Probality of God

[Gwandau]

Guys, no matter what errors gravock may have in his arguments, right has to be right.

Even if I have been quite engaged in criticising some of gravocks theories, since he has a tendency to present them as facts and not theories, when it comes to the discussion about gravity versus field pressure I feel obliged to stress that there is unfortunately actually no known way to tell which is the correct theory.

Field pressure theory actually describes the exact inverted dynamics of gravity, thus it creates the exact same results as gravity, for example making the Earth Tide exist as a direct resultant of Field Pressure. Just change the direction of the accelerative gravitational vectors and you've got Field Pressure as the active dynamics behind the gravitational phenomenon. There is really nothing erroneous about that.


The only reason science today favour gravity as a pulling force is our scientific tradition to regard the simplest and most obvious alternative as the correct one until proven wrong.


The idea of a Field Pressure resulting from  the Big Bang is still too far fetched for main stream science, but we have to keep in mind that it is very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable. And gravity along with electromagnetism and the propagation of light are still far from understood phenomenons.


So gravock, you may be subject to the paradigm psychosis presently spreading over the Internet by absorbing a bit too much of the conspiracy tell tales and dooms day predictions, but in this specific case your inverted gravity idea is just as valid as the accepted one, even if a bit far fetched for the ordinary mind.


Gwandau

[eatenbyagrue]

Guys, no matter what errors gravock may have in his arguments, right has to be right.

Even if I have been quite engaged in criticising some of gravocks theories, since he has a tendency to present them as facts and not theories, when it comes to the discussion about gravity versus field pressure I feel obliged to stress that there is unfortunately actually no known way to tell which is the correct theory.

Field pressure theory actually describes the exact inverted dynamics of gravity, thus it creates the exact same results as gravity, for example making the Earth Tide exist as a direct resultant of Field Pressure. Just change the direction of the accelerative gravitational vectors and you've got Field Pressure as the active dynamics behind the gravitational phenomenon. There is really nothing erroneous about that.

There is some truth to what you say.  In the end, as Krauss said, in science, knowing the answer means nothing.  Testing your knowledge means everything.  Science is empirical, after all.

[gravityblock]

Guys, no matter what errors gravock may have in his arguments, right has to be right.

Even if I have been quite engaged in criticising some of gravocks theories, since he has a tendency to present them as facts and not theories, when it comes to the discussion about gravity versus field pressure I feel obliged to stress that there is unfortunately actually no known way to tell which is the correct theory.

Field pressure theory actually describes the exact inverted dynamics of gravity, thus it creates the exact same results as gravity, for example making the Earth Tide exist as a direct resultant of Field Pressure. Just change the direction of the accelerative gravitational vectors and you've got Field Pressure as the active dynamics behind the gravitational phenomenon. There is really nothing erroneous about that.


The only reason science today favour gravity as a pulling force is our scientific tradition to regard the simplest and most obvious alternative as the correct one until proven wrong.


The idea of a Field Pressure resulting from  the Big Bang is still too far fetched for main stream science, but we have to keep in mind that it is very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable. And gravity along with electromagnetism and the propagation of light are still far from understood phenomenons.


So gravock, you may be subject to the paradigm psychosis presently spreading over the Internet by absorbing a bit too much of the conspiracy tell tales and dooms day predictions, but in this specific case your inverted gravity idea is just as valid as the accepted one, even if a bit far fetched for the ordinary mind.


Gwandau

Well said and Thanks!

@All,

I believe it's possible to differentiate between the true reality of things from the inverse of true reality.  There is no scientific evidence in and of itself which can prove one from the other.  However, we can apply common sense, logical reasoning, deductive reasoning, process of elimination, eliminating contradictions, asking the right questions, etc, to the scientific evidence allowing us to differentiate between the true and inverse of true reality.  The true reality of things have God in the equation.  The inverse of true reality takes God out of the equation.  It doesn't matter if this was done intentionally or not, and by who, because it is what it is. If you're serious and honest with yourself, then you'll stop saying that's not scientific evidence before you apply common sense to both the possibilities of the inverse and non-inverse.  Below is a good example. 

How can moving light from the sun reflect off the curved surface of the moon at all kinds of improper angles back into our eyes where we can see the entire circumference of the moon?  This isn't possible, because there is only one proper angle which light reflects off a curved surface (scientific evidence tells us this), such as the moon, thus the moon would only appear to us as a small dot.  Our natural assumption is that light itself is moving.  We all know, automatically assuming something is a bad idea.  If we must assume something, then we should assume all possibilities and apply common sense to them all, before coming to a final conclusion.  If we're obtaining the wrong results, then maybe it's because our assumption of light moving is wrong.  Now, If we assume light is stationary, and we're moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration (scientific evidence supports this), then it is possible for us to see the entire circumference of the moon, which is in-line with what we see and observe.  Now, we can take this true reality of things and apply it to other scientific evidence and observations, and so on.  By doing this everything will fall into place.  This isn't an easy road, because some of this stuff is truly mind boggling and will push the mind to it's very limits and beyond.  We can correctly replace gravity with the force of "Light".  Then we can unite "Light" with the other so-called fundamental forces of nature.  Then we can unite "Light" with an oscillating charge superimposed on an infinite point (God).

I don't have the time, the energy, the patience, etc. to prove anything of this to you.  Only you can do this.  I truly hope you find your piece of evidence which proves the existence of God to yourself.  Please don't bash this post.  I won't take the time or the energy to defend it like I have previously done in my other posts.  If what I say resonates with someone, then I have been successful.  If we can't agree, then can we at least agree to disagree?   

Gravock

[WilbyInebriated]

Field pressure theory actually describes the exact inverted dynamics of gravity, thus it creates the exact same results as gravity, for example making the Earth Tide exist as a direct resultant of Field Pressure. Just change the direction of the accelerative gravitational vectors and you've got Field Pressure as the active dynamics behind the gravitational phenomenon. There is really nothing erroneous about that.

yeah... but the problem with the field pressure idea is obvious when the positions of the gravitational bodies (moon and sun) are taken into consideration. having a bulge where according to the field pressure hypothesis there shouldn't be one due to 'radiation pressure of light from the sun and moon' is slightly problematic... and erroneous

[gravityblock]

yeah... but the problem with the field pressure idea is obvious when the positions of the gravitational bodies (moon and sun) are taken into consideration. having a bulge where according to the field pressure hypothesis there shouldn't be one due to 'radiation pressure of light from the sun and moon' is slightly problematic... and erroneous

It's not problematic when you consider there is radiation pressure from the sun reflecting off the moon to the earth (which has to do with the positions of the moon, earth, and sun), radiation pressure directly from the sun (the different angles of the sun relative to the earth also plays a factor), and the centripetal radiation pressure within the universe, which the positions of the moon and sun has an influence on.

Gravock