Search results

You do realize this means they think that gravity is a force, right?

Looks like double speak to me. Kinda blows this assertion of yours outta the water either way. Oh, so now you're qualifying your assertion? Is gravity a force of any kind?

OK. My assertion is that "mass causes magic" and I'm calling that magic gravity. I can't measure magic, but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps. What makes "space warping" better than "magic"? Ironically, I think that I'm playing the devil's...

Sorry. I can't parse that. Is it your assertion that "mass warps space and that warping is called gravity"? Can you measure space warping?

It hasn't been replaced. Relativity is a correction on the application of naive Newtonian equations in extreme situations. It's not the best correction, and it requires the unfounded assumption of the constancy of lightspeed. Right now, in fact. Take that thing you're smoking and drop it...

But you can do it by warping space. The observations are explained by gravity. You assert that gravity works by warping space. I say gravity works by magic. What makes your assertion better than mine?

Gravity is the observation that masses are attracted to each other according to an inverse square law. You seem to think that it doesn't exist, making everything you say useless.

:LOL: The mantle is not molten.

Apologies. I didn't read your example carefully. That's just an example of gravity in action. Allow me to alter my initial response. Why is the explanation "space is warped" justified over "magic"?

And how do you know that the change in the gravity environment is not affecting your instruments?

I say that gravity "warping space" is a description no better than "magic."

With that Muppet, anything can mean anything. Does space have mass?

Maybe. At rupture, it would have been all supercritical. Somewhere near the 40th parallel. When the distribution of mass shifted on the surface, the conservation of angular momentum reacted by making the equator the ring with the greatest average mass cross referenced against the distance...

That would be my guess. But water does weird things in extreme situations. Don't bother looking where the pole is today.

Not at the time I am referencing. The tidal pumping prior to the valve getting shut would have kept enough water liquid to pump it from below to supply the Earth each day. It's possible that the "waters below" were frozen in places, probably near the poles of the time.

There was a 100km slab of granite sitting on it that was pulled up and down twice a day by the moon. I think it would have been at least mostly liquid.

Time is an intangible noun.

The planet's sphericity is due to gravity. The more mass a body has, the more it will work on itself to become spherical. It is almost certain — assuming the truth of the Hydroplate theory — that the Earth started life pretty much cold all the way through. When the crust was shoved around by...

It might help to first get a grasp on what gravity does to planets. The stuff that happened to the crust was only the trigger for the really massive action.

The best exercise to understanding the overview of creation is to take a pencil, markers and paper, read through the passage, and every time it says Earth, water, heaven, firmament, stars etc draw them all.