Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Had you read any of the great physicists that have written on the subject, you would know that it is the gravitational field)s) of the entire universe, regardless of what you choose to use as the origin.
Ignorant b__tard.
This particular article at the top of the thread was written by a Creationist, as such I would expect its factual content to be negligible.
Do you disagree that the bone was demineralized? How could you when the scientist herself says that was her methodology?
I see you are falling back on the “anyone understands science more than I is a liberal” line.
C’mon tc — we’ve danced that dance before.
But thanks for the laughs — they keep getting better.
Again, your slip was showing long beofre I was here.
I was hoping that you had some level of understanding, but apparently you have never even had a class in basic physics.
Ummmm ‘dumb....errrrr zeroite? You wouldn’t understand science if it fell out of the sky on your head.
Journalists do not write press releases.
Obviously you are in a low level gopher job, where you have no need to handle publicity.
Whether Gravity Probe B actually found frame-dragging is unlikely and has supposedly only recently been 'found' with a statistical uncertainty of 15% that does not include all systematic effects. That is far short of proving me wrong. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of understanding that.
I was simply showing you that (even giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that frame-dragging was found) geocentrism is completely consistent w/ GR according to Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.
Clearly you want to turn the issue into a debate over whether Gravity Probe B found frame-dragging because you think that has some impact on the geocentric argument. It doesn't but you lack the critical-thinking skills to recognize that. IOW, geocentrism cannot lose wrt frame-dragging. Only GR can be falsified. Or not if you read some of the responses on the links.
At any rate, if frame-dragging exists, geocentrism is still consistent w/ GR. If it doesn't exist, there is still no evidence for the assumed motion of the earth and GR is falsified. Understand now or are you still lost?
"Geocentrists are one level above the Flat Earth Society and just below Scientology."
It looks like you are the one who is one level above the Flat Earth Society and just below Scientology.
"The ridiculousness of your claims make some anti-evolutionist folks even doubt your existence; they claim pro-Darwin folks made you up to make them look bad! See post 54."
Let's see. You have gone from 1) saying the model was not at either link, to 2) finding the model, to 3) incorrectly claiming the Ernst Mach's geometric proof of the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism was wrong, to 4) incorrectly claiming that GR invalidates geocentrism, to 5) incorrectly claiming that 'frame-dragging' invalidates geocentrism, to 6) unsupported assertions, to 7) the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. Only one thing is certain, though often wrong you are never in doubt.
The sad thing is that the evolutionists aren't ashamed of you at all.
>>You wouldnt understand science if it fell out of the sky on your head.
Ah, following your partner’s lead. Didn’t work for him, why should it for you?
But thanks for playing. We have some lovely “soft tissue” fossils as parting gifts and the Home Edition of “Ad Hominem Replaces Argumentation” game for family fun.
It has everything to do with understanding that God is not on our scale of being and does not see things in the small and limited way that we see them.
Especially the small limited and ridiculous way that you see them.
And yet, He “has no place in science class”? Who made that up anyway?
Oh wait...insecure people with God, that’s who. When he was welcomed, science flourished, when he’s not, well the algoreacle sets the agenda.
Brilliant!
Congratulations!
Is your picture next to inconsistent and incoherent in the dictionary?
The pubmed article I linked you to was her unvarnished unadulterated (although edited and peer reviewed) scientific statements.
Do you disagree that the bone was demineralized?
Why is it we find actual bones of modern species, but only mineralized fossils of dinosaurs?
Dumb, just about everyone here understands better than you, because you are fake.
No reason to bring your parentage into the conversation.
You’ve got the wrong article, and the wrong event. no wonder you are out in left field.
>>Dumb, just about everyone here understands better than you, because you are fake.
tut tut. There there poor boy. Don’t let the man with the big words and knowledge you don’t have scare you. The knowledge is available for everyone, even you.
Can’t agree on scale, but a fairly good schematic.
But that is irrelevant to the subject that blew you away.
You’ve never done any positional calcs, it really shows.
I have shown you where, in her own words, in a peer reviewed scientific publication she describes them as “demineralized”.
Are you ready to concede the point that this fossil was demineralized, or do you just want to dance around the subject?
You also have not answered by REPEATED question...
Why do we find bone of modern species, but only mineralized fossils of dinosaurs; if they all lived contemporaneously?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.