Cassiterides #fundie

Critical Science Failure

Anyone else think Super Sport had a kid?

Cassiterides #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

247 comments

old comment by David B.

"An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity"."

No it doesn't. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance from the centre of mass, hence gravity gets less the higher you go. Acceleration doesn't, the top of a mountain accelerates at the same rate as the bottom, otherwise it would very soon not be a mountain any more.

So if we could perhaps measure gravity at different altitudes, we could distinguish empirically between an attractive force caused by mass and an inertial one caused by acceleration.

This has been done, guess what the result was.

old comment by Blue_J

Eh, I kind of see what he's trying to say, and he's sort of right - though he's screwing up the semantics.

"Things fall" is a fact. We define gravity as "the force which makes things fall," so in that sense, "gravity" is a fact. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation (F=G*m1*m2/r^2) and General Relativity are both theories to explain the mechanics of gravity. (And very useful ones, I might add.)

If the earth were flat and accelerating upwards, that would cause things to "fall," but that hypothesis has been disproved, and I wouldn't say it really rises to the level of "theory."

It seems like he's actually close to getting the relationship between "Theory" and "Fact" correct, but he's stuck in that creationist mindset where the word "Theory" is somehow a weakness - and if I remember correctly this is the same chucklehead who thinks the sun is 30km wide and the earth is the center of the universe, so it doesn't seem like he's going to get it right any time soon. Still, this statement by itself isn't *that* bad.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact."

Yes, gravity is a theory--one currently being tweaked. It is also a "proven fact." If you don't believe me, jump off the nearest cliff as an experiment.

"
The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity"."

Ok. So, what happens in Australia then? Unless you're proposing a flat Earth, which for your sake I hope you aren't.

"See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories."

What you have is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. I wouldn't even call it conjecture. It's ad hoc bullshit that doesn't align with observed reality, doesn't explain experimental data, makes no predictions and is easily proven to be fucking wrong. Now, please go learn what an actual theory does and why they are held in the high regard they are.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

'...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!'

-Eric Idle, "Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life"

'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'

-Albert Einstein

"Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact."

'Gravity is a myth, the Earth sucks'

-Unknown, graffiti on toilet wall

@Paler_Face

"Even if we consider a YEC perspective of a 6000 year old earth, if the earth was accelerating at 9.8m/sec^2 the earth would be traveling at about 6200 times the speed of light.
We would have left our solar system, galaxy and possibly, universe behind a long time ago if that was the case."

Methinks he's been watching a certain 1970s Gerry Anderson series too many times.

PROTIP: "Space: 1999" is not a documentary, Cassiterides.

old comment by Angua

I'd argue that just because there are multiple theories for how something works, that doesn't mean that all theories are equal. I'd argue that the labels of "theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive. I'd argue that calling something a "proven fact" is somewhat stupid, not to mention redundant.

But he's arguing against gravity. He's using the sort of "arguments" that a Flat Earther would use. I don't think it is possible to argue with these people. I am at a complete loss.

Go! Back! To! The! Eye! Beams!

I miss the eye beams. This makes the eye beams look incredibly sane and well thought-out. At the time I thought the idea of anyone believing in eye beams in the twenty-first century was painful. I never thought I'd miss the eye beams . . . but this hurts my brain even worse.

old comment by tranz2deep

That the earth is a round object getting light on it has been proven by study of shadows.

Hell, Eratosthenes managed to deduce the rough radius of the planet doing so to establish the Stadia, the straightline radii that intersect at the center of the center of the Earth, solely from the length of shadows at the same time at two locations in Egpyt. *THIS* circa 240 BC!

You, you walking insult to the notion of a student of nature, do not even know the meaning of the word, so here goes--

*Fact* - noun, something that has been tested and proven. A truth. An item that has no deception or supposition.

Gravity has been proven, has been tested, has been observed and deduced. The world being round has been likewise proven.

Your nonesensical article, Cass, has been posted, AGAIN, on fstdt dot net. Deservedly.

By the way, your continual effort to cast doubt and say things aren't proven? It didn't work for RJ Reynolds, so just leave it be, already!

old comment by Bleck

This whole website is a troll right?
You fucking religious retards are some of the dumbest humans ever to sprout up in society. Go back to your family incest and small communities, and forget how to use the internet you dumb hill billy assholes.

