Probality of God

[gravityblock]

What is so confusing?  The oxygen end of the H2O molecule has a certain charge, and the H2 end has the opposite charge.  This is what holds water molecules together, and a sphere is the most logical shape for a small mass of water.

Here is my source, a university site:  http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/basics/main/chmtxt.htm

You have not answered my request for a citation of sources for your theory.  What experiments have been performed that confirm your theory?  There have been plenty that confirm mine.

It's not just the most logical shape for a small mass of water.  The planets, satellites, suns, etc., all take a spherical form.  It should be obvious to you that a centripetal pressure is pushing on these objects from all directions causing them to take a spherical shape.  Then we have a spherical diffusion flame experiment performed at NASA's Glenn Microgravity Drop Facility.  What's holding the flame together in a spherical form before it burns out?  No water molecules here, so you can throw your university reference source out the window.  In case you haven't noticed, I have been giving you experiments and showing you scientific observations from nature.

Gravock   

[gravityblock]

Which of the following do you disagree with:

1.)  A moving charge induces a magnetic field.
2.)  A changing magnetic field induces a charge.
3.)  Pressure:  As a body cannot be subject to pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.
4.)  Magnetism: The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed.
5.)  Temperature:  You can prove that a magnet loses its properties on being heated. As matter is made up of stationary waves, heat has a powerful influence on them. By increasing the frequency of these waves they begin to give off light.  Smoke from a cigar is heavier than the surrounding air, yet it rises as the result of warmth. That is to say the difference in density is compensated for by the temperature of the smoke.
6:)  Density.  We can see that a balloon full of hydrogen gas rises, according to the volume of the gas.  That is to say, bodies of lesser density always tend to rise, in the same way that water and oil separate, due to density. Gravity does not prevent bodies of lesser density from rising. Whereas in air, which is of low density, heavy objects fall rapidly. In water, more dense than air, they fall more slowly.  Moreover, it is well known that heat reduces the density of a body. We note that heat is a factor which affects gravity, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density.

Gravock

[hoptoad]

It's not just the most logical shape for a small mass of water.  The planets, satellites, suns, etc., all take a spherical form.  It should be obvious to you that a centripetal pressure is pushing on these objects from all directions causing them to take a spherical shape.

Why should it be so obvious to any of us here?, when it was not obvious to the greatest minds of the 20th century, and is still not obvious to the great minds of this century.

Then we have a spherical diffusion flame experiment performed at NASA's Glenn Microgravity Drop Facility.  What's holding the flame together in a spherical form before it burns out?  No water molecules here, so you can throw your university reference source out the window.  In case you haven't noticed, I have been giving you experiments and showing you scientific observations from nature.

Would this be the same NASA that you don't give any credence to?, because they lie, misinform, and are part of a world wide conspiracy to suppress the truth (according to you in previous posts).

[gravityblock]

Why should it be so obvious to any of us here?, when it was not obvious to the greatest minds of the 20th century, and is still not obvious to the great minds of this century.

Would this be the same NASA that you don't give any credence to?, because they lie, misinform, and are part of a world wide conspiracy to suppress the truth (according to you in previous posts).

Maybe it's time to take the blind folds off and do a little thinking on your own so you can see what is obvious.

Yes, this is the same NASA I don't give much credence to along with a lot of other people who think they faked the moon landing.  If you have any information to where they have lied or misinformed us in regards to the experiments I have referenced, then please bring it to our attention.

Gravock

[hoptoad]

Maybe it's time to take the blind folds off and do a little thinking on your own so you can see what is obvious.

Yes, this is the same NASA I don't give much credence to along with a lot of other people who think they faked the moon landing.  If you have any information to where they have lied or misinformed us in regards to the experiments I have referenced, then please bring it to our attention.

Gravock

Well if its so obvious to you, explain it all on paper, submit your papers to the international science symposium and wait for the congratulatory slap on the back.

In the meantime I'll continue to accept theories which so far have been backed up by experimental evidence, and to ignore theories which experimental evidence has falsified.

Without verifiable data from real experiments, conclusions from vacuous thought experiments will continue to be mere opinion.