View Single Post
Old 2nd December 2017, 05:09 PM   #346
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
[list=1][*]Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass[*]Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass[*]Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects, the underlying communication method has been modeled using theories such as general relativity, however it's observational existence has been verified and needs to be accounted for.

So I ask you...

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

Your Answer: skipped.

a. Is gravity a Force?

Your Answer: Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy.


b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?

Your Answer: Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass.

Another Non-Sequitur Fallacy.


c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

Your Answer: Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects...la la la.

Another Non Sequitur Fallacy.

Why did you even post??




Quote:
Your requests are unnecessary and irrelevant.

Yes because they force you to SUPPORT your mindlessly 'wiki' PARROTED Claims.



Quote:
Gravity has been shown...

'gravity' What on Earth is that??

THEN, Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?




Quote:
Gravity has been shown to exist via different experiments.

Yes and Aphrodite was actually Elmer Fudd in drag and was directly responsible for the TET Offensive.




Quote:
Mt. Everest exists, my theories of how it got there don't have a bearing on that fact.

Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy: Mt Everest is a Physical Place that people can Stand On. Show the Physical Attributes and people standing on 'gravity'...?




Quote:
Your math is guesswork and apparently supposition as it is unreferenced

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x2).





Quote:
The first picture has no traceability provided

So?



Quote:
nor anything showing it's exact location and time.

So? What's the Point of either?




Quote:
There is nothing to indicate they are identical points of view under identical circumstances.

1. Identical Points?? Of what are you referring to?
2. What is the significance of Identical Circumstances? And what do you mean by "Circumstances"...?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top