You've already said that "logic" is not 'true' in your last post. Now you want me to prove it is? That's what proof is - inductive logic. What's proof to you, is not proof to me. No one perceives things exactly the same, and neither do you the next time you think about what you perceive. Nothing is the same as the last. YOu can't predict anything. There is no 'mechnism'. My theory argues against prediction, so you can't use it to prove it's true, obviously.
Sure it does. For example, science predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow. Whether or not the prediction is right is a separate issue.
Then it isn't prediction. Science does not say "x will happen". Science says "x may happen according to a and b, etc". Science is about interpretation, it's got nothing to do with "truth".
Science has everything to do with truth. The scientific method is a method that's supposed to discover the truth about the way reality is. I'll admit that actually doing science doesn't require you to think about "truth" at all-you could apply the scientific method without assuming anything about it's ability to discover the truth-but in all actuality every single scientist is just trying to discover the truth.
Incorrect. Science uses inductive logic for new things, which means it can't prove anything. THe deductive logic it uses DISPROVES things. So there is no "truth" from science. That's why we have science - so nobody can say it's biased. It exists to give you the chance to determine how you want to perceive things. Truth is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. Science is about observation and interpratation. Things can truly be observed, yes, but it's up to the interpreter to figure out what it is they are observing. Truth is not outside of you, it is inside of you. You can't discover the truth by asking someone else what it is. Science deals with the world outside of the observer.
whoever said theres no light in a black hole just cuz light gets sucked into it, doesnt mean it disappears all a black hole is is an EXTREMELY dense small peice of mass (sort of what the big bang is based upon) that has such a high gravitational pull that its gravity pulls everything in, its not literally a hole, its just that its gravity is so strong that light cannot reflect off of it i agree that what we think about space is definitely flawed since we cant exactly just kinda go to space n the planets to study them as easily as we can the earth, its just an educated guess i'm curious to know how they have a picture of our galaxy, how the fuck did they get a camera that far away and be able to transmit the image back to earth seems fake to me, and on top of that how the fuck do they know what the other galaxies look like
What does any of this have to do with your crackpot theories about light and gravity anyway? edit: nevermind, I forgot that they're not actually theories
, Of course they're theories. Newton already pretty much laid it down long before I came along. But since we've come to a higher understanding of what's out there, the "gravity" i speak of, can be now known as "electromagnetism". Something tesla was very fond of... It would make sense to still call it gravity though. Before there was the concept of "electromagnetism", we had gravity, and it was accepted all throughout the scientific community. So we "evolved" from gravity to electromagnetism, makes sense to say that we came from gravity.
Science does not predict things. Newton's theory is the same as my theory. So my theory is a scientific one.
Rofl, science doesn't predict anything because nothing can be predicted. You can make an estimation, but there is no such thing as prediction. This is a philosophy forum. Get with it, jew. ????? What? Don't use terms such as that as an insult when speaking to anyone that's a member of the City. It's not welcome here as stated below by one of regular, well-respected members. *RMJL Wait, how do we go from my base argument "everything is gravity", to saying my argument is based on 'light'? I explained what light is as a phenomenon of gravity. The quote you pulled out of thin air had nothing to do with my theory as a whole. If everything is gravity, then light is "expression" of it, because it IS also gravity there, as gravity is everything, as newton already proved hundreds of years ago.
SpartanInjun, your "theory" is not a theory, it is, at its best, an uneducated guess. You have no evidence to back up your claims and no rational reason to believe them. Your post reminded me of VenomFangX on Youtube trying to talk about a subject (science) that he has no clue about. Your claim that science does not make predictions is not based in this, or any, reality that I am presently aware of. All science does is make predictions, as Vostibackle pointed out with his wiki link. Just because you believe nothing can be predicted, does not mean the rest of the world, which knows this is not so based upon an overwhelming number of things that have been predicted, has to agree with you. Furthermore, calling someone a "jew" as a way to insult them is overly childish and is not really welcome here at all.
Scientists make predictions. Whether or not it's possible for those predictions to be correct is irrelevant. In order for your theory to be scientific, it must make testable assertions about reality. If everything is gravity, then we should observe X. Now, we do an experiment and see if we observe X. The philosophy of science is an important philosophical topic.