Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:37 AM
18 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat) (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,631 Year: 3,668/19,786 Month: 663/1,087 Week: 32/221 Day: 3/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Was there Gravity at dawn of history?
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 37 (434915)
11-17-2007 11:37 PM


Was there gravity at the start of the universe? If so, how do we know? Was there gravity in the early days of Egypt, as we know it? The evidence seems to suggest that it is a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks.
From a biblical perspective, I see no reason to assume gravity existed as we now know it. (Of course there were laws in place to keep us from flying off the planet, etc, but whether identical to present gravity, I do not think we can know by science)

From a science perspective, I don't think there is any proof there was either!

Guess it it merely an matter of opinion then?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-18-2007 9:02 AM simple has responded
 Message 4 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-18-2007 12:37 PM simple has responded
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 11-18-2007 5:38 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 11-18-2007 5:50 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 11-18-2007 5:52 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 17 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-18-2007 7:18 PM simple has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 37 (434942)
11-18-2007 8:50 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12178
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 37 (434945)
11-18-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
11-17-2007 11:37 PM


Will this topic evolve or will it recreate itself?
simple writes:

Was there gravity at the start of the universe? If so, how do we know? Was there gravity in the early days of Egypt, as we know it? The evidence seems to suggest that it is a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks.
From a biblical perspective, I see no reason to assume gravity existed as we now know it. (Of course there were laws in place to keep us from flying off the planet, etc, but whether identical to present gravity, I do not think we can know by science)

From a science perspective, I don't think there is any proof there was either!

Guess it it merely an matter of opinion then?

Yes, it is a matter of opinion regarding alternative theories.
  • What reasons do you have that gravity was any different "back in the day"? The heavy blocks of the pyramids?
  • Is the logical probabilities of science nothing more than a matter of opinion to you? IF so, why is it not equally plausible that the Bible is itself a matter of opinion as well?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by simple, posted 11-17-2007 11:37 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 4:36 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 28 by jar, posted 11-19-2007 12:47 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
  • EighteenDelta
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 37 (434974)
    11-18-2007 12:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by simple
    11-17-2007 11:37 PM


    All the sources I am reading, since as usual you provided none, seem to indicate that there is not " a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks." There is a wonderful field of archeology called experimental archeology, this is the one I was always most interested in. There have in fact been a number of groups that have moved stones to simulate everything from the ester island statues to the construction of Stonehenge and also the Egyptian blocks you seem to think were mysteriously moved into place when gravity was weaker.

    The ideas is plainly idiotic, if the earths gravity were reduced to a noticeable degree, the escape velocity would be reduced, resulting in our atmosphere escaping, leaving us airless and devoid of life. But I think its pretty clear from your wording

    simp writes:

    From a biblical perspective, I see no reason to assume gravity existed as we now know it.

    which means that evidence contrary to your literalism exists, you simply ignore it and refute it through bold assertions. Where the hell is the mystery?

    -x

    Edited by EighteenDelta, : added link


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by simple, posted 11-17-2007 11:37 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 4:56 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

      
    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 5 of 37 (435024)
    11-18-2007 4:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
    11-18-2007 9:02 AM


    Non Alternative Certainty?
    Yes, it is a matter of opinion regarding alternative theories.
    # What reasons do you have that gravity was any different "back in the day"? The heavy blocks of the pyramids?

    Does this mean that it is NOT a matter of of opinion, for non alternative theories, then? What reasons do you have that gravity was the same "back in the day"when they moved the heavy blocks of the pyramids?
    Is the logical probabilities of science nothing more than a matter of opinion to you? IF so, why is it not equally plausible that the Bible is itself a matter of opinion as well?

    Depends on what probabilities you mean. And what the starting assumptions for those probabilities may be. Some are better than others.
    As for the bible, there are many opinions within the framework of accepting the book's gist, as a whole. I have found no reason to throw out the package as mere opinion, considering the impact the force behind the book has demonstrably had on millions of real people, over time.
    To do so, would be opinion only, and far less plausible than the bible. One reason is the time factor. Science as we know it, is only a few centuries old. The writings that were compiled into bible thousands of years.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-18-2007 9:02 AM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 4:41 PM simple has responded
     Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 12:06 AM simple has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 6 of 37 (435025)
    11-18-2007 4:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by simple
    11-18-2007 4:36 PM


    Re: Non Alternative Certainty?
    This is a science forum. Using the Bible is referred to as a "Special Pleading" and so irrelevant, unimportant, of no value or worth.

