Disparaging Lemaitre

[Total Science]

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

It's unreasonable when you have photographic evidence that contradicts it.

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

Gravitation says that also but you agree with it...

"...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

In the case of gravitation you said you agree with fixed stars and in the case of the Bible you don't. That's called a contradiction.

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

That's because the Big Bang is a 20th century myth.

[Joe]

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

I answered a similar query in response to nick c:

In actuality, this [the belief of Lemaitre in creation-out-of-nothing] 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.

As nick c says:

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.

-Joe

[Joe]

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

That is right. Gravity varies by distance, in just the way Newton described it.

"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

Science already has a fairly solid understanding of the way in which gravity operates.

I observe the ISS and astronauts on spacewalks defying gravity.

They are countervailing gravity by inertia. They continue to fall toward Earth BECAUSE of gravity. But, because of their orbital angular-momentum, they will continually fall without ever getting closer to Earth. Do you imagine that they are magnetically levitating?

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

They ARE synonymous...to HUMANS! Only humans can abstract from gravity to gravitation. This is the reason for these 2 terms sharing the same word-root. They are 2 distinct concepts that greatly overlap, with only a shade of difference between them. Therefore, SOMETIMES, they can be used interchangeably. I said as much, earlier, when I included the phrase "within reason."

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

No...chimps are animals. And animals do not abstract. And one of these abstractions is gravitation. So, the absence of inquiry on the part of simians is not proof for gravitation being a myth. Remember the old adage: Absence-of-proof is not proof-of-absence.

Abstractions are not physical material objects. They are imaginary.

Right.

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

So, the equations used by NASA, in achieveing their goals, are a ruse? Is NASA using magic, then?

Every gravitational physicist in the world predicted heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

That was THEIR MISINTERPRETATION of a valid law.

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

There is no dominant role in nature. Everything has its role to play. And, the fact of universality does not speak to relative properties, such as strength.

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

There is no air on the Moon.

You don't understand the difference between gravity and universal gravitation.

I do understand it. I just do not understand the difference that YOU believe exists between the two.

Such as belief in gravitation.

No, belief in gravitation is not an error in judgement, because modern reality shows that it is capable of predicting events fairly well. Its laws also assist humans in achieving their fantastical goals.


-Joe

[Birkeland]

I answered a similar query in response to nick c.

Yes I know, but the initial "problem" that motivated you to start this thread..:

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

...is solved. Just make a distinction between replication and reconciliation. You can't mix science with religion without creating scientific problems. In the religious realm, anything goes, but as far as science goes, no screw-ups are allowed. We now see how far into the realm of religion science is dragged by the catholic church and any other institution with vested interests in clinging to dogmatic beliefs of something else than reality.

[Joe]

It's unreasonable when you have photographic evidence that contradicts it.

It is unreasonable, even fraudulent, to post images that were taken in the latter half of the 20th century!

Gravitation says that also but you agree with it...

1. No, gravitation does not say that the stars are standing still; that is your erroneous interpretation.
2. The Bible is obviously wrong on this matter, so I disagree with It.

That's because the Big Bang is a 20th century myth.

No, the Big Bang model is a hypothesis which is based on scientific evidence. It is not a re-wording of the Biblical creation-story.


-Joe

[Birkeland]

...the Big Bang model is a hypothesis which is based on scientific evidence.

As far as common scientific methodology is concerned, big bang cosmology is thoroughly debunked.

[Joe]

Just make a distinction between replication and reconciliation.

By 'replication,' I mean taking the creation-story, and re-wording it with modern, scientific jargon. This would be a veneer, effectively. I contend that Lemaitre did not do this. And, the fact that this Big Bang model has been taken seriously for many decades speaks to its genuinely scientific provenance.
No reconciliation was necessary because his work followed the Scientific Method. Any ensuing similarity to the creation-story was fortuitous. And, obviously, the few similarities that did appear warmed his heart. He kept his faith and his science on 2 separate tracks,though, parallel, hoping always that they would tighten, but being smart enough to know that he was living in 2 different worlds that would most probably never merge.

clinging to dogmatic beliefs of something else than reality

The fact is that everyone has beliefs. And, these beliefs color their perception of reality. And, these beliefs also, in part, create their reality. So it is, in this less-than-perfect state of fallen man.


