Originally posted by JS357
"I don't know how profitable a discussion on conspiracy theories would be, actually, since the origin of the phrase only dates back to the 1960's..."

Putting this thread in the science forum is inappropriate since "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly ...[text shortened]... act-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -- wikipedia

yes, that comes from;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

but it disturbs me and actually surprises me that the actually directly and explicitly specifically says "Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." as the only motive I can think of of them stating that extremely obvious is if many other people other than just FreakyKBH actually idiotically say the contrary to it! -a bad sign I think.

Originally posted by humy
hold something denser than air in your hand and then let it go and see if it falls and keep repeating this experiment many times to observe the proof.

Just the other day, I held a cumulus cloud in my hands.
It was an average-sized one, so it tipped the scales just a scosh over a million pounds.
Last report, water is more dense than air.

Originally posted by JS357
"I don't know how profitable a discussion on conspiracy theories would be, actually, since the origin of the phrase only dates back to the 1960's..."

Putting this thread in the science forum is inappropriate since "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly ...[text shortened]... act-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -- wikipedia

What do the two paragraphs have to do with each other?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Until then, while you're noticing 'things falling,' it would be advantageous for you to notice 'things not falling,' too.

I have noticed things not falling, and it all fits well with the theory of gravity. I never once suggested that 'The Theory of Gravity = things falling'. What I suggested is that things falling is very strong evidence for the theory of gravity being 'in play in real life' contrary to your ridiculous assertion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have noticed things not falling, and it all fits well with the theory of gravity. I never once suggested that 'The Theory of Gravity = things falling'. What I suggested is that things falling is very strong evidence for the theory of gravity being 'in play in real life' contrary to your ridiculous assertion.

Things falling is indication of something, but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just the other day, I held a cumulus cloud in my hands.

.

No you didn't; but if you did it would be irrelevant because gravity isn't supposed to make things fall through the air that is either not denser than air, which is why I said "...hold something denser than air...", or is a stable microscopic suspension (made stable via constant brownian motion). that, without breaking the law of gravity, prevents gravity from pulling the suspension down (because brownian motion works against gravity in this case)

It was an average-sized one, so it tipped the scales just a scosh over a million pounds.

firstly, you cannot weigh a cloud with scales.
Secondly, you are confusing weight and mass with density.

water is more dense than air

Firstly, water as a vapor is LESS dense than air.
Secondly, nothing about gravity says you cannot have a stable microscopic suspension (made stable via constant brownian motion) of something in air that is denser than air; this doesn't break the laws of gravity.
The law of gravity is a proven fact.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

you EVEN deny large objects, such as planets, attract smaller objects, such as us and the particles of the Earth's atmosphere? So why don't we and the Earth's atmosphere float off to outer space? And how do you explain why when I jump up, I usually observe myself come back down? And why doesn't the Moon orbit around the Earth rather just float away from the Earth?
etc.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Things falling is indication of something, but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

Wrong forum. Take it to Jokes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Things falling is indication of something, but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

This directly measured the gravity of the larger ball attracting a smaller one, done 300 years ago.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Things falling is indication of something, but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

What? You see the law of gravity as a fake?

Is this also one of the conspiracies from the government?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What? You see the law of gravity as a fake?

Is this also one of the conspiracies from the government?

of course it is a conspiracy from the government! They cannot allow us to know that the only think stopping us magically floating off to god knows where at will is our own completely stupid false wildly delusional belief that there is this fictional thing we call 'gravity' stopping us. We cannot allow loads of people to just float off at will to other planets and god knows where else whenever they feel like it; just imagine the total chaos! How would the tax man keep tabs of everyone when anyone could be hiding anywhere in the universe? How would the police track down criminals? It would be totally impossible for government to manage such chaos, stupid.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What? You see the law of gravity as a fake?

Is this also one of the conspiracies from the government?

Naw, it's a conspiracy by the lizard-men, to keep us in ignorant subjection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

Originally posted by humy
No you didn't; but if you did it would be irrelevant because gravity isn't supposed to make things fall through the air that is either not denser than air, which is why I said "...hold something denser than air...", or is a stable microscopic suspension (made stable via constant brownian motion). that, without breaking the law of gravity, prevents gravity from ...[text shortened]... s denser than air; this doesn't break the laws of gravity.
The law of gravity is a proven fact.

firstly, you cannot weigh a cloud with scales
You sure?
You might want to let someone know that factoid, as quite a few people think you can:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-much-a-cloud-weighs

Secondly, you are confusing weight and mass with density.
No I'm not.
You're confusing gravity with density.

Firstly, water as a vapor is LESS dense than air.
China called about their tea pricing.

Secondly, nothing about gravity says you cannot have a stable microscopic suspension...
Possibly.
I'm more concerned with what gravity says than what it doesn't say.
Part of what it claims--- the attraction of smaller bodies to larger ones--- is utter and complete rubbish.
We will never see it on earth, will we?

The law of gravity is a proven fact.
Very scientific of you.
Let's see if I have this science thing down, shall we?
The law of gravity is full of crap.
Wow!
That was easier than I thought it would be!
Science is hella fun!

Originally posted by humy

They explain/interpret the available empirical evidence

Again, Not necessarily; for scientific theories about pure mathematics or scientific theories based on pure deduction (like some I am currently working on ) this is not the case but they may still be perfectly correct and possible to prove via pure deduction.
[quote] Theories don't ...[text shortened]... the theory the Earth is round hasn't become a fact?
Some theories become facts and some don't.

What? You are currently working on a scientific theory that is based on pure deduction but does NOT explain/interpret any available empirical evidence? Is that even possible? I am not aware of any theory, ever, that was not an attempt to explain some fact. The strength of any scientific theory lies in it's predictive power; that is, the ability of the theory to accurately predict some observable fact.

Once again, theories are explanations of facts. The explanation does not become the fact. "our planet has orbited the sun" is a fact, but "our planet orbits the sun because of gravity" is a theory. Can you appreciate the distinction?

firstly, you cannot weigh a cloud with scales
You sure?
You might want to let someone know that factoid, as quite a few people think you can:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-much-a-cloud-weighs

They clearly don't think they can weigh a cloud with scales. Where does it say/imply in that link that they weighed a cloud with scales or at least they think they could do so?

Secondly, you are confusing weight and mass with density.
No I'm not.
You're confusing gravity with density.

In what sense?

I'm more concerned with what gravity says than what it doesn't say.
Part of what it claims--- the attraction of smaller bodies to larger ones--- is utter and complete rubbish.
We will never see it on earth, will we?

You are a smaller object than the Earth and you must have observed you are generally attracted towards the Earth and don't magically float up high into the sky; right? Most people have seen smaller objects (such as themselves) attracted to a larger object (nearly always the Earth) nearly every day of there life's; I don't know who you are trying to kid here.