages from the ancients, which treat of the Proselenes. Stephanus of Byzantium (v. 'Apkas) mentions the logographs of Hippys of Rhegium, a contemporary of Darius and Xerxes, as the first who called the Arcadians proselenous. The scholiasts, ad Apollon. Rhod. IV 264 and ad Aristoph. Nub. 397, agree in saying, the remote antiquity of the Arcadians becomes most clear from the fact of their being called proselenoi. They appear to have been there before the Moon, as Eudoxus and Theodorus also say; the latter adds that it was shortly before the labours of Hercules that the Moon appeared. In the government of the Tegeates, Aristotle states that the barbarians who inhabited Arcadia were driven out by the later Arcadians before the Moon appeared, and therefore they were called proselenoi." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"The passages in Ovid as to the existence of the Arcadians before the Moon are universally known." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"In the remotest times, before the Moon accompanied the Earth, according to the mythology of the Muysca or Mozca Indians, the inhabitants of the plain of Bogota lived like barbarians, naked, without any form of laws or religious worship." --Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, Researches, 1814

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632

"...surnamed Pelasgian from Pelasgus, son of Triopas, its founder, and not far from the sanctuary is the grave of Pelasgus." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Argolis, 2nd century

"It is said that it was in the reign of Pelasgus that the land was called Pelasgia." -- Pausanius, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

"After this king the land was called Arcadia instead of Pelasgia and its inhabitants Arcadians instead of Pelasgians." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

"These were Arcadians of Evander's following, the so‑called Pre-Lunar people." -- Plutarch, historian, Moralia: The Roman Questions #76, 1st century

"The stars did not yet revolve in the heavens; the Danaides had not yet appeared, nor the race of Deucalion; the Arcadians alone existed, those of whom it is said that they lived before the Moon, eating acorns upon the mountains." -- Apollonios Rhodios, librarian, Argonautica, ~246 B.C.

The Newtonian force-law is not an equation of motion. Force, by its nature, is not directly observable. Scientists observe only acceleration, and then relate it to force. That is why equations of motion necessarily contain acceleration, and not force, as a variable.

Gravitation is said to control the motions of the heavens. It doesn't.

Electromagnetism does.

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

So, what?

So that contradicts gravitation which predicted that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Just because this is happening, you conclude that gravity is a lie.

I never said gravity is a lie. I say gravitation is a lie because it is. All of the molecules in the atmosphere defy gravitation by their atomic weight.

Replace gravity with your magnetism, and now magnetism becomes a lie just as well.

Magnets have been observed to cause antigravity.

See the Levitron antigravity globe and also diamagnetic levitation of frogs and mice.

Hill Sphere?

A violation of universal gravitation.

[Joe]

Zero g is a violation of universal gravitation.

"Zero-g" means no acceleration; which means no net force; which means a perfect balance of all (gravitational and inertial) force-vectors on a body, a body that is situated anywhere in the Universe.

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

Well, since the Moon is still with us, then the extrapolation to 1.4 billion years before present is clearly unjustified. Other conditions must have existed long ago that have since ceased to exist, and of which we are still ignorant.

"Tides are created because the Earth and the moon are attracted to each other, just like magnets are attracted to each other. " -- Keith Cooley, astronomer, 2002

This is just an avowed similarity, not an implied identity.

"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

So, do you accept the first value, or the second one? Either way, you are accepting gravity as a true phenomenon.
And please keep in mind that gravitational models have been continuously refined throughout history, as I have mentioned in an earlier post.

"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907

Irrelevant. Darwin is addressing the structural integrity of the Earth.

Gravitation is said to control the motions of the heavens. It doesn't.

Electromagnetism does.

Whatever role EM plays in the Universe, EM is still distinct from gravity. EM may even be part of gravity, but it is not the fullness of gravity.

gravitation which predicted that heavier than air flying machines are impossible

There is not one theory of gravity that forbids manned flight.

I never said gravity is a lie. I say gravitation is a lie because it is.

I have already said that these 2 terms are synonymous.

All of the molecules in the atmosphere defy gravitation by their atomic weight.

On the contrary, it is their very mass that makes them very much gravitate towards the Earth, creating the very atmosphere of the Earth.

Magnets have been observed to cause antigravity.

See the Levitron antigravity globe and also diamagnetic levitation of frogs and mice.

