Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 2:50 PM
344 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, Granny Magda, PaulK, rstrats, Taq (6 members, 338 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,096 Year: 25,702/21,208 Month: 1,329/2,338 Week: 86/364 Day: 37/49 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   gravity
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 31 of 81 (688275)
01-21-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
01-21-2013 12:19 PM


That part of the OP was poorly worded. My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 01-21-2013 12:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 01-22-2013 11:54 AM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 32 of 81 (688276)
01-21-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
01-20-2013 8:25 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


Well, there you go. Enjoy.

Not real impressed with Oser or Shanks in re specific errors in Schroeder's science. Of course it appears that Oser feels that since only 20% of physicists are theists then Schroeder must be wrong.
Or the fact he agrees Dyson is an authority but, one can always find another authority who disagrees with him.

I was a trial lawyer in med mal and products liability and we always had experts with opinions basically opposite of each other.

The jury decided who was right or wrong.

Kind of a I disagree with his philosophy so he is wrong type review.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 8:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 01-21-2013 9:16 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 01-21-2013 10:40 PM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 33 of 81 (688277)
01-21-2013 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2013 2:52 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

You keep using this word "metaphysical". What would it even mean for gravity to be "metaphysical"?

I mean it's origin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2013 2:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2013 6:38 PM shadow71 has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 34 of 81 (688297)
01-21-2013 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
01-21-2013 3:57 PM


shadow71 writes:

I mean it's origin.

Do you mean that gravity is caused by invisible fairies pushing us down on the earth?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:57 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 7:15 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 35 of 81 (688304)
01-21-2013 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2013 6:38 PM


Tanypteryx writes:


Do you mean that gravity is caused by invisible fairies pushing us down on the earth?

Whatever floats your boat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2013 6:38 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

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


Message 36 of 81 (688327)
01-21-2013 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by shadow71
01-21-2013 3:54 PM


Schroeder's religious treatment strikes a comfortable note with your own religious views. But you did ask for competing views which would necessitate non-religious ones thus not as comfortable for you.

You can reject the sources I presented citing a bias that is not comfortable for you. This is OK.

But you need to be aware that the sources I gave pointed out Schroeder's errors of logic as well as his errors in physics facts. There are only two reasons I can fathom why an MIT physicist would make these errors. He is an incompetent physicist despite the MIT affiliation or he is misusing physics, in essence lying, to justify his predetermined conclusions.

You can, of course, ignore these errors and their implications on the efficacy of Schroeder's hypothesis. You are then not searching for intellectual answers but for emotional confirmation. The knowledgeable folks on this forum will not be able to help you with this. You may want to ask your questions in a less science-oriented forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:54 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 12:06 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 81 (688345)
01-21-2013 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by shadow71
01-20-2013 7:59 PM


You should be alert for some bias in his review.

I've read the criticisms of Schroeder's work in the review. I am still trying to decide whether I want to pay the money needed to buy and read his book. I suspect that you don't agree with the criticisms, which is fine.

My question for you is whether the review minus the rebuttal fairly describes any of Schroeder's arguments. Is Schroeder's position more nuanced than Oser allows for.

I will say this. Oser's dissection of Schoeder's "proof" that the universe has a non-natural origin is not new material. I've seen each of his arguments before in these forums. I've made some of them myself.

I'll have to admit that I am personally highly skeptical that it is possible identify God or his authorship through scientific means. That's why I believe ID is ultimately a dead end. I fear that I am going to find Schroeder's book both silly and unnecessary. I'm looking for a good book review that says otherwise.


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 26 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 7:59 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 81 (688347)
01-21-2013 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by shadow71
01-21-2013 3:54 PM


I was a trial lawyer in med mal and products liability and we always had experts with opinions basically opposite of each other.

The jury decided who was right or wrong.

I understand why this method of investigation is appealing to you. You are completely familiar with this method of investigation.

But quite frankly, who cares what a jury of lay people decide about which of these two scientists to believe? What really matters is what people who know the topic at hand think. A real jury would likely exclude all physicists. Yet who would be better positioned to appreciate the correctness of a physicists argument.


