Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 1:16 PM
402 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, edge, Faith, jar, kjsimons, RAZD, ringo, Taq (10 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,933 Year: 16,539/21,208 Month: 2,428/3,593 Week: 541/882 Day: 59/103 Hour: 4/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   gravity
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9649
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 16 of 81 (688168)
01-20-2013 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by shadow71
01-19-2013 9:14 AM


My question goes to the beginning of gravity.

I understand that.

But consider that the accepted theories of the origin of the universe do not include the origins of matter, energy, momentum, or tension-stress. Gravity is present whenever those things are present. Perhaps the problem is that the BBT is not the origin of everything story your question assumes it to be.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2013 9:14 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 1:23 PM NoNukes has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 17 of 81 (688172)
01-20-2013 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by shadow71
01-19-2013 9:14 AM


he leaves me with the impression gravity is metaphysical in origin.

Dr. Schroeder's musings on forcing his science to justify his religion are not new. Creationists have been down that path many times. It is not surprising that his views strike a chord with you.

To counterpoint, have you read other scientists, some maybe without a pre-determined religious goal? Brian Greene? Michael Berry? Lee Smolin?

If you want a real head trip try Lisa Randall's Warped Passages. Her views on gravity are quite interesting and you will come away from that one with quite a different perspective on the whole universe.

[in edit]

Have you looked at General Relativity?

At this time this is our best, most tested and successful, theory of gravity, how it works, where it comes from. Nothing magical about it. Just follow the contours of space-time.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2013 9:14 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 1:25 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 18 of 81 (688183)
01-20-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by shadow71
01-19-2013 9:14 AM


shadow writes:

My question is, are there any theories as to How Gravity came into existence?


From my (limited) understanding of gravity, that is like asking how the gap between 2 objects came into existence.
The gap is a natural emergent property of 2 objects existing and gravity is a natural emergent property of matter/energy existing.

I think the question would be more accurately phrased as: "How did matter/energy come into existence?".


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2013 9:14 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 1:29 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 19 of 81 (688186)
01-20-2013 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
01-20-2013 12:42 AM


NoNukes writes:


Perhaps the problem is that the BBT is not the origin of everything story your question assumes it to be.

If BBT is not origin of everything, we do know that gravity exists.

So there should be some explanation as to how gravity came into existence. Or at least some theories. If not it may well be that gravity is metaphysical as Schroeder suggests.

I guess I am looking for some studies or opinions based on scientific evidence why Schroeder may be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2013 12:42 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2013 2:08 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 01-22-2013 5:17 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 20 of 81 (688187)
01-20-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by AZPaul3
01-20-2013 7:52 AM


Thanks for the sources.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 7:52 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 21 of 81 (688188)
01-20-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Panda
01-20-2013 12:14 PM


Panda writes:


I think the question would be more accurately phrased as: "How did matter/energy come into existence?".

Good point. I assume we have no idea at this time. This leads me to the point where we may have to acknowledge that we may never know. That in fact these are metaphysical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Panda, posted 01-20-2013 12:14 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9649
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 22 of 81 (688191)
01-20-2013 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by shadow71
01-20-2013 1:23 PM


I guess I am looking for some studies or opinions based on scientific evidence why Schroeder may be wrong.

How about some quotes or pointers to Schroeder's writings?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 1:23 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 4:08 PM NoNukes has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 23 of 81 (688199)
01-20-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
01-20-2013 2:08 PM


NoNukes writes:


How about some quotes or pointers to Schroeder's writings?

In "The Hidden Face of God", Schroeder talks about the energy/ matter relationship, the quantum wave functions show that all matter is energy and all energy is information .
That all activities comply with the universal forces, for example the four forces gravity, the strong and weak forces and the electromagnetic force are in effect, as is all the universe so wonder filled that everything is not "natural" but comes from the metaphysical.

As examples he talks about the Pauli exclusion principal that forbids 2 electrons in an atom or molecule from occupying an exactly equivalent energy state, and if that were not true the electrons orbiting around the nucleus would fall to the lowest level and in effect there would be no possibility of chemilcal reactions.

He goes on about the extraordinary unity of the energy forces that it is not natural but metaphysica.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2013 2:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2013 5:04 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9649
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 24 of 81 (688202)
01-20-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by shadow71
01-20-2013 4:08 PM


He goes on about the extraordinary unity of the energy forces that it is not natural but metaphysical.

Sounds like some form of ID/fine tuning argument to me. I'm trying to work up some interest in picking up the book, but I cannot find much info about "The Hidden Face of God" on the net other than some reviews that do not pique my interest.

I'm probably not going to have any serious comment until I am more familiar with what Shroeder is discussing.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 4:08 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 7:39 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 25 of 81 (688210)
01-20-2013 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
01-20-2013 5:04 PM


I'm probably not going to have any serious comment until I am more familiar with what Shroeder is discussing.

You might be interested in this critique of Schroeder's The Hidden Face of God

It goes into some detail on his arguments. It is not flattering, but then the errors in fact that Schroeder gives are a bit disconcerting since he is a physicist.

I found this combined review of his first 3 books enlightening. Same critique of his errors of physics facts. My feeling is that Schroeder is a typical religionist trying to shoehorn physics into some support of biblical efficacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2013 5:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 7:59 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 54 by zi ko, posted 01-25-2013 11:21 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 26 of 81 (688213)
01-20-2013 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
01-20-2013 7:39 PM


AZPaul writes:

My feeling is that Schroeder is a typical religionist trying to shoehorn physics into some support of biblical efficacy.

I hope your considering Scott Oswer's backgournd and the site he reprsents that states it "promotes a naturalistic worldview." You should be alert for some bias in his review.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 7:39 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 8:25 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2013 2:51 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 01-21-2013 10:26 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 27 of 81 (688217)
01-20-2013 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by shadow71
01-20-2013 7:59 PM


Did you read the review? Do you see the arguments against Schroeder? Do you see the factual errors highlighted in his arguments?

quote:
I guess I am looking for some studies or opinions based on scientific evidence why Schroeder may be wrong.

Well, there you go. Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 7:59 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 28 of 81 (688244)
01-21-2013 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by shadow71
01-20-2013 7:59 PM


I hope your considering Scott Oswer's backgournd and the site he reprsents that states it "promotes a naturalistic worldview." You should be alert for some bias in his review.

Bias can only take a man so far. It can make Oswer want to find errors in Schroeder's work, but it can't actually create errors in Schroeder's work. Schroeder himself has to do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 7:59 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 29 of 81 (688245)
01-21-2013 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
01-18-2013 7:08 PM


You keep using this word "metaphysical". What would it even mean for gravity to be "metaphysical"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2013 7:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13186
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 30 of 81 (688263)
01-21-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
01-18-2013 7:08 PM


shadow71 writes:

Is it natural or metaphysical?


I'm not happy with the notion that something could "be" metaphysical instead of natural. We can propose metaphysical explanations for phenomena that don't have a physical explanation (yet), such as lightning, but it's only the explanation that is either physical or metaphysical. The phenomenon itself just "is".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2013 7:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:41 PM ringo has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017