Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

There are far too many contradictions within heliocentric theories for it to be believable. Most people believe it because they were told to believe it and never questioning it for their entire lives.......for it was never meant to be questioned.......just believed. 

That is why there is a toy globe in every classroom, store, theater etc. etc. etc. 

We are bombarded with the ball everywhere we look 

OMG man its just prejection byt aliens it not tgha truth you beliuve what those isiot guys say??dude th earth is srsly flat and you know what the whole solar system is flat! and if you just knew the tryuth and feel like jumping off a cliff just dont forghet that he cliff is also flat..Just dont belive uin this BALL theory ahaa actually all the balls are flat too yk

The theory of Gravity just like heliocentric theory have NEVER been proven. 

They are merely accepted theories that have been shoved down our throats since birth.

they say u cant prove s/t is random...tho u can quantify it. i kinda gettit...kinda.

but then if u cant prove it ?...how do u know its there ? see ?...lol !

Let me use an analogy you should understand. Someone who loses to Scholar's mate makes proclamations about a difficult tactic that differ from what all the GMs and engines say. Which of the views should we believe?

You know as well as I that heliocentrism is not science......it is pseudoscience. 

In order to achieve this colossal hoax it would be necessary to usurp science with pseudoscience and call it science 

 

Yea yea ma’am yea sir thank for the help for your dad today and yea he will have a great time and he is just a great day lol lol he said sadly he is so sad that he’s a good friend but he doesn’t like him lol but he’s a great friend of the lord he is a great man he’s always been a great friend of lord and he is a great man he’s so cute and he’s so proud of you he’s a great friend of lord mama mama love mama lord mama love mama bye mama mama bye princess princess queen mama love princess princess queen princess mama love princess queen queen king princess princess mama love princess 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🦁🦁🦁🔐🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪🙃🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺😈💵😈💵😈💵😈😈💵💵😈💀

 

then give me a compare/contrast of science/pseudoscience. 

I have asked this question numerous times  and  long ago in OD before they silenced me the first time.....and yet I have NEVER gotten an answer. 

Now don't go so far as to say I was insulting you. Over the years you have insulted me as well as those you deem to be your equals ...............more times than I can count! 

Science uses the scientific method.

This includes:

1. having a model of real-world behaviour
2. making predictions using that model
3. testing those predictions against new observations

If the predictions ever fail for adequate quality observations, the scientific method tells you that if your observations are correct, your model needs to be improved. This is a rare event for mature sciences (eg there have been exactly two successful established theories of gravity in scientific history. Newton's lasted for about 250 years, then was discovered to be an approximation to a more precise theory found by Einstein, which is still good enough for all experimental data.

For example, it can use the observed angular locations and angular velocities of all of the objects in the Solar System, come up with inferred 3-dimensional positions, velocities and masses (those that provide consistent behaviour to what has been observed), then predict the future  angular positions of the same objects.

This worked for all the planets and moons of the Solar System when Newton's theory of gravity was used, with one exception. The orbit of Mercury was observed to precess by 43 arc seconds per century, a small but clearly observable amount.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity - which approximates to Newton's at low energy - predicted exactly the observed precession for the fastest moving planet. It also predicted a much smaller precession for Venus which was confirmed by all precise later observations.

That's SCIENCE.

Time for you to spout some nonsense to feel better.

Science uses the scientific method.

it tries to...but it can suffer s/t's from confirmation bias. so its tricky.

DB Elrock ?..u hijacker...lol !

using the scientific method as you say todays scientists do..................... then why can't they make water stick to a spinning wobbling blasting into oblivion ball ..........and prove heliocentric theory Once for All? 

Or do they "Randomly".................... assume..................or postulate............that water............................... only sticks........................................ to very.......................... Big Balls 

".... then why can't they make water stick to a spinning wobbling blasting into oblivion ball"

 

Who says they can't?

 

Science does. 

Science does indeed explain this without much difficulty. But the following explanation is as useful to the likes of @noodles2112 as a book on rook endings is to a goldfish.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Imagine making a scale model of the Earth to emulate gravity and the effects of rotation. Obviously, you need to locate it in free fall to remove much bigger forces. Key to making it scale correctly are:

1. Gravitational force scales with the radius (density remaining the same) (this is because the mass goes up like the cube, but the inverse square law for the radius reduces it to linear)
2. Centrifugal force scales with the product of the radius and the square of the rate of rotation (cycles per day, say)

As a consequence, you would obviously need to locate it in free fall, then you would need to keep the same angular frequency to make the ratio of the gravitational force and the centrifugal force the same.

Thus, say you made a model of the Earth with a radius 1/1000 that of the Earth, you would need to rotate it just once per day.

It does not seem too difficult to believe the truth that water would stay on the surface of this spherical asteroid (radius ~6km) due to gravity.

your right.........not difficult at all.............................................to believe 

That makes no sense. There are many peer reviewed experiments.

Like Foucault's Pendulum

The truth is that heliocentric theory has never been proven nor was it ever meant to be and even Newton stated "his theory of gravity" could never be proven.

It is a theory with never ending theories.......that was the point of the theory. 

Every scientific experiment intended to prove the earth moves failed and indirectly proved the exact opposite i.e. the earth does not move. 

Michelsen/Morely, Sagnac, Airey's failure etc. 

There are dozens of science museums around the world where you can personally observe a Foucault's pendulum experiment working.

I have done so in the UK, and you can in the US as well.

What daft response have you to that?