Magnetic levitation is not synonymous with antigravity. Gravity and EM may be interrelated, but the two should not be conflated; they are not identical.

A violation of universal gravitation.

Please, describe the Hill Sphere, and then explain the "violation of universal gravitation" that you believe exists there. Thanks.


-Joe

[Total Science]

I have already said that these 2 terms are synonymous.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. If gravity and universal gravitation are synonymous then why was gravity observed for millions of years before Newton published his so-called "theory"? If gravity and gravitation are synonymous then why does Isaac Newton get credit for the so-called "law" of universal gravitation? If gravitation is a law then why is the universe such a shameless criminal?

There is not one theory of gravity that forbids manned flight.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Newtonian gravitation says objects are attracted to eachother proportional to their mass and it predicted heavier than air flying machines are impossible. So for example, gravitation says an airplane is attracted to the Earth by virtue of their masses. If gravitation were true, spaceflight would be impossible.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"Many Americans were part of Apollo. About one or two out of each 2000 citizens all across the country. They were asked by their country to do the impossible. To envisage, to design, and build a method of breaking the bonds of the Earth's gravity." -- Neil Armstrong, astronaut, 1994

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific [i.e. Newtonian] grounds, that powered heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claim without troubling to examine the evidence." -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

"In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically [i.e. gravitationally] that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.'" -- Richard Milton, writer, 1994

"Many times, physicists say that certain things are impossible – like physicists said that airplanes were impossible at one point. That’s because we didn’t understand the laws of physics very well." -- Michio Kaku, physicist, February 2008

[Joe]

If gravity and universal gravitation are synonymous then why was gravity observed for millions of years before Newton published his so-called "theory"?

Because, as I have mentioned in an earlier post, gravity is an immediately observed phenomenon. It is something that is sensed. Even animals 'understand' gravity. But, animals have never; do not; and will never understand gravitation, which is the name given to the analysis of gravity. Only we humans can do this, as evidenced by the fact that no animals are doing this. Even chimps, who share 99% of our genome, have yet to turn out a credible paper on the topic of gravitation. Gravitation is an intellectual endeavor; gravity is a sensual experience. There is no great harm in using these terms interchangeably. It is enough to understand that gravitation is just an abstraction of gravity. Only humans can abstract. Example: '2 apples' has a property of '2-ness' to it, just like "2 oranges' has a property of '2-ness' to it. The '2-ness' is an abstraction that is shared between these 2 sets of sensually different objects.

If gravity and gravitation are synonymous then why does Isaac Newton get credit for the so-called "law" of universal gravitation?

Newton was the human -not animal- that abstracted from the sensual experience of gravity a set of properties that he intellectually -not physically- combined into an equation. He gets credit for his law of gravitation because the terms 'law' and 'gravitation' are the results of an intellectual pursuit. And it was his mind that created the equation.
Nobody will ever get credit for gravity because it is physical -not intellectual; it is part of the fabric of nature. Notice that Newton does not get credit for gravity. The terms 'gravity' and 'gravitation' are synonymous, within reason. The former is more sensual; and the latter, more intellectual.

If gravitation is a law then why is the universe such a shameless criminal?

The universe has done nothing wrong; gravity is perfect. But, gravitation, being an intellectual pursuit, is always less than perfect. So, scientists keep working at it, intellectually, constantly refining their very intellectual laws about the very physical phenomenon known as gravity.

Newtonian gravitation says objects are attracted to eachother proportional to their mass and it predicted heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Nowhere does the law imply that manned flight is impossible. People can misinterpret the law; or draw illogical conclusions from the law; or read things into the law that just are not there.

So for example, gravitation says an airplane is attracted to the Earth by virtue of their masses. If gravitation were true, spaceflight would be impossible.

Gravitation says that gravity is ALWAYS acting on bodies, independent of the path that they follow as they are moving through the Universe. But, gravity can be COUNTERACTED by a greater force, separating the bodies, and giving the ILLUSION that gravity does not exist. Example: A ball is tossed upward. It stops eventually, and drops back down again. As the ball is falling, we clearly see gravity pulling the ball down. But, does this mean that when the ball is rising, gravity does not exist? NO! Gravity is still acting on the ball as it rises. How do we know this? Well, the ball is slowing down. SOMETHING must be pulling down on the ball, in order to slow it down. What do we think that 'SOMETHING' is? I think that 'SOMETHING' is gravity.