You have the intelligence of a person from over 1000 years ago. You people are not correctly educated, and you're stupid dip shit catholic and religious schools are just spreading the dim witted intelligence you call smart. You people are corrupted, outdated, and waaaay behind current social expectations. You need to learn how the world really works, there is no such thing as a real god, god didn't create you, you created god, you just use him as an excuse to do the things you do, think for yourselves for once, learn on your own, you don't need an imaginary friend called god to guide you, you use your own brain.

old comment by

Does anyone have posting privlidges over there? I'd love for this to get posted:
facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. A scientific theory is often a set of statements that collectively describe how one facet of the universe works. Unlike common theories, scientific theories must be:
1.consistent with all existing scientific laws and constants;
2.consistent with, and supported by, all reproducible scientific observations and experimental results; and
3.self consistent - that is, it does not contradict itself in any way
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

old comment by

There were though a set of books put out in the mid 20th century which challenged the mainstream view of gravity. One was 'Gravity is a Push' by Walter C Wright.

This would be the Walter C. Wright who believed that stars were made of metals that caused them to generate magnetic fields that repelled everything else in the universe, and that Earth flips on its axis every few thousand years.

Okay. Well, it's certainly an...alternative theory.

Edit: Hey, I found his letter to the California Department of Education:

On June 19th, 1987, California's Department of Education sent a representative to evaluate my Push Gravity theory that I used to support my many Push Gravity models. The representative's report dated June 29th, 1987, which was very NEGATIVE, was sent to the news media.

I thought that was odd because nobody, including Newton, has ever built a Pull Gravity model that operates under its own MUTUAL ATTRACTING ENERGIES that DEMONSTRATES a 'recorded space finding.'

That is why on February 20th, 1990, I finally challenged California's Department of Education to the following demonstration. My Push Gravity Tide model #34-A that operates under its own MUTUAL REPELLING ENERGIES and depicts earth's 14 tides versus California's Department of Education's PULL Gravity Tide Model that operates under its own MUTUAL ATTRACTING ENERGIES and depicts these same tides. I am well aware WHY they FAILED to accept this VALID CHALLENGE REQUESTED BY SOME OF THEIR OWN CONFUSED AND CONCERNED PHYSICS/SCIENCE STUDENTS because for 300 years the so-called EXPERTS admit that they can't EXPLAIN that OTHER HIGH TIDE on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF EARTH AWAY FROM THE MOON.

I am CHALLENGING you again to a TIDE-MODEL DEMONSTRATION plus Saturn's co-orbital satellites.

W.C. Wright - Author, 'Gravity is a Push'
732 Ohio Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
(707) 429-0598

Well, the RANDOM all-CAPS certainly convinced me.

old comment by Saccharissa

>>Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.<<
Is it wrong that I find this a refreshing change from "Gravity is a LAW, but Evolution is only a THEORY"?

>>The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity"<<
Um, no. As others have mentioned, there are differences in the effects of gravitational force due to the mass of an object, and gravitational force due to acceleration.
The biggest difference being that the first pulls everything toward a point (the object's center of mass) and the second pulls everything uniformly in one direction. Therefore, there are experiments one can do to check which of these is happening. E.g.: drop two objects from a great height and track their paths. Do they get closer together as they fall?

old comment by

Also, if you believe that the Earth is round, how does your "theory" explain the people in the southern hemisphere?
And if you believe the world is flat, where do pictures like these come from? A hoax?

As per our recent visitors, to be sure, Cassiterides isn't actually claiming that he s/he believes the world is flat--Cassiterides is only reiterating that s/he doesn't trust or understand scientific experiments, including the ones that were used to show that the planet is a sphere, and doesn't understand what a "theory" is; as a result, Cassiterides seems to believe that every theory deserves the exact same consideration as every other theory, even when the evidence does not support them or flatly contradicts them, or they've been proven wrong by later experiments. And because other theories exist, none of them should be taught or discussed as fact, even when one is clearly correct and one is clearly not.

At least that's what I'm getting out of it.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Truthseeker

"That's the joke about this place. It's just filled with cocky pseudo-intellectual evolutionists who think they know the answers to everything."

As opposed to... forums/blogs/boards filled with creationists, who think a book written by Bronze Age goatfuckers who had ideas above their stations, is fact? That's really funny. And not in a 'funny-ha-ha' way, neither.

With all the evidence (especially Darwinius massilae & Ardipithecus - the Missing Links - discovered last year), the Theory of Evolution is looking more & more like the Facts of Evolution. Sputnik 1 sent up in 1957 (to say nothing of Yuri Gagarin sent up in 1961; as well as messrs. Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins in 1969 - 'One Small Step For Man' and all that jazz) destroyed the Bible cosmologically (a 'flat' Earth with four corners on pillars, with a solid 'dome' - the 'Firmament' - above such).

