Probality of God

[gravityblock]

i'll take your refusal to present any scientific evidence for your asinine claim as an admission that you have done no valid scientific experiment to substantiate your asinine claim. thank you.

How is observing nature any different than observing an experiment which you or I may devise?  The scientific experiment you refer to, which substantiates my claim, is being provided by observing nature.  Do you really think it's necessary for mankind to devise an experiment which mimics nature, a requirement before it can be considered scientific evidence?  To wrongly imply or assert it is necessary, as you have done, is asinine!

Gravock

[eatenbyagrue]

For the third time, the effect isn't being observed in zero gravity.  The effect is being observed in free-fall (weightlessness) at nearly the same strength of gravity at the surface of earth.  You can do the same experiment in an airplane during free-fall experiments that is much closer to the surface of the earth and obtain the same results.  The water being held together has nothing to do with earth's gravity or with the electromagnetic attraction of the molecules.  Both the strength of gravity and the strength of the electromagnetic attraction of the molecules are nearly the same at both the earth's surface and on the space shuttle in free-fall (or in an airplane following a parabolic path while experiencing free-fall).  Then you have the tablet, which easily breaks the strength of electromagnetic attraction of the molecules which you refer to, both at the surface and in free-fall above the earth. 

If you apply an even pressure over the entire body of water, then the water can't be compressed at one point and raised up at another point to create a wave.  This happens when the sun is more directly over the body of the water.  However, when the sun is at more of an angle to the earth and the body of water, then the pressure of light isn't evenly distributed over the entire body of water, then the water can be compressed at one point and raised up at another to create a wave.  This is the cause for retardation of the tides.  As you can see, your logic in saying the sun should exhibit greater tidal force than the moon based on being much brighter is flawed, and it's not a piece of evidence that contradicts the theory as you wrongly assert.

Gravock

Regarding the water experiment, let me rephrase.  The water is in a condition of weighlessness, as it is in freefall, which I cannot see how is distinguishable from zero gravity for the purposes of this experiment (actually there is no such thing as zero gravity, as gravity goes on forever in a diminishing fashion).   In free fall, just like in outer space, electromagnetic force would be the strongest force acting on the water molecules, as there no weight from gravity, so the water composes itself into a ball.  With gravity, it is forced to flatten out.

Anyway, I see where this is going.  You are coming up with an alternate view of the universe with forces that you try to make consistent with what you see.    You posit that gravity repels, and you make up a "universal pressure" that counteracts gravity.  But it actually does sound like you are just making this up, so at this point I have to ask for credible current sources that support this, and what experimental proof they rely on to reach this theory.  Because everything I have read about this theory (or maybe just similar theories, since you assert some uniqueness) points to it being disproved a long time ago.

Per Occam's Razor, if we see two massive objects in space attracted to each other, the logical cause of this is actual attraction, and not replusion, counteracted somehow by a mysterious, unexplained, "universal pressure", which is somehow present in exactly the correct vectors to make it look like gravity is pulling, and not repulsing.  So I cannot accept this theory merely on your word.

[gravityblock]

Regarding the water experiment, let me rephrase.  The water is in a condition of weighlessness, as it is in freefall, which I cannot see how is distinguishable from zero gravity for the purposes of this experiment (actually there is no such thing as zero gravity, as gravity goes on forever in a diminishing fashion).   In free fall, just like in outer space, electromagnetic force would be the strongest force acting on the water molecules, as there no weight from gravity, so the water composes itself into a ball.  With gravity, it is forced to flatten out.

Anyway, I see where this is going.  You are coming up with an alternate view of the universe with forces that you try to make consistent with what you see.    You posit that gravity repels, and you make up a "universal pressure" that counteracts gravity.  But it actually does sound like you are just making this up, so at this point I have to ask for credible current sources that support this, and what experimental proof they rely on to reach this theory.  Because everything I have read about this theory (or maybe just similar theories, since you assert some uniqueness) points to it being disproved a long time ago.

Per Occam's Razor, if we see two massive objects in space attracted to each other, the logical cause of this is actual attraction, and not replusion, counteracted somehow by a mysterious, unexplained, "universal pressure", which is somehow present in exactly the correct vectors to make it look like gravity is pulling, and not repulsing.  So I cannot accept this theory merely on your word.

The electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules has nothing to do with the water forming into a sphere, even in a weightless environment.  First you say the bonds of the water molecules hold the water together in a weightless environment.  Now you're implying the bonds of the water form it into a sphere.   Like I have said for the forth time, the tablet easily overcomes the electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules.  Pouring water from one container into another container also overcomes this.  This bond which your imputing miraculous powers to is extremely weak, and in no way could both hold the water together and to form it into the shape of a sphere in a weightless environment.  How is the bonds of the water molecules forming it into a sphere?  A universal centripetal pressure can do this, but not the bonds of the water molecules.  Also, the waves which are generated by the introduction of the air bubble is also sufficient to overcome this extremely weak bond of the the water molecules.   I know what this universal pressure is.  I haven't completely explained it to you yet, but I have eluded to it in my posts.  Actually you have eluded to it also, but you didn't make a clear distinction between this centripetal pressure (Light of the entire electromagnetic spectrum from a myriad of suns and stars in the various galaxies) and another thing (electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules).  We need to take baby steps, because you're still drinking milk as babes do, when you should be eating meat by now.

Gravock

[hoptoad]

snip...
We need to take baby steps, because you're still drinking milk as babes do, when you should be eating meat by now.
Gravock

The way you present completely unsubstantiated theories, whilst hopping from one diversionery subject to another and trying to associate them via segways, I think you must be drinking something a little stronger than milk.

[eatenbyagrue]

The electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules has nothing to do with the water forming into a sphere, even in a weightless environment.  First you say the bonds of the water molecules hold the water together in a weightless environment.  Now you're implying the bonds of the water form it into a sphere.   Like I have said for the forth time, the tablet easily overcomes the electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules.  Pouring water from one container into another container also overcomes this.  This bond which your imputing miraculous powers to is extremely weak, and in no way could both hold the water together and to form it into the shape of a sphere in a weightless environment.  How is the bonds of the water molecules forming it into a sphere?  A universal centripetal pressure can do this, but not the bonds of the water molecules.  Also, the waves which are generated by the introduction of the air bubble is also sufficient to overcome this extremely weak bond of the the water molecules.   I know what this universal pressure is.  I haven't completely explained it to you yet, but I have eluded to it in my posts.  Actually you have eluded to it also, but you didn't make a clear distinction between this centripetal pressure (Light of the entire electromagnetic spectrum from a myriad of suns and stars in the various galaxies) and another thing (electromagnetic attraction of the water molecules).  We need to take baby steps, because you're still drinking milk as babes do, when you should be eating meat by now.

Gravock

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.