Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Evidence for gravity

 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PMPosted: 2 years agoIs there any?
 Posts: 6,127 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.At least that is what I am learning from other posters.Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.
 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 4:44:23 PMPosted: 2 years agoI have no doubt there are posters here with odd ideas about what evidence is, or is not.There are posters here with odd ideas about everything.
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 8:01:58 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Are you seated or floating as you read this, KP?
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 8:08:04 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?I could tell you to go jump off of your roof if you would like to experience the proof af Gravity, but that might be construed as being a bit mean. And I would feel terrible if you actually tried it and got hurt.But trust me: you would become a believer.Now, a very interesting thing about the Law of Gravity is that, despite the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence for it, we have yet to find the sub-atomic particle that is responsible for it. That is, the medium by which it exerts its force.Oh, we call it the "graviton" but that is thus far only a 'working" and hypothetical term.Gravity is, by the way, very very weak insofar as the Four Fundamental Forces of Physics are concerned. The weakest by far, By magnitudes. (The other three: Strong Nuclear Force; Weak Nuclear Force; and of course the Electro-magnetic force.)I believe I read that the force of gravity your body exudes is equal to the force required to attract a flea. or a gnat.Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 10:43:45 PMPosted: 2 years agoTo be honest, I'm trying to understand the fuss about 'evidence' rather than gravity per se.My point - which I made elsewhere - is the evidence for Dark Matter is exactly the same as the evidence for gravity. Gravity (the idea that mass is mutually attractive) is a theory to explain the results of careful measurements of the way masses interact.Gravity - a force betweeen masses - may not exist (things may fall for a quite different reason) but 'a mutually attractive force exists between masses' explains the equation f=m*m/sqr(d) very well so it is almost certainly true. Except it isn't true because gravity is really space being curved by the presence of mass.The evidence for gravity, dark matter, dark energy, magnetism and electric charge is all the same - they explain the equations that describe observations. Does that mean they are real or that they are convenient fictions for calculation purposes (as Newtons gravity is)? I pass.
 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 11:09:03 PMPosted: 2 years agoA note on the history of gravity. Gravity was originally thought of as a property of some elements (earth and water) to fall downwards. Air and fire were thought of as having not 'gravity' but 'levity', so they went up, not down.That theory explains a wide range of observations - drop a stone (element earth) and it went down, not up. Flames(fire) always went upwards, not downwards. Only much later (with Newton) did the idea that gravity is a force between masses turn up, resulting in a change in the way the word gravity is commonly understood. The transition from gravity meaning a force and gravity meaning 'curvature of space' may never happen !
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 11:14:27 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.At least that is what I am learning from other posters.Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.Your 6th line does not follow from any of the preceding lines, and is incorrect. There is no requirement for evidence to "prove one hypothesis over other weaker ones", nor is there a requirement for evidence to support only one hypothesis over others. For any piece of information X, if P(H|X) =/= P(H), for any hypothesis or set of hypotheses under consideration, H, then X is evidence. Otherwise, it isn't. You still haven't provided a reasonable argument against this.What about that are you having trouble understanding?
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.At least that is what I am learning from other posters.Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.
 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/18/2015 11:38:59 PMPosted: 2 years agoForgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.See my earlier posts. Gravity isn't a force - it's the curvature of space due to the presence of mass. Or it's the tendency of earth and water to move down not up. 'A force' is most certainly not the only explanation of gravity', and not even the best one.
 Posts: 1,897 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 12:01:01 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 11:38:59 PM, kp98 wrote:Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.See my earlier posts. Gravity isn't a force - it's the curvature of space due to the presence of mass. Or it's the tendency of earth and water to move down not up. 'A force' is most certainly not the only explanation of gravity', and not even the best one.True. But my point was that saying that gravity is an explanation of "the downward force we feel" is redundant in a way, since the Newtonian concept of gravity is itself that force, rather than an explanation for that force.
 Posts: 6,127 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.At least that is what I am learning from other posters.Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".
 Posts: 2,460 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 3:08:07 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:Is there any?Defined as an acceleration towards a massive body, yes, there is evidence. The moon shows this towards the Earth, the planets to the Sun, our spacecrafts to the planets they pass by, yourself towards Earth, etc.
 Posts: 2,460 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 3:13:56 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/18/2015 10:43:45 PM, kp98 wrote:To be honest, I'm trying to understand the fuss about 'evidence' rather than gravity per se.My point - which I made elsewhere - is the evidence for Dark Matter is exactly the same as the evidence for gravity. Gravity (the idea that mass is mutually attractive) is a theory to explain the results of careful measurements of the way masses interact.Gravity - a force betweeen masses - may not exist (things may fall for a quite different reason) but 'a mutually attractive force exists between masses' explains the equation f=m*m/sqr(d) very well so it is almost certainly true. Except it isn't true because gravity is really space being curved by the presence of mass.The evidence for gravity, dark matter, dark energy, magnetism and electric charge is all the same - they explain the equations that describe observations. Does that mean they are real or that they are convenient fictions for calculation purposes (as Newtons gravity is)? I pass.Not convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way. Scientifc theories are not meant to claim absolute truth about reality (as you have said things may fall for a different reason) but to be models that explain reality as far as our observations of reality go.Every theory from evolution to gravity, is not telling you "this is what really happens", but "this is the best explanation for our observations".
 Posts: 729 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 6:18:06 AMPosted: 2 years agoNot convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way.No argument from me. Whether you say or 'Model' or 'fiction' is only a matter of semantic nicety.For any sceptics benefit, I'll mention a couple of such fictions/models used to help with calculations.One example is a 'centre of gravity'. The effect of gravity on an extended object is the result of gravity acting on each part of that object individually - fortunately we can ignore that inconvenient fact and just use its centre of gravity most of the time. Centres of gravity don't exist in the concrete sense. You cant go online to but a dollars worth of centres of gravity.Another example are the 'holes' that 'carry current' in p-type semiconductors. It is much easier to pretend it is a few fictitious holes (caused by 'missing electrons') carring current one way than to deal with the complexity of millions of real electrons going the other way.
 Posts: 6,127 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/19/2015 9:23:50 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/19/2015 6:18:06 AM, kp98 wrote:Not convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way.No argument from me. Whether you say or 'Model' or 'fiction' is only a matter of semantic nicety.For any sceptics benefit, I'll mention a couple of such fictions/models used to help with calculations.One example is a 'centre of gravity'. The effect of gravity on an extended object is the result of gravity acting on each part of that object individually - fortunately we can ignore that inconvenient fact and just use its centre of gravity most of the time. Centres of gravity don't exist in the concrete sense. You cant go online to but a dollars worth of centres of gravity.Another example are the 'holes' that 'carry current' in p-type semiconductors. It is much easier to pretend it is a few fictitious holes (caused by 'missing electrons') carring current one way than to deal with the complexity of millions of real electrons going the other way.You know what I have a problem with. They educate people on the fictions. Why are our kids told one thing and 2 years latter something different, then 2 years later something different?If we taught children right, I don't see any reason a 8 year old can't grasp electron cloud, or how a semi conductor works.You got the blind leading the blind in the education system. A system created for one purpose: make a compliant dependent mentally adequate workforce that is easily manipulated. College and universities are for the next class up from laborers. And there mission is: create a cult to exploit and explore technologies, that conform to the Socialist Liberal Ideology.I don't think this comes as a surprise to you.