    Thanks for playing but you do not even earn parting gifts.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 4:36 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 5:12 PM jar has responded

      
    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 7 of 37 (435028)
    11-18-2007 4:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by EighteenDelta
    11-18-2007 12:37 PM


    What have we here?
    All the sources I am reading, since as usual you provided none, seem to indicate that there is not " a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks." There is a wonderful field of archeology called experimental archeology, this is the one I was always most interested in. There have in fact been a number of groups that have moved stones to simulate everything from the ester island statues to the construction of Stonehenge and also the Egyptian blocks you seem to think were mysteriously moved into place when gravity was weaker.

    But the starting assumption was that gravity was as it is now, and they simply looked for ways to move the stones under that framework. That can't go toward proving that gravity was any way at all. That simply means, that if they imagine enough workers, and time, and methods, etc. they can make a somewhat plausible scenario of how it woulda, coulda shoulda been done.

    The ideas is plainly idiotic, if the earths gravity were reduced to a noticeable degree, the escape velocity would be reduced, resulting in our atmosphere escaping, leaving us airless and devoid of life. But I think its pretty clear from your wording

    Not sure what ideas you refer to, I never really gave mine yet on what gravity may have been like, or the forces that existed, that were here at that time, instead.
    But I can say, it was not a tweak in the laws of the universe we have, and forces, like gravity. If that were the case, as you suggest, there would be problems.
    I would think that there was a different universe at work, in essence. Whether the earth was even revolving, at the time, who knows? Whether space was cold, and whether light we know existed, etc etc. The bible did talk of a lot of water up there, no? It could not exist up there now, I think we know, by the laws of physics, right? So, again, more proof from historical records, right there something seems to have been very different!
    There seems to have been a set of laws for the surface of the earth, where man was limited to, that was 'cursed', and another set for a heaven not that far up above man at the time. (I offer Babel, as evidence, there). There is no reason to assume that the laws in place for the cursed ground man walked on were inefficient to keep things on the ground. Neither is there reason to assume there was gravity as we know it up in the angel's quarters of the day.
    So, again, what can science really do to demonstrate that gravity as we know it existed homogeneously, in the universe of the day??

    which means that evidence contrary to your literalism exists, you simply ignore it and refute it through bold assertions. Where the hell is the mystery?

    Well, many do feel there is some mystery in some of these historical things. You simply chose to explain it away using present realities. You seem to propose, without reason, that this present state laws we literally know now, existed literally in the past. Why are you such a literalist believer in that dogma?? Wouldn't it be nice to offer some science?? Some evidence? Why ignore the glaring fact that you neither have, nor offered any evidence for your claims here, yet?? Do you really think that bold assertions alone will do??

    I would think you need a little more than that.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-18-2007 12:37 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by subbie, posted 11-18-2007 5:03 PM simple has responded
     Message 15 by CK, posted 11-18-2007 5:52 PM simple has responded

      
    subbie
    Member (Idle past 39 days)
    Posts: 3508
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 8 of 37 (435031)
    11-18-2007 5:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by simple
    11-18-2007 4:56 PM


    Re: What have we here?
    By your "reasoning," you can't prove that you existed 5 minutes ago.


    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

    We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 4:56 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 5:16 PM subbie has responded

      
    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 9 of 37 (435034)
    11-18-2007 5:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by jar
    11-18-2007 4:41 PM


    Jar's Special Pleading
    This is a science forum, Jar. Wouldn't you be well advised to give some science for your position on the topic here??? What's wrong, can't you do that? Do you really think we need to have just your special pleading here, for your beliefs??? You do not have to use Egyptian history, or other, or bible history if you don't like. Stick to science, that would be nice. What you got??

    Edited by simple, : No reason given.

    Edited by simple, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 4:41 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 5:44 PM simple has not yet responded

      
    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 10 of 37 (435036)
    11-18-2007 5:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
    11-18-2007 5:03 PM


    A Simple Question
    So, let me get this straight. Asking you to produce evidence for