gravity

[BlameTheEx]

Uncle.

For you anything.

Ok, its simple.

I refuted Freethinker's claim of 09/27/2004 05:52 PM. I think he said the same thing, rather more clearly in his post of 10/07/2004 12:31 PM here:
__________________________________________________ ________
1) we can see galaxies that appear to be over +10 billion light years away

2) to the best of our knowledge therefore what we now see from these galaxies happened +10 billion years ago

3) If gravity was different at that point in time, what we observe would require different understandings of gravity's parameters in order to correlate what is going on.

4) what we observe in these galaxies is consistant with what we have established for gravity and speed of light as well as other "physical constants".

which supports what I have been saying all along
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Gravity may well be a constant, but the observations from the most distant observed galaxies can't be used to justify the idea. They are too different and the differences too unexpected to justify anything much. To use them in justification, you would have to show that the differences are what we would expect if gravity was constant, or at a minimum that the differences were not caused by a change in gravity.

For evidence I give:

"The final ACS image, assembled by Anton Koekemoer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, is studded with a wide range of galaxies of various sizes, shapes, and colors. In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge."

The link, which I have already posted, is here:

Ihttp://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new.../2004/07/text/

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
I refuted Freethinker's claim of 09/27/2004 05:52 PM.

First, you were specifically told to stick to restating your claims. NOT to attacking me again. You have yet to REFUTE anything. And here we see that you are back to the same thing again.

I think he said the same thing, rather more clearly in his post of 10/07/2004 12:31 PM here:

Yes I tried to make it as clear and simple as I could so no one would have trouble understanding it.
(clipped a restating of my position)

which supports what I have been saying all along

No it doesn't and we will explore why.

Gravity may well be a constant,

Which conflicts with your original assertion. Glad you have changed your tune and now agree with what I originally stated.

but the observations from the most distant observed galaxies can't be used to justify the idea.

And here we are back to square one. So I need to ask the same question again.

What about the old/ distant galaxies indicates ANY change in Gravity?

Here we go again. You acknowledge that there is nothing to suggest that gravity is NOT a constant. Then you start to suggest otherwise.

They are too different and the differences too unexpected to justify anything much.

Again, this is NOT proof. This is a statement of personal opinion on your part and that is all.

To use them in justification, you would have to show that the differences are what we would expect if gravity was constant, or at a minimum that the differences were not caused by a change in gravity.

Until we have ANY reason to question the universal (as in Universe) constant of Gravity, ah, well, we have no reason to question Gravity. We DO NOT have to show that gravity has not changed in order to assume that gravity has not changed if nothing we see suggests that there has been "a change in gravity"

For evidence I give:

"The final ACS image, assembled by Anton Koekemoer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, is studded with a wide range of galaxies of various sizes, shapes, and colors. In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge."

The word gravity does not even appear in your suppose PROOF. Yet you pretend this is some kind of proof to support "a change in gravity"! If this PROOF addresses Gravity, why did they completely fail to even MENTION it?

In fact they give specific OTHER reasons for the differences

"These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge."

So let's see if we can bring this to a specifically defined end.

1) Do you agree that there is nothing to support a claim that gravity is not a constant over time?

2) if not, what PROOF do you have? (That actually talks about Gravity specifically and is not just your personal opinion)

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

Why should I respond? Right now it is you that has made the assertion, and I have no interest in letting you wriggle off the hook by shifting the burden of proof. Certainly not after your appalling behaviour. Whether I can, or wish, to defend the position of gravity having changed would be a topic for another time.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Freethinker

Why should I respond?

Blame, Unc tried to bring this thread back in line. He requested that you simply repost your claims. Instead you chose to start by attacking me. Followed by the same claims you have made all along and failed to provide any support for all along.

Then when I once more ask for the same proofs I have been asking for, for the same claims you keep making and not proving, all we get is:

Why should I respond?

Perhaps it is because the FAQ at this site says so?

The bigger question obviously is why don't you ever respond with facts as requested no matter how many people ask you no matter how many times they ask you? Why don't you live up to the FAQ this site is based on?

IF you can't provide even the first bit of support for your claims, why bother to keep posting them?

[Uncle Martin]

Well, at least we can say we tried. This is going nowhere fast,... so I'm closing this thread.