Siri kubwa kuliko zote kuhusu dunia yetu tambarare

[The celebrity]

Alafu Ili tusisumbuane sana, unatakiwa ujibu hoja zifuatazo bila kurukaruka Kwa sababu hoja za Dunia ni tufe zipo straight. ukishajibu then tutaendelea kuhusu Dunia tufe.

1. Kama sio gravity ni nini?
2. How eclipses occurs including lunar phases?
3. Unaamini ramani za mabara zilizopo?
4. How sun set/rise occur, nakuruhusu kuelezea upupu wako wa refraction.

hateeb10 naona umeruka hapa

 

[PAGAN]

 

[hateeb10]

Alafu Ili tusisumbuane sana, unatakiwa ujibu hoja zifuatazo bila kurukaruka Kwa sababu hoja za Dunia ni tufe zipo straight. ukishajibu then tutaendelea kuhusu Dunia tufe.

1. Kama sio gravity ni nini?
2. How eclipses occurs including lunar phases?
3. Unaamini ramani za mabara zilizopo?
4. How sun set/rise occur, nakuruhusu kuelezea upupu wako wa refraction.

1. Kuhusu gravity nadhani nimekujibu kwamba kinachofanya ushindwe kuruka ni kukosa mechanism Tu ya kukufanya upae, na sio kwamba gravity inakuvuta.

2. Hili swali la eclipses nilikujibu kwenye posts zilizopita,..ila sio kesi nitarudia hapa👇🏼
Kwenye Lunar & Sun eclipses Dunia haihusiki kabisa.....Since, Dunia ipo stationary, Na Objects ambazo zinaogelea kwenye anga including Mwezi na Jua ndiyo zinasababisha eclipses, since zinazunguka kwenye realm moja hivyo ikitokea objects moja imepita mbele ya object nyingine(interception between two objects),..Duniani huku tutaona tu effects ya mwanga wa object husika kuwa blocked....
Kuhusu lunar phases,.. pia Dunia na umbo lake haihusiki..

3. Jibu ni subjective,..zipo ramani nyingi wewe unakusudia ipi?

4. Kuhusu sun set/rise..... Ingependeza ukaangalia majibu ambayo nilishaweka humu Chosen Rich alishauliza......ila kwa kumaliza maswali yako nitalijibu kwa uchache hapa:-
Ipo hivi,. Kimsingi ni makosa kusema Jua linachomoza/kuzama....Kwa kuwa kiuhalisia Jua halizami wala kuchomoza(unakubali?).....bali lina move further to the other sides of the earth(causing Day& Night)....
Kuhusu kuliona as if linazama/kuchomoza nimesema kwamba ni effect ya refraction inayosababisha Jua kuonekana kubwa na kubend.. unaweza ukaenda kusoma kuhusu hilo kwenye sources mbalimbali.


Nadhani nimejaribu kupitia maswali yako Kwa uchache 🤝🏼

 

[hateeb10]

hateeb10 naona umeruka hapa

Kwanini niruke Mkuu?

 

[PAGAN]

 

[hateeb10]

Jua lipo stationary bila shaka kabisa,

Hivi unaelewa neno "reference" Au "with respect to" Kama nilivyoyatumia?
Take an example, upo kwenye gari linamove na kunagari lingne linamove pembeni mwa gari ulilopo Kwa speed sawa na uelekeo sawa, ukiangalia Hilo gari je, utaliona linamove ukilinganisha na kama ingekuwa gari lenu limesimama?

Jua lipo stationary?! Hahh....ngoja nikuchonganishe na Dunia Tufe mwenzako hapa, Chosen Rich vipi mkuu, unakubaliana na anthony_art kwamba Jua lipo stationary?!

Mind you,. unaposema Jua lipo stationary inamaanisha umeenda against NASA ambao unawaamini sana na umekua ukipambana kuonyesha wapo sahihi muda wote.

anthony_art itapendeza ukija kutuambia hii idea yako ya Jua kuwa stationary umeitolea wapi.

 

[hateeb10]

Hivi unaelewa neno "reference" Au "with respect to" Kama nilivyoyatumia?
Take an example, upo kwenye gari linamove na kunagari lingne linamove pembeni mwa gari ulilopo Kwa speed sawa na uelekeo sawa, ukiangalia Hilo gari je, utaliona linamove ukilinganisha na kama ingekuwa gari lenu limesimama?

Mkuu ushaanza kutoka kwenye key sasa.... Hivi mfano wako wa reference umeuelewa kweli?