-Joe

[Total Science]

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

That is right. Gravity varies by distance, in just the way Newton described it.

Not even mainstream relativists are gullible enough to believe that.

At what distance to the Earth would gravity attract the moon?

At what distance to Mars would gravity attract Deimos?

Science already has a fairly solid understanding of the way in which gravity operates.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958

They are countervailing gravity by inertia.

Inertia is antigravity?

How do objects which have no inertia defy gravity?

They continue to fall toward Earth BECAUSE of gravity.

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

But, because of their orbital angular-momentum, they will continually fall without ever getting closer to Earth.

"Since we have already proved through geometrical considerations the equivalence of all hypotheses with respect to the motions of any bodies whatsoever, however numerous, moved only by the collision with other bodies, it follows that not even an angel could determine with mathematical rigor which of the many bodies of that sort is at rest, and which is the center of motion for the others." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

Do you imagine that they are magnetically levitating?

I observe it first and then I imagine it. It's called the scientific method.

"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

"By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"The advantage of using this [Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell] apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the 'artificial gravity' is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism. So the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that we can repeat as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry and astronomy should not be free...and it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and solar plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon ." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

"The picture of an atom began to look more like a miniature solar system with an atomic nucleus for the sun, and electrons for planets. The analogy with the planetary system can be further strengthened by these facts: the atomic nucleus contains 99.97 per cent of the total atomic mass as compared with 99.87 per cent of the solar system concentrated in the sun, and the distances between the planetary electrons exceed their diameters by about the same factor (several thousand times) which we find when comparing interplanetary distances with the diameters of the planets. The more important analogy lies, however, in the fact that the electric attraction-forces between the atomic nucleus and the electrons obey the same mathematical law of inverse square (that is, the forces are inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between two bodies) as the gravity forces acting between the sun and the planets. This makes the electrons describe the circular and elliptic trajectories around the nucleus, similar to those along which the planets and comets move in the solar system." -- George Gamow, physicist, 1961

"Which experiment would you [Velikovsky] like to have performed now? I know which experiment you would like now—the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1955

"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

"Now in the same 1845, the year of this triumph, Leverrier calculated also the anomaly of Mercury, and by this caused to think that the Newtonian law of gravitation may be not precisely true. Leverrier first thought of some planet moving inside the Mercurial orbit or of a possible unequal distribution of the mass in the sun. You [Einstein] have used the fact of the anomaly to prove that the space is curving in the presence of a mass. About the same time—in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity 'under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.' (Alfven) The last named author in his 'cosmical Electro-dynamics' (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- 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

"According to our present view every atom consists of a small heavy nucleus approximately 1O^-12 cm in diameter sur-rounded by a largely empty region 1O^-8 cm in diameter in which electrons move somewhat like planets about the sun." -- Hendy D. Smyth, physicist, 1945

"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 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." -- T. Townsend Brown, physicist, Aug 1929

"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

"...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

"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

"The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet." -- George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball...." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1904

"If it be true that every atom occupies the same volume of space, then gravitation might seem to be an effect depending on the crowdedness of electrons; but when an atom, breaks up into unequal parts, the smaller portion must in that case undergo considerable expansion, and that would be inconsistent with the constancy of gravitation, if it depended on crowdedness: hence I think it more probable that it depends on some interaction between positive and negative electricity, and that it is generated when these two come together, that is whenever an atom of matter is formed." -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicist, 1904

"Impossible as it seemed, this planet, despite its vast extent, behaved like a conductor of limited dimensions." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1900

"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

"I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly related and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. In modern times the proofs of their convertibility have been accumulated to a very considerable extent, and a commencement made of the determination of their equivalent forces." -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1845

"Thus we cognize the existence of a magnetic matter penetrating all bodies from the perception of attracted iron filings, although an immediate perception of this matter is impossible for us given the constitution of our organs." -- Immanuel Kant, natural philosopher, 1781

"And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1686

"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

They ARE synonymous...to HUMANS!