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 32 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:54 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 11:51 AM NoNukes has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 39 of 81 (688413)
01-22-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by shadow71
01-21-2013 3:41 PM


shadow71 writes:

My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.


You seem to be using "metaphysical" as a synonym for "supernatural", which I don't think is correct.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:41 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2013 4:57 PM ringo has responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 40 of 81 (688460)
01-22-2013 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ringo
01-22-2013 11:54 AM


meta·phys·i·cal adjective \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Definition of METAPHYSICAL
1: of or relating to metaphysics 2a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural
ringo writes:

You seem to be using "metaphysical" as a synonym for "supernatural", which I don't think is correct.


In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural.

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 01-22-2013 11:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 01-23-2013 11:28 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 41 of 81 (688464)
01-22-2013 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by shadow71
01-20-2013 1:23 PM


So there should be some explanation as to how gravity came into existence. Or at least some theories.

One of the front runners for a theory is Supersymmetry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

The idea (which I may be getting wrong since this is not my area of expertise) is that high energy of the singularity at the beginning of our universe allowed all the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravity) to be a single force. As the energy spread out the symmetry between these forces broke down into what we see today. What is interesting is that scientists have had luck in uniting some of these forces, such as the electroweak force:

http://www.fnal.gov/...g/matter/madeof/electroweakforce.html

It is thought that at very, very high energies that you can unite all of the forces as they would have been united at the beginning of the BB. At least that's the rough outline as I understand it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 01-20-2013 1:23 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 42 of 81 (688527)
01-23-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by shadow71
01-22-2013 4:57 PM


shadow71 writes:

In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural.


Of course the problem with "supernatural" explanations is that they're so often made redundant by natural explanations - e.g. lightning. I think we should regard "supernatural" as something like "ultraviolet" - i.e. "beyond visible light, "more" than visible light in the sense that it's more energetic, but not fundamentally different from visible light.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2013 4:57 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 43 of 81 (688528)
01-23-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
01-21-2013 10:40 PM


NoNukes writes:

What really matters is what people who know the topic at hand think.

But don't lay people have the responsibility to read what qualifed experts opinions are and then make a rationale decision as to who is correct? Many important decisions are made by people other than scientists and hopefully the decisions are well thought out. I as a person who believes in the God of the Roman Catholic church take umbage when a scientists writes in a review that only 20% of physicists are theists. What revelance does that have to a scientific issue?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 01-21-2013 10:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 01-23-2013 11:48 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 44 of 81 (688529)
01-23-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AZPaul3
01-21-2013 9:16 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


But you need to be aware that the sources I gave pointed out Schroeder's errors of logic as well as his errors in physics facts.
You can, of course, ignore these errors and their implications on the efficacy of Schroeder's hypothesis. You are then not searching for intellectual answers but for emotional confirmation.

You assume that Oser is correct in his assertions as to some of Schroeders logic and "errors in physics facts."

That is not necessarily the case. Most of the physics facts asserts as errors are not black or white or accepted by all physicists.

In re his criticisms of logic he asserts that Schroeder's logic is flawed. An example is the "predate time" issue. Oser argues that if time starts with the BB how can you speak of anything predating it.
Well is you belive in a God who is supernatural and omnipotent, than that God exists prior to any natural event such as time.

So Oser, in my opinion does not make a good case in his criticisms as he assumes anyone who does not believe as he does in wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 01-21-2013 9:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2013 6:00 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 01-23-2013 6:22 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 7:49 PM shadow71 has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 45 of 81 (688580)
01-23-2013 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by shadow71
01-23-2013 12:06 PM


quote:

In re his criticisms of logic he asserts that Schroeder's logic is flawed. An example is the "predate time" issue. Oser argues that if time starts with the BB how can you speak of anything predating it

To predate a thing it is necessary to exist at an earlier point in time.

There can be no point in time earlier than the earliest point in time by definition.

Time exists at the earliest point in time by definition.

Oser's point seems entirely reasonable. Can you come up with a real objection rather than just assuming that it is wrong ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 12:06 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 7:01 PM PaulK has responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017