Spirituality
15 May 11
16 May 11
Originally posted by DowardInterestingly though, I believe it has been discovered that that pull, depends on the relative velocities of the masses in question. As a mass approaches the speed of light, its 'pull' increases. Or am I mistaken about that?
nope there are no such cases, for it relies not on special circumstances, but on the attraction of two (or more) masses, and the reproducable observations etc... For each mass the gravitational pull can be accurately measured.
16 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadonly because its mass increases at a proportional and predictable rate
Interestingly though, I believe it has been discovered that that pull, depends on the relative velocities of the masses in question. As a mass approaches the speed of light, its 'pull' increases. Or am I mistaken about that?
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIs it considered bad satire if those whom you actually agree with and are meant to see straight through the charade think you're being deadly serious? 😕
Show me a counter example of gravity, show me someone who has not fallen off a cliff with no help from ropes, parachutes, helicopters and the like. The idea that gravity is "Just" a theory is just your grousing about science in general and you need to do that to justify your religious convictions. Grouse about it all you want but the fact is nobody can jump ...[text shortened]... ut that is science in action, one "theory' countering another. Good luck with your grousing.
16 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Dowardreproducable observations are not the sort of proof you would demand of those who champion evolution. Mathematical models are idealised and though they may well correlate with some physical phenomenon, the only thing maths has proven is that *if* gravity matched such a model precisely then it must behave the way we generally expect.
nope there are no such cases, for it relies not on special circumstances, but on the attraction of two (or more) masses, and the reproducable observations etc... For each mass the gravitational pull can be accurately measured.
The sticking point is that in just the same way 'evolutionists' have to account for the entirety of the earths biological timeline before it is accepted as fact by fundies, the same game can be played by myself, and demand that you prove, by more than a subcollection of all potential observations that gravity does fit the mathematical model which you herald as a proof - that there exists no special case for which your assumption breaks down.
17 May 11
Originally posted by AgergCould you be more direct with your point as to how the force of
reproducable observations are not the sort of proof you would demand of those who champion evolution. Mathematical models are idealised and though they may well correlate with some physical phenomenon, the only thing maths has proven is that *if* gravity matched such a model precisely then it must behave the way we generally expect.
The sticking point is t ...[text shortened]... u herald as a proof - that there exists no special case for which your assumption breaks down.
gravity relates to spiritually.
17 May 11
Originally posted by Agergapples and oranges
reproducable observations are not the sort of proof you would demand of those who champion evolution. Mathematical models are idealised and though they may well correlate with some physical phenomenon, the only thing maths has proven is that *if* gravity matched such a model precisely then it must behave the way we generally expect.
The sticking point is t ...[text shortened]... u herald as a proof - that there exists no special case for which your assumption breaks down.
17 May 11
5 edits
Originally posted by DowardThe apples and oranges are entirely yours. Mathematics is not physical; it can be used to articulate the properties of the physical world, but in of itself it is about as physical as the word "cat" (no not the physical manifestation of this word, just the word itself).
apples and oranges
I could come along and make the assumption that my left hand weighs 200 tonnes, and then with that assumption use mathematics, alongside the lifting potential of my muscles (whatever they are), to deduce that it is impossible for me to stand up.
That I cannot stand up hasn't actually been proven however because the mathematical model doesn't fit reality. Similarly gravity hasn't been proven (in a strict sense) to fit the mathematical model we use to describe it - and it never will be, since like an infinite tower of turtles, each assumption will stand upon another. Even mathematics itself relies upon axioms which cannot be proven.
18 May 11
1 edit
I would say that gravity is a fact it might be the mechanics of it we still don't fully understand or at least what mediates gravity. I agree too if anybody wants to say gravity is just a theory go ahead jump off a tall sky scraper!!! 1 for 1 ratio you will fall and go splat!!! Obviously near a black hole it will behave differently or out in the vacuum of space it will behave differently. Gravity is closely related to mass.
Manny
18 May 11
Originally posted by AgergYou might be better served going to the science forum to make
The apples and oranges are entirely yours. Mathematics is not physical; it can be used to articulate the properties of the physical world, but in of itself it is about as physical as the word "cat" (no not the physical manifestation of this word, just the word itself).
I could come along and make the assumption that my left hand weighs 200 tonnes, and then ...[text shortened]... will stand upon another. Even mathematics itself relies upon axioms which cannot be proven.
your assumptions on gravity. Maybe there is a "Newton" there
or someone with greater scientific and mathematical knowledge
that could explain it for you. I don't have this type of knowledge;
but I believe, by faith, in the force we call "Gravity" to be a fact.
18 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe force of attraction between bodies –related also to the space curvature-, indicates that there is a link between matter and space, otherwise the space curves wouldn’t be proportional to the amount of matter in a gravitational field. However I don’t know which way space is connected to matter although I know that space/ energy created matter. Therefore, either space and matter were divided after the creation of matter, or there always has been a connection between space and matter. And our currently accepted understanding of space is suitable solely for mathematical and geometric purposes.
You might be better served going to the science forum to make
your assumptions on gravity. Maybe there is a "Newton" there
or someone with greater scientific and mathematical knowledge
that could explain it for you. I don't have this type of knowledge;
but I believe, by faith, in the force we call "Gravity" to be a fact.
Anyway, since matter is merely contracted space, the lacking of space around and inside an object means that a gravitational field is merely a space vacuum whenever space is stretching towards matter. All in all, to me the observer universe is a coherent whole, and gravity is the footprint of matter. Therefore, since matter is a phenomenon-in-flux, gravity is also a phenomenon-in-flux. In other words, the fact that the 10.000 stones you throwed up all fell down, does not mean that the next one will fall down too (although the probability of this outcome is almost 100% in our given environment). Methinks this is what our Agerg tries to tell you; if I understood him well, I agree with him.
Nothing Holy
😵
18 May 11
Originally posted by black beetleAlmost 100% because some other force could counter the force
The force of attraction between bodies –related also to the space curvature-, indicates that there is a link between matter and space, otherwise the space curves wouldn’t be proportional to the amount of matter in a gravitational field. However I don’t know which way space is connected to matter although I know that space/ energy created matter. Therefo ...[text shortened]... t our Agerg tries to tell you; if I understood him well, I agree with him.
Nothing Holy
😵
of gravity or God could intervene. Is that correct?