Kwamba:-
1. Upo kwenye gari Lina move
2. Kisha, kunagari lingne linamove pembeni mwa gari ulilopo Kwa speed sawa na uelekeo sawa,

Then, ukauliza kwamba....."je, utaliona linamove ukilinganisha na kama ingekuwa gari lenu limesimama?"

Hapo tayari reference yako Inakua inajichanganya.....ushasema Gari uliyopo Lina move na Gari ya pembeni yako pia Lina move.... Hutakiwi tena ku assume kwamba Gari yako imesimama....ili reference ilete maana.

NB:- Lakini pia Mlima Kwa logic yenu una move constantly,...hivyo kutolea mfano kwamba Mlima upo stationary pia haiingii akilini na inapoteza maana.

Ahsante.

 

[gammaparticles]

Je wewe unadhani ni kitu gani kinafanya vitu fall back to ground kama sio gravity.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory​

All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

 

[rip faza_nelly]

Sasa mtu anasema eti haihitaji utafiti kujua Dunia ni flat sabab Kwa kutumia macho tu ya kawaida inaonekana ni flat na hakuna curvature mahali popote kwenye uso wa dunia Tena mtu anasema kabisa "kama curve ipo onesha wapi ilipo". Lakini,
Mtu huyo huyo ameulizwa kwanini jua linapochomoza na kuzama linaonekana kubwa zaidi kuliko likiwa katikati(jua la utosi) anajibu kuwa ni illusion ya reflection ya mwanga wa jua kwamba illusion maana yake ni sio uhalisia, tukubaliane hapo kwamba illusion sio kitu halisi. Si ndio!?
Sasa hapa tushike lipi, kwamba tuamini utafiti wa macho yetu binafsi kama yanavyoona?( ofcoz flat earthers hawana tafiti yoyote ni macho tu na logic zao) Ama tuachane na macho tusiyaamini maana Kuna muda yanapata illusions ambazo sio sahihi kama vile yanavyoonesha jua likiwa kuubwa au dogo kulingana na muda!!!?

Flat earthers naombeni majibu hapa mana Kuna kitu mnatuchanganya sisi wanazi wa NASA.

 

[Chosen Rich]

Jua lipo stationary?! Hahh....ngoja nikuchonganishe na Dunia Tufe mwenzako hapa, Chosen Rich vipi mkuu, unakubaliana na anthony_art kwamba Jua lipo stationary?!

Mind you,. unaposema Jua lipo stationary inamaanisha umeenda against NASA ambao unawaamini sana na umekua ukipambana kuonyesha wapo sahihi muda wote.

anthony_art itapendeza ukija kutuambia hii idea yako ya Jua kuwa stationary umeitolea wapi.

Shida unachanganya mada mbili kwenye mada moja na kwa wakati mmoja.

Dunia kuzunguka jua ni mada na elimu inayohitaji muda wake,

Jua kuzunguka center of our galaxy ni mada ambayo inahitaji muda wake baada ya kumaliza hiyo mada ya kwanza

( Huwezi kuelewa/kuelewana kama hamjahitimisha mada hii ya Dunia kuzunguka jua/Jua kuzunguka Dunia )

Mimi nmemuelewa anthony_art lengo lake ni kusimama kwenye mada moja hii ya Dunia kuzunguka jua/Jua kuzunguka Dunia.



Jibu la swali kuhusu kukubaliana nae kama jua lipo stationary;

Kutokana na mtazamo /elimu yake kulihusu jua kwenye mada itakayohusu JUA, Ndio ntafahamu kama ntaweza kukubaliana nae ama kutokukubaliana nae, kwahiyo kwasasa sina majibu.

 

[Chosen Rich]

hateeb10 Darasa la kwanza ulikua unafundishwa 1-2= ? jibu ilikua ni haiwezekani.


Nadhani kupitia mfano huu itakua umenielewa.

anthony_art Ni mwalimu mzuri ndio maana hajataka kukuumiza kichwa kwa mambo magumu zaidi kwako.

 

[hateeb10]

Sasa mtu anasema eti haihitaji utafiti kujua Dunia ni flat sabab Kwa kutumia macho tu ya kawaida inaonekana ni flat na hakuna curvature mahali popote.

Hata kutazama Kwa macho pia ni utafiti(aina hii ya utafiti inajulikana kama "Observational Research".........

Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa makini ili macho yasikufanye ufikie conclusion ambayo sio sahihi.

 

[Chosen Rich]

Hata kutazama Kwa macho pia ni utafiti(aina hii ya utafiti inajulikana kama "Observational Research".........

Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa makini ili macho yasikufanye ufikie conclusion ambayo sio sahihi.

"Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa makini ili macho yasikufanye ufikie conclusion ambayo sio sahihi."


Yani karne hii ya kuambiana kuwa makini ili upate majibu ya uhakika ? Nini maana ya kufanya tafiti ? tena tafiti ya mda mrefu sio siku moja, week au mwezi mmoja.


Ndio maana huwa wabishi, Yani mnafanya tafiti kwa macho ndani ya sec 5 unahifadhi data kichwani kwako kwamba ndio jibu sahihi.

 

[hateeb10]

hateeb10 Darasa la kwanza ulikua unafundishwa 1-2= ? jibu ilikua ni haiwezekani.


Nadhani kupitia mfano huu itakua umenielewa.

anthony_art Ni mwalimu mzuri ndio maana hajataka kukuumiza kichwa kwa mambo magumu zaidi kwako.

Saw,.kama ni kweli yeye ni Mwalimu mzuri..tusubiri aje atuambie kivipi JUA LIPO STATIONARY?

Akifanya comeback juu ya madai yake hayo nitaamini kweli yeye ni Mwalimu mzuri.

 

[Chosen Rich]

Saw,.kama ni kweli yeye ni Mwalimu mzuri..tusubiri aje atuambie kivipi JUA LIPO STATIONARY?

Akifanya comeback juu ya madai yake hayo nitaamini kweli yeye ni Mwalimu mzuri.

Hapo mtakua mnahama mada taratibu bila kujua na hitimisho halitakuja kufikiwa.

 

[hateeb10]

"Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa makini ili macho yasikufanye ufikie conclusion ambayo sio sahihi."


Yani karne hii ya kuambiana kuwa makini ili upate majibu ya uhakika ? Nini maana ya kufanya tafiti ? tena tafiti ya mda mrefu sio siku moja, week au mwezi mmoja.


Ndio maana huwa wabishi, Yani mnafanya tafiti kwa macho ndani ya sec 5 unahifadhi data kichwani kwako kwamba ndio jibu sahihi.

Nani kafanya tafiti ya sec 5?

Hizi ndiyo njia zenu za kuthibitisha gravity...👇🏼

 

[hateeb10]

Hapo mtakua mnahama mada taratibu bila kujua na hitimisho halitakuja kufikiwa.

Hatuhami mada...Dunia, Mwezi na Jua hivi vitu vina connection kubwa sana hivyo ukijadili kimojawapo automatically itapelekea kugusa na nyingine.

 

[The celebrity]

Gravity: It's Only a Theory​

All physics textbook should include this warning label:

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
All physics textbook should include this warning label:

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

Atleast hii inafikirisha, elimu ya anga ni Pana sana. Sio kwamba vyote tunavijua ila tunaangalia atleast kinachomake sense, flat earthers hasa Hawa wa humu Wana hoja dhaifu sana hawawezi kabisa kuelezea hoja zao.

 

[The celebrity]

Shida unachanganya mada mbili kwenye mada moja na kwa wakati mmoja.

Dunia kuzunguka jua ni mada na elimu inayohitaji muda wake,

Jua kuzunguka center of our galaxy ni mada ambayo inahitaji muda wake baada ya kumaliza hiyo mada ya kwanza

( Huwezi kuelewa/kuelewana kama hamjahitimisha mada hii ya Dunia kuzunguka jua/Jua kuzunguka Dunia )

Mimi nmemuelewa anthony_art lengo lake ni kusimama kwenye mada moja hii ya Dunia kuzunguka jua/Jua kuzunguka Dunia.



Jibu la swali kuhusu kukubaliana nae kama jua lipo stationary;

Kutokana na mtazamo /elimu yake kulihusu jua kwenye mada itakayohusu JUA, Ndio ntafahamu kama ntaweza kukubaliana nae ama kutokukubaliana nae, kwahiyo kwasasa sina majibu.

Nimemuuliza anajua maana ya "reference au with respect to" hapo ndo Kuna changamoto.

 

[The celebrity]

Hata kutazama Kwa macho pia ni utafiti(aina hii ya utafiti inajulikana kama "Observational Research".........

Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa makini ili macho yasikufanye ufikie conclusion ambayo sio sahihi.

Ila wewe umefikia conclusion ya ukomo wako wa macho kwamba huwezi kuone majengo yaliyo mbali zaidi uka-assume ni ukomo wa uoni, lakn ndege inayoruka angani umbali mrefu tunazuona Kuna zile zinaachaga alama sijui ni ndege za aina Gani.