Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,353 Year: 3,610/9,624 Month: 481/974 Week: 94/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 205 (179007)
01-20-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-19-2005 7:18 AM


A slight rewording of the definition of science.
Think about as science asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation? Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that requires a supernatural explanation? With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary.
How about:
Think about science as asking:
"What can I understand and the universe that I can attempt to avoid human mistakes and biases from coloring?
This requires ('cause I can't think of another way) that I have something that independent observers can check, test etc. separately from me and my biases. That leaves out a lot of thing including the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 7:18 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 12:11 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 205 (179009)
01-20-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Raymon
01-20-2005 4:57 PM


Uncertaintly principle
I can accept that the universe has a net energy of zero, but that doesn't quite address my concern: IF gravity cancels out mass, souldn't we be seeing massive objects appearing all the time (today)because of the Uncertainty Principle?
Don't quote me but (well, someone will when they correct what I'm saying) I think there is a decreasing probability of the object appearing based on the mass of it.
Or I'm not sure that the gravitation "cancelation" can apply to a local single object (I am way over my head here) and we'd have to gather up a lot of energy in one place to allow a really massive object to appear.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 17:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Raymon, posted 01-20-2005 4:57 PM Raymon has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 205 (179517)
01-22-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by simple
01-22-2005 12:11 AM


Re: A slight rewording of the definition of science.
Yes it leaves out a lot of things!
Then perhaps you would like to go to this thread:
What is Science?
and explain what is left out.
You might start to understand that throw away one liners will not make you look very clever. You have to support what you say. Have a go at it in that thread why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 12:11 AM simple has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 205 (179520)
01-22-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by simple
01-21-2005 9:45 PM


Re: up in the attic and WAY off topic ...
Do we know exactly what gravity is, and what causes it?
Could you:
1) Explain why you ask this and how the answer will help the discussion progress?
2) Clarify what you mean by "exactly"?
We do have a very good (but probably incomplete) theory of gravity. However, I'm not sure if it answers your question or not.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2005 00:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 9:45 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 1:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024