All that's left now is the Large Hadron Collider to confirm the mathematical model by cosmologists & theoretical physicists such as Prof. Stephen Hawking. Then Genesis in the Bible will be utterly annihilated, as the Big Bang is proven as fact.

Not many gaps left eh, 'Truth'seeker?

But then the Bible's 'truth' = Lies.

And you & your fundie ilk have been lied to all along.

We have the evidence. We win. All you have is a book. And... that's it. Religion no longer controls people - certainly governments, as it did in pre-Renaissance medieval times. After all, one of the earliest gaps was filled when the first church put up a lightning conductor.

Scientific advancement, thus Secularism via Humanism & Atheism has already won the war. Facts destroy 'faith'.

That's the real joke - how you & your fundie ilk have been fed all this pointless, superstitious lies, and you've been suckered into it.

'A sucker is born every minute'

-PT Barnum

The last laugh will be from we Atheists.

"He said the same thing for the origin of vision and light."

Yeah, about that...:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=77098&Page=1

Apologetics for a pseudo-Flat Earther Poe/Troll, much, Liesseeker? What next? Gonna stick up for Supersport (a.k.a. StuporSport) and defend his fundie bullshit?! While you're about it, how about doing a search in FSTDT for Andy Schlafly (a.k.a. Andy Schaftafly)? His 'theories' have got to be worth your defence of such! To say nothing of his 'Conservative Bible Project'.

"misrepresenting"

'Misrepresenting'. 'Misreading'. 'Misunderstanding'. 'Taking out of context'. The standard membrane-thin (and equally transparent) excuses used by fundies who are intellectually cornered and/or caught saying what they shouldn't (by those not like the 'already converted being preached to').

@David B

"Hence Michael Behe had to redefine science until it included astrology just so he could shoehorn ID in."

And see how well it did for him in Kitzmiller vs. Dover? Oh, there's something else for you to chew on, Liesseeker: Kitzmiller vs. Dover. The precedent has been set. 'I.D.'/Creationism is lies. Evolution is fact.

The law says so. KvD was found & decided in favour of the plaintiffs by Judge John E. Jones III. A Conservative Christian. Personally appointed by George Dumbya Bush: a Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism. In turn, voted in - twice - by the Religious Right. The likes of you, Liesseeker.

Your own beliefs (via your own educational agenda in the US; KvD ensured the teaching of Creationism as 'fact' in all US schools/colleges etc is now illegal and unconstitutional) annihilated by you fundies yourselves - and we Atheists didn't have to lift a finger. The irony is exquisitely sweet, is it not?!

[/smug & superior]

@gaijinlaw

(emphasis added):

"As it happens, Eyebeam-Boy lists his location as being the UK."

Oh, bollocks...! >_<

old comment by David B.

Gravity is a fact, not a theory, just like evolution. There are also theories of gravity and evolution that purport to explain these phenomena.

Cassitrerides' example is flawed because the 'theory' he advances is contradicted by empirical evidence, while the Newtonian model of an attractive force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them is not.

So not only has Cassiterides incorrectly confused fact and theory, he has attempted to demonstrate his erroneous stance with an inaccurate example.

Double fail.

It is a testament to how weak and illogical their arguments are that proponent of creationism and ID will spout fallacy after fallacy and make error after error rather than acknowledge that "evolution is just a theory" isn't any kind of argument and try to come up with a better one. Hence Michael Behe had to redefine science until it included astrology just so he could shoehorn ID in.

old comment by Tempus

(Originally I posted this here. One copypasta deserves another, right?)

Hi, Atheistsfail, Truthseeker. I thought I'd help you by pointing out one of your lies.

''Nowhere did cass state he believed in emission theory. He merely was exploring different theories on the origin of vision and light.''link

Really? Here, let me snip the relevant passage and bold it for you. You know, so you guys can seek the truth while you white-knight for Cassiterides.

I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite.

I dunno about you guys, but it sure looks like he said he believes in Emission Theory to me. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3786&Here's the link back to the original post, even. Also, he went on to say this:

The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.

Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried to me too. I know, I'm misrepresenting him by directly quoting him. My bad.

For seekers of truth, you seem to have a difficult time finding it or seeing it. It's okay, though, because I know you don't really give a damn for what C. actually said (hypocrites often don't care about facts when they're pointed out to them), and I doubt you'll acknowledge the "error" you made, so I'll just let you get back to spamming up the boards. Have fun, guys!

