Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

I am not sure what your point is here.

Science doesn't have "belief". Theories are hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and reviewed by independent groups of scientists. They are based on physical evidence. They have demonstrated that they are the most accurate explanation of how something works. Theories are the most trusted concepts that science can produce - decidedly not like the use of the term outside of scientific method.

That's not how belief works.

Science has NO way of producing a "fact" through math or logic - that word isn't used in that way. In science, a fact is a specific observation that has been carefully documented. It might be temperature recording taken by a specific device at a specific time and location. In science, if logic or math is involved then the result isn't a fact. For example, an average temperature is not a fact.

 

Science has lots of beliefs...belief in Dark matter, dark energy, the God particle.... here's another view.....
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

 

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

 

Dark matter comes from physical observation. It is measured. In fact, it is called dark matter because there is no verified scientific theory for it. Obviously, it is not a "belief". It is closer to being a recognition of a problem with current theory. In that sense, perhaps it is more of an "anti-belief".

Dark energy is the same sort of thing. Measured, but with no explanation within scientific method. So, again, clearly NOT a belief.

The "god particle" is a non-scientific name for something that has now been verified through experiment and review. But, science is continuing to test this. Science does not stop doubting and testing simply because of a positive outcome - even when verified by hundreds of physicists using the largest and most complex machine ever built by humans.. Again, there isn't anything like "belief" about it.

The use of the word "theory"in your gravity article is the conventional usage - an idea. It has not gone through any of the rigors of scientific method. And, very obviouslyit does not qualify as a belief. It does give ideas on where science may look to find out a little more about how our universe works.

Science can not just run random experiments, obviously, so ideas like your cite are important to focus exploration. But, none of those ideas will become part of any scientific theory until verified through the rigors of scientific method.

Unfortunately, even scientists use the various definitions of the word "theory". But, belief is something very different - not part of science.

 

It's always a theory until it becomes a fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ter-existence-space-astronomers-us-experiment
However, many scientists believe time is running out for the hunt, which has lasted 30 years, cost millions of pounds and produced no positive results. The LZ project – which is halfway through construction – should be science’s last throw of the dice, they say. “This generation of detectors should be the last,” said astronomer Stacy McGaugh at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “If we don’t find anything we should accept we are stuck and need to find a different explanation, perhaps by modifying our theories of gravity, to explain the phenomena we attribute to dark matter.”

Theories are a belief, not a fact.

 

"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory" - keep in mind how stupid, when it comes to science their religious heroes were - Jesus believed in Adam/Eve, so that loon felt the earth was about 4000 years old at the time (the geneologies in the Bible add up to about 4000 years from Adam to Jesus.) Obviously Jesus he was a loon.
Mohammad also said the "sun sets in muddy pond", and that he "split the moon", so religions are a cancer on the scientific mind, obviously.

 

that is a lie.

the Bible never states the age of the Universe.

 

The Serbian inventor Nicola Tesla prayed before an experiment, during an experiment and after an experiment so that it would function as it should. His father was an Orthodox priest, as were many in his family, and there is nothing in his concepts that didn't fall within Orthodox theology. ..which by the way is Christian theology, minus its simplistic Western interpretations.

Tesla wanted to produce free energy so wars would stop, and he was hindered in his attempt. Money concerned him only as far as it was necessary for him to continue his experiments. Here are a few things we wouldn't have today if it wasn't for Nicola Tesla:

1- Alternating Current
2-Light -Tesla Coil
3-X-Rays
4-Radio
5-Remote Control
6-Electric Motor
7-Robotics
8-Laser
9-Wireless Communication
10-Limitless Free Energy​

Here are some of his quotes:
....



.......

 

From Adam/Eve to Jesus is 4000 years (when the geneologies are added up! Moses et al were delusional - they just made it all up. Oops, sorry Jesus, you've been exposed as a liar, fraud, and consummate con-man.

 

that is a lie.

the Bible never states how many actual years there are between Adam and Eve

nevermind it does not state how many years there were between the 7 days of creation.

 

He seemed too smart to actually believe in a non-existent, immoral*, invisible man in the sky.


*God/Jesus is immoral: many Bible verses say that Jesus is god, and god in the Bible had virtually all humans (including innocent babies!) AND virtually all animals (including innocent baby bunnies, etc.) killed in his barbaric "flood" - according to the immoral Buybull. Hitler's Holocaust likely killed FEWER people than the Christian Holocaust did. I was too embarrassed to remain in that cult.

 

NO.

Science has no way of creating a fact. In science, a fact is a carefully recorded observation - such as a recorded temperature taken by a specific method and equipment at a specific place and time.

Theory is the strongest understanding that scientific method can possibly create.

And, your use of "belief" came from the press, not from science. The press used the word "believe" as a synonym for "think", "strongly suspect", "are confident that", etc. That is NOT THE SAME as what theologians talk about when they discuss belief in god.

No scientist would make a statement so strong as to suggest that there could be no possibility of reconsidering if further information became available.

Statements on earth's temperature and its causes come with error bars showing degrees of confidence that can be presented as percentages. In order to include science in our public policy decision making we need to learn to accept results where there is high confidence. As Newt Gingrich stated, we make public policy decisions when the likelihood times the cost goes high.

Pretty much all of our public policy decisions are made that way. Economic policy, environmental policy, defense policy, etc., etc. - none of these involve some sort of absolute.

 

So a "year" in the Bible could be something other than a "year" as we know it today, right?
In other words, Noah being 950 years old might actually be they meant he was, say 10,000 years old (if a "year" in the Bible means different than a "year" in the real world.)

 

hilarious how you have derailed this thread

 

Can you agree with me that since this makes Christians/Jews look so incredibly foolish that if YOU were all-powerful like the "god" is, that YOU would have simply told Moses "tell them the world is 4.5 billion years old"? Can we agree you'd do that, Ronstar? I would of course, because it would have helped Christians/Jews and helped the world. How about you? You've NEVER been able to answer these "if you had god's super-powers" type of questions, so maybe you can rise to the level of Modern Secular Humanists and actually answer the question, for once.

 

Can't refute my logic, I see. Not surprising, as if a person believes in a book that believes that unicorns and dragons (ok, NT) are real, then it's going to be real real tough to take on a Modern Secular Humanist in a logical way.
Have a great evening.

 

In the simplistic POV of theists there is no gravity, the world just sucks because people are "sinners".

 

no, your obsession with attacking people is sad

 

I'm not the one who tried to defend Moses et al for being so stupid that they didn't know the age of the earth, despite knowing how the universe and earth began in the first place.

 

I never "defended" Moses.

 

Don't forget that in the verse right before the Golden Rule that Jesus said (depending on the translation) we are all "evil" or "wicked". So we are "sinners", and "evil" or "wicked" according to the slave-approving zombie from Nazareth.

 

Then here and now say that Moses was a fool for telling us how the universe, and earth, began, but not telling us reasonably how old all that is.

 

you don't get to demand anything from me

 

Tell that to the Jews. They claim that the world came into existence 5,777 years ago and they base their calendar on it.