"Many times, physicists say that certain things are impossible – like physicists said that airplanes were impossible at one point. That’s because we didn’t understand the laws of physics very well." -- Michio Kaku, physicist, February 2008

Well-said, Dr. Kaku. As I stated above, a law is an intellectual creation, and it is always being refined to perfection. And even if perfect, not everyone understands the same law in the same way anyhow, so errors in judgement are bound to be made.


-Joe

[Birkeland]

I believe that it is not justified of Steady Staters to accuse Lemaitre of replicating the biblical creation-story within his Big Bang model.

Really?

• To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing - SOURCE

[Total Science]

as I have mentioned in an earlier post, gravity is an immediately observed phenomenon. It is something that is sensed.

That depends on where you are and what you are doing.

"Supposing you had a universe in which there was a planet with only one sun. The planet would travel in a perfect ellipse and the exact nature of the gravitational force would be so evident it could be accepted as an axiom. Astronomers on such a world would start off with gravity probably even before they invented the telescope." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941

I observe the moon falling away from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year.

I observe the molecules in the atmosphere defying gravity by their atomic weights.

I observe ozone defying gravity.

I observe clouds defying gravity.

I observe heavier than air flying machines defying gravity.

I observe the ISS and astronauts on spacewalks defying gravity.

I observe magnets, mice, and frogs defying gravity.

Even animals 'understand' gravity. But, animals have never; do not; and will never understand gravitation, which is the name given to the analysis of gravity. Only we humans can do this, as evidenced by the fact that no animals are doing this.

This contradicts your earlier fundamentalist claim that gravity and gravitation are synonymous.

Even chimps, who share 99% of our genome, have yet to turn out a credible paper on the topic of gravitation.

I agree. Chimps are more likely to turn out a credible paper on gravitation than humans are. Gravitation is a myth.

Gravitation is an intellectual endeavor; gravity is a sensual experience.

This contradicts your earlier fundamentalist claim that gravity and gravitation are synonymous.

There is no great harm in using these terms interchangeably. It is enough to understand that gravitation is just an abstraction of gravity. Only humans can abstract. Example: '2 apples' has a property of '2-ness' to it, just like "2 oranges' has a property of '2-ness' to it. The '2-ness' is an abstraction that is shared between these 2 sets of sensually different objects.

Abstractions are not physical material objects. They are imaginary.

The universe has done nothing wrong; gravity is perfect. But, gravitation, being an intellectual pursuit, is always less than perfect. So, scientists keep working at it, intellectually, constantly refining their very intellectual laws about the very physical phenomenon known as gravity.

They'd have better luck working on a pile of dung.

Newtonian gravitation says objects are attracted to eachother proportional to their mass and it predicted heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Nowhere does the law imply that manned flight is impossible.

Then you don't understand gravitation. Every gravitational physicist in the world predicted heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

People can misinterpret the law; or draw illogical conclusions from the law; or read things into the law that just are not there.

This describes you more than it does Lord Kelvin.

Gravitation says that gravity is ALWAYS acting on bodies, independent of the path that they follow as they are moving through the Universe.

Exactly. That's how we know it's a 17th century creationist myth.

But, gravity can be COUNTERACTED by a greater force, separating the bodies, and giving the ILLUSION that gravity does not exist.

This contradicts the fundamentalist claim that gravity is the dominant force in the universe. If gravitation can be counteracted then it is not universal.

Example: A ball is tossed upward. It stops eventually, and drops back down again. As the ball is falling, we clearly see gravity pulling the ball down.

How come that's not true of air molecules and the moon?

But, does this mean that when the ball is rising, gravity does not exist? NO! Gravity is still acting on the ball as it rises. How do we know this? Well, the ball is slowing down. SOMETHING must be pulling down on the ball, in order to slow it down. What do we think that 'SOMETHING' is? I think that 'SOMETHING' is gravity.

No one is saying gravity does not exist. You don't understand the difference between gravity and universal gravitation.

As I stated above, a law is an intellectual creation, and it is always being refined to perfection. And even if perfect, not everyone understands the same law in the same way anyhow, so errors in judgement are bound to be made.

Such as belief in gravitation. If gravitation is a law, then the universe is the most clever criminal that ever lived.