Edit: Since people who get quoted here often like to claim they've been misquoted, or even (horrors!) go back to edit their posts afterward (you know, for the sake of "clarity") or just delete it outright, I thought I'd help you out by posting a nice screenshot of your original post so that people can actually see the original in all of its glory. Not that I'd actually accuse YOU of doing that or anything. You know, because of your devotion to truthiness and all.

image

After all, you are the Truthseeker.

Right?

old comment by

I briefly considered, having had a wander around, joining the EFF. Mostly because there was an epic fail in a thread I was itching to point out. But having checked out the forum rules first, and seeing that it's a bannable offence to say "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same ("Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor."), it becomes clear that this is not a place that truly wants discussion and debate. I find in the end that creationists pretty much all are like Truthseeker - the walking misnomer - ultimately falling back on assertion and fallacious arguments. They are incapable of understanding the science or even really the central tenets of science itself because it wont ever give them the answers they want.

old comment by

....cont'

So it's pointless to explain why a theory trumps any other hypotheses that might be postulated. It's pointless to explain why it's ok that theories evolve over time. It's pointless to explain why, for instance, the depth of topsoil isn't an argument for a young earth. It's pointless to explain that there has been observed evolution in E. coli, or drosophila. It's pointless to explain that a Christian, Newton, proved the emission theory wrong as well as finding time to develop the theory of gravity. These people can't and wont understand any of these things if they make their worldview wobble.

And we should note that Cassiterides claims he is from the UK. Brits should acknowledge that although there are not as many vocal creationists here, they do exist, and such groups have become stronger and have a few voices in Parliament. Check out Noah's Ark Zoo. It won an award for education. *Poltergeist kid voice* They're heeeeereee.

old comment by Panz

"An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity". "

Not really, because without gravity, motion was no feel. Take for instance astronauts. They don't feel speed when in space during acceleration.

This also opens another hole in your ideas. Your 'gravity' would only effect people as gravity on the 'top' side of the world, while working opposite to the people on the 'bottom' part of the world.

Also the Earth would have to increase in speed every moment of existence. Remember how you feel gravity accelerating in a car, but once you're at speed you don't feel it any more? Same problem.

Simple physics shuts you down.

As for your "earth can't be proven spherically round", you should try looking at some NASA footage, dolt

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Unbeliever

"@ Truthseeker:

'There is no evidence for evolution.'

Really? A bacteria that lives off nylon - a synthetic material that did not exist before 20th century - is pretty strong evidence."

That, and something else Liesseeker should chew on. Four letters:

MRSA.

Oh, and one more thing, Liesseeker: if every lifeform that exists was created by your so-called 'God', then the Common Cold would've become extinct after the early humans who caught such became immune to the original strain.

Your call, Liesseeker. And don't give us any of that 'Micrevolution =/= Macroevolution' and/or 'The Common Cold Virus changed due to man's sin' bullshit, or any other fundie excuse, neither.

Science can be questioned endlessly, and it's facts will endure. Indeed, constantly questioning things, as part of refining theories and thus more hard, solid facts emerging, therefore increasing human knowledge and reason, is the raison d'etre of science itself.

'Reason is the enemy of faith'

-Martin Luther

The modern world you live in, and take for granted, Liesseeker, is all as a result of scientific development. If you disagree, then throw away that computer of yours. It certainly wasn't the angels who brought it into being, that's for sure! It's CPU, motherboard, graphics & sound cards, HDs & optical drives, RAM, PSU etc. Show me anywhere in/on said computer's components where it says 'Made by God' on them? I work in a computer shop, and in all the time I've been handling such parts in the building, repairing & upgrading of such, I'm buggered if I've ever seen anything other than 'Made in Japan/China/Taiwan/Malaysia/Philippines/Indonesia/Singapore/South Korea/Vietnam' on them.

'What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.'

-Martin Luther

And that's what religion is. The ultimate lie.

Ergo, Liesseeker; i.e. you. QED.

Liesseeker, say hello to StuporSport:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=33954&Page=1

I'm sure you two will get on so well! Creationists of a feather bullshit together, after all.

old comment by moose

"the effects of gravity can be explained by other theories."

Yes, and one he did not mention is the theory of mini magnets. Yes....micro magnets, so small you can't see them under a microscope. They attract other objects by the magnification alone.

Yes yes Cassiterides. I am beginning to understand!!!! It is all so obvious now. And to think that those silly atheist actually think there is evidence supporting evolution. I mean...all the evidence they have with all their science. It means NOTHING. Afterall, one can easily pretend it doesnt exist, and all of a sudden, the wholly babble is without fault. Praise gawd!!!