This contradicts logic and your earlier claim that they are different...

Only humans can abstract from gravity to gravitation.

Absolute nonsense. Perhaps only humans are stupid enough to abstract gravitation from gravity.

No...chimps are animals. And animals do not abstract.

Do you imagine that human beings are plants?

Absence-of-proof is not proof-of-absence.

The correct quote is "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

So, the equations used by NASA, in achieveing their goals, are a ruse?

NASA uses the Bible to travel in space more than they use the Principia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ipb8-CLDM

NASA should use the Principia for toilet paper on the ISS.

Is NASA using magic, then?

17th century creationist Newtonians such as yourself probably think so.

"If technology is distinguishable from magic, it is insufficiently advanced." -- Gregory Benford, author, 1997

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." -- Barry Gehm, biochemist, 1973

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1973

That was THEIR MISINTERPRETATION of a valid law.

Wrong. It's YOUR MISINTERPRETATION of an invalid religion.

There is no dominant role in nature. Everything has its role to play. And, the fact of universality does not speak to relative properties, such as strength.

Gravitation is infinitely weak because it is imaginary.

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

There is no air on the Moon.

As usual you misunderstood what I said because I didn't say there was air on the moon.

I said air and the moon both defy gravity.

I do understand it. I just do not understand the difference that YOU believe exists between the two.

It doesn't matter what I believe. The rest of the world recognizes that gravity has been observed for millions of years and that gravitation is an utterly debunked 17th century creationist religion.

"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

No, belief in gravitation is not an error in judgement, because modern reality shows that it is capable of predicting events fairly well. Its laws also assist humans in achieving their fantastical goals.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravitation has made more false predictions than any hypothesis in world history. Heavier than air flying machines are not impossible. Neptune is 1 billion miles away from where gravitation predicted it would be. Gravitation inaccurately predicted the mass of the moon (it's 1/80th of the Earth's not 1/40th).

[Joe]

As far as common scientific methodology is concerned, big bang cosmology is thoroughly debunked.

That might be true today. But for decades it reigned supreme, not by threat of censure from elitists, but because it stood on solid scientific ground. Periods of crisis are never easy, and the old guard should never be maligned. Steady progress only comes from slow acceptance of new paradigms.

[Total Science]

It is unreasonable, even fraudulent, to post images that were taken in the latter half of the 20th century!

Why ?

Do you reject all observation prior to the 21st century?

Do you think Newton, Hubble, Einstein, and Lemaitre are unreasonable frauds because they died before the Space Age began?

Why don't you believe your eyes? Because they contradict your 17th century religion?

21st century images show the exact same filaments connecting quasars and local galaxies.



21st century images also show quasars in front of local galaxies.



López-Corredoira, M., and Gutiérrez, C.M., Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to its Companion, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Mar 2002

Gutiérrez, C.M., and López-Corredoira, M., QSO+Galaxy Association and Discrepant Redshifts in NEQ3, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 605, L5-L8, Apr 2004

Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can a 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within a Nearby Galaxy?, Science Daily, Jan 2005

Galianni, P., et al., The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 620, Pages 88-94, Feb 2005

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A ’Distant’ Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?, Innovations, Nov 2005

Bell, M.B., Further Evidence That the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components, The Astonomical Journal Letters, Volume 667, L129-L132, Oct 2007

1. No, gravitation does not say that the stars are standing still; that is your erroneous interpretation.

You don't even know what gravitation says. Have you ever read the Principia before? I'll bet money the answer is no.

"...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

2. The Bible is obviously wrong on this matter, so I disagree with It.

Do you believe in meteorites?

Scientists were wrong to contradict the Bible.

"Stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky!" -- Antoine L. Lavoisier, chemist, 1790

"Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven." -- Thomas Jefferson, revolutionary, 1807

"...the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died..." -- Joshua 10:11

"...and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit." -- Revelation 9:1-2

[Joe]

Inertia is antigravity?

No, inertia deals with the motion of massive objects in the Universe. Inertia is still a subject of contention in the scientific community. A fuller relationship needs to be developed between inertia and gravity.

How do objects which have no inertia defy gravity?

There is no such thing as 'defying' gravity. Gravity is ALWAYS acting on every little thing in the Universe.
A massive object always has inertia: it is either still (v=0), or moving steadily (v=constant). This means that there is no net force, including gravity, acting on it.
A photon, on the other hand, has no mass, but gravity still interacts with it, as in the bending of light-rays near celestial bodies. This shows that gravity is probably just a refractive medium(aether?).

I observe it first and then I imagine it. It's called the scientific method.

The Scientific Method involves hypothesis; determination of uncertainty in measurement; control; testing; recording; least-squares approximation (for fitting a curve); error-analysis (determining the deviation from expected results); and conclusion (Is the hypothesis right?).

Neptune is 1 billion miles away from where gravitation predicted it would be. Gravitation inaccurately predicted the mass of the moon (it's 1/80th of the Earth's not 1/40th).

As I have spoken many times already, gravitational laws are always being refined. There will probably never be a final word on this subject. Maybe, that is just the way science works. But, at least, accept the modern advances, Total Science. They are the best that we have.


-Joe

[Joe]

21st century images show the exact same filaments connecting quasars and local galaxies.

21st century images also show quasars in front of local galaxies.

But, Lemaitre and other Big Bangers did not have this data for very obvious reason.

Have you ever read the Principia before?

Newton is not the final word on the subject of gravity. Read up a little. I still have no idea about what you believe about gravity. Explain to me the workings of the Universe, please.

"...the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died..." -- Joshua 10:11

Loving God.

"...and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit." -- Revelation 9:1-2

So...the Book of Revelation is describing a natural event, rather than quoting the Word of God for a preternatural event?


-Joe

[Total Science]

inertia deals with the motion of massive objects in the Universe.

Inertia and mass are both undefined concepts.

Inertia is still a subject of contention in the scientific community.

I rest my case.

A fuller relationship needs to be developed between inertia and gravity.

"...inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

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

There is no such thing as 'defying' gravity.

That proves gravitation is not a scientific theory.

According to Popper a theory is only scientific if it can be falsified.

Gravity is ALWAYS acting on every little thing in the Universe.

No. I observe objects that defy gravity via diamagnetic levitation.

A photon, on the other hand, has no mass, but gravity still interacts with it

That's unobserved and it's impossible.

Gravitation is only a property of mass and can only act on mass.

F=ma.

as in the bending of light-rays near celestial bodies.

Gravitational lensing has never been observed. It's a myth.

Dowdye, E.H. Jr., Time Resolved Images from the Center of the Galaxy Appear To Counter General Relativity, Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Pages 186-191, Feb 2007

Dowdye, E.H. Jr., Profound Fundamentals of Mathematical Physics Seriously Misapplied to Gravitational Lensing, Dec 2008

As I have spoken many times already, gravitational laws are always being refined.

A scientific law is not a law if it changes every day. Newtonian gravitation hasn't change since Newton died.

[Total Science]

But, Lemaitre and other Big Bangers did not have this data for very obvious reason.

21st century data proves the Big Bang to be an utterly debunked religion.

Newton is not the final word on the subject of gravity. Read up a little.

You can say that again.

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

I still have no idea about what you believe about gravity. Explain to me the workings of the Universe, please.

Gravity is electromagnetic.

So...the Book of Revelation is describing a natural event, rather than quoting the Word of God for a preternatural event?

Correct. Part of it is describing a natural event called a meteorite impact. Saw is past tense not future tense.

The Book of Exodus and the Book of Joshua also describe natural events such as the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and the electromagnetic reversal of the Earth's retrograde rotation.

[Total Science]

Newton Voted Greatest Briton, BBC, Aug 2003

Newton Beats Einstein In Polls of Scientists and the Public, The Royal Society, Nov 2005

Newton Beats Einstein In Scientist Poll, The Telegraph, Nov 2005

Newton Beats Einstein In New Poll, ABC Science, Nov 2005