The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Nature can't pull

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Zarium
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/21/2016 Category: Science Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 85140
Debate Rounds (5)

18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 2 years ago
Push and pull are like the colours, white and black. There is no such colour as black. Black is merely an absence of white. Matter is constantly being pushed together by the force of the aether. Pull is merely the absence of the aetherical pushing force. If there is a pulling force, then explain using mechanical methodology, how the Earth pulls the moon? Note - A horse pushes a buggy, it doesn't pull it. Pull is just a stored vacuum.(illusion)
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
I am very sorry for formula of force of gravity, I have confused that with that of electric force.

9*10^9=k is the constant for electric force. Force of gravity in classical physics is as follows:

Fg=G*m1*m2/r^2, where G is gravitational constant.

F(electric)=k*|q1|*|q2|/r^2, where qi is electric charge of ith particle.
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
TYPO CORRECTIONS:

1 - (In RFD-2): "...without specifically define their directions..." => define -> defining!

2 - (In RFD-2): "Please note that the only thing that needs to do to win this debate..." => that needs -> that Con needs!

3 - (RFD-3): "Not-pushing is surely not pulling." => not pulling -> not "pulling"!

4 - (RFD-3): "Therefore they cannot be consid" => "Therefore, they cannot be considered as evidences."

5 - (RFD-4): "In modern physics gravity is the effect of curvature in space-time created a mass (even at rest)." => ...in space-time created a mass -> ...in space-time created BY a mass!

Please inform me if there are other mistakes!
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
{My RFD - 1}

Pro forfeited a round.

=> Conduct goes to Con!
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
{My RFD - 2}

Con provided a definition for Pull/Push together pointing out the ONLY difference to be their opposite directions, without specifically define their directions. It would be better if they defined their directions separately and specifically. I would like to define their directions before analyzing their arguments.

Pull: to draw or haul TOWARD ONESELF or ITSELF!
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Push: to press upon or against (a thing) with force in order TO MOVE IT AWAY!
http://dictionary.reference.com...

In other words:

A pulls B: A exerts a force on B (in B-A direction) to move it TOWARDS ITSELF!

A pushes B: A exerts a force on B (in A-B direction) to move it AWAY FROM ITSELF!

Please note that the only thing that needs to do to win this debate (i.e., refute Pro"s claims and prove their own stance in this debate) is to show a single example of pulling in nature. The rest would only be refuting Pro"s rebuttals against that example, if Pro provided any.

We find an example Con provided in R3: "In nature, one can experience this almost anywhere - A tiger can pull a carcass up a tree""

This is exactly true; tiger exerts a force on carcass to move it towards ITSELF, which is pulling per definition. And we find no direct rebuttal to this example in Pro"s arguments. Therefore, Con wins the debate (arguments). Case closed!

=> A goes to Con!
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
{My RFD - 3}

BUT, I would like to provide more comments on arguments provided because the topic falls into my fields of interest. I hope my they provide some useful information for the readers.

Pro

Pro"s arguments against "pull" either make no sense, or asserted without evidence, or concluded by misinterpretation of some scientific data, or inconsistent with their own arguments, or are just a make-ups. Let me give some examples from Pro"s main arguments:

- "Gravity doesn't pull either, it pushes us down" -> gravity of Earth moves us TOWARDS Earth, hence PULLs us down.

- The existence of an invisible "magical" force is illogical.
But this contradicts his explanation of "what holds matter together" that a mysterious substance called aether creates all apparent "mysterious" forces and effects. It is obvious that a mysterious event is not logical, that is per definition of "mysterious".

- "The research of Australian scientist Brian Schmidt into dark energy has confirmed that space pushes on planets and that gravity doesn't pull."

Actually not, the source states: "These features will have been influenced by dark energy when it began to become dominant over the pull of gravity, about 8 billion years ago." In other words, about 8 billion years ago the PULL of gravity was greater than that of dark energy, now it is smaller (not zero)! Therefore, Pro"s claim is not true even according to their source.

- "[Pull] is really a lack of push (and or a vacuum) that creates a so called 'pull action'." Not-pushing is surely not pulling. Vacuum has nothing to do with Pro"s arguments.

- Pro talks about spin right, spin left, and no spin. They assert: "No spin could be regarded as a perfect vacuum which all matter rotates around." -> A simple definition of perfect vacuum is a space UNOCCUPIED by matter" Therefore, Pro"s argument makes no sense!

Almost all of arguments and evidences provided by Pro require separate evidences, Therefore they cannot be consid
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
{My RFD - 4}

Con

However, although Con refuted Pro"s claim against pulling and provided sufficient arguments that pulling actually exists in nature, there are some main points made by Con to which I disagree, which don"t directly affect his arguments.

Con: "The result that we call 'pulling' is purely subjective - If you were on the opposite side of the object or mass, it would seem more of a 'pushing' motion."

Pulling and pushing are not purely subjective i.e., they don"t alternate with respect to an observer. The reference point that distinguishes pulling from pushing is the object on which the force is applied. If the direction of applied force w.r.t. this reference point is towards the source of applied force, then it is pulling. It would be pushing when the direction of the force is inverted, no matter from what perspective one is observing.

Con: "The high movement mixed with a combination of mass and spin cause the effect that we have named Gravity to be increased exponentially."

This is not the case with gravity. In classical physics, every object that have mass m1 attracts another object of mass m2 with a force of F=9*10^9*(m1*m2/r^2) where r is the distance between the center of masses of those objects (even when they are at rest). In modern physics gravity is the effect of curvature in space-time created a mass (even at rest).
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
I will vote on arguments later.

I don't think there is much about G and S to vote for, but still I will consider them as well.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Good ole gravity lol
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
I thought the same, then I considered the possibility of me misunderstanding your words..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.