On a serious note, this gets my vote for the stupidist thing said by a fundie in the last 100 years.

old comment by Moondog

That's the earth's gravitational acceleration, and all things falling toward earth accelerate at that rate. If you threw a baseball, it would accellerate toward the earth like all falling things, but if you threw it hard enough, it would orbit the earth, still falling, with the tremendous forward velocity you put on it. You would also get a major league contract. Things in orbit, like satellites or the Moon (a natural satellite) are contantly falling at that rate, with the forward orbital velocity. The earth is falling toward the sun at 274 m/s^2, with its orbital motion to create an elliptical orbit, but it's contantly falling, and accelerating toward the sun.

old comment by David B.

Iced: "By his logic we'd have hit lightspeed in a year. Cool."

Er, no.

At whatever speed the Earth was moving upwards, lightspeed measured on that surface is still 300 million m/s (approx), so at no point would anyone on Earth find they are unable to continue accelerating upwards without breaking the light barrier.

What appears to happen to an outside observer is that the acceleration will progressively slow the closer the "upwardly plummeting" Earth gets to the speed of light as measured by the observer. This is not a problem for anyone on Earth however as their meters will be getting shorter, and their seconds longer, from the POV of the observer, so to them this "smaller" acceleration will still work out to be 9.8 m/s/s.

The point of special relativity is that whatever speed you are travelling the laws of physics look the same, hence it isn't possible to use those laws to determine your absolute velocity. The Earth is already moving at 90% the speed of light according to an observer in a (very) distant galaxy, can't you tell?

old comment by Anon2

An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

The great irony in this fundie statement:

Nearly 100 years ago, a guy named Albert Einstein had exactly the same idea. He thought: "When I sit in a completely sealed box, can I distinguish whether I am in a gravitational field, or the box is accelerating?". As there is no method to find out whether one is accelerating or subject to a gravitational field, Einstein made the revolutionary jump that Gravitation = Acceleration.

Of course, as gravitation would then not exist in a flat euclidean space, Einstein made the brilliant conclusion that gravitation is caused by curved time-space, where mass itself bends the space around it. After years of extremely hard work, he developed the General Theory of Relativity. And until today, this theory is very well confirmed by countless experimental evidence, from necessary correction terms in GPS, differences in planetary orbits which cannot be explained by classical newtonian mechanics, up to direct observation of "gravitational lenses" caused by presence of enormous galaxies.

And this theory lead to modern cosmology, to the standard model of physics, to the discovery of the big bang, and finally it made a "creator" even more unneccessary.

"Cassiterides" has made a good start ;-). But he lacks completely the einsteinian qualities to grasp even slightly where his statement will lead him, would he think this thought consequently further...

old comment by David B.

@Anon2: "As there is no method to find out whether one is accelerating or subject to a gravitational field"

Uniform gravitational field. If you were either in a box sat on the surface of the Earth or moving through space at 10m/s/s, you would in principle be able to tell the difference by measuring the value of 'g' at the bottom and the top of the box. In an accelerating box they will be the same, in one sat in a planetary gravitational field they will be slightly different.

It's a subtle point, but the practical upshot is that an upwardly accelerating plane has no escape velocity (less than c), while a planet does. So Cassiterides premise is false since at least one effect of gravity cannot be explained by his 'theory'.

old comment by

Blasphemy! Gravity is simply the power of the great FSM pulling down on all of us with his noodly appendage!

But to be serious for a moment, the theory above would not work in concept at all. If the earth was moving upwards like proposed at a constant speed, then so would everything else not a part of the earth itself. This means that even though the earth is moving up at a constant speed, so would we. This means that velocity would be incalculable (according to Einstein's theorem) it it was the relationship between humans and the earth. For the same reason, earth rotates at around 1180 kilometers per hour and yet I can sit quite comfortably in my office chair without having my cereal being ripped from my hands at the speed exceeding cruising velocity of passenger airlines.

“The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".”

Except, no, it does not. The rate you give for gravity is not universal. Exact locations on the Earth have varying values for gravity. The value of gravity measured at, for example, Refit Wharf 1 in Kings Bay, GA, is different from that measured by the same team, same equipment, at Explosive Handling Wharf #2, about half a mile down river. We measure gravity in those spots regularly for teh accuracy of our missile program.

For the acceleration theory to be true, that would mean both spots on the Earth are traveling at different accelerations.

As always, attempts to dismiss mainstream science require ignoring one or more parts of the science and pretending the answer applies anyway.

Cassiterides #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

247 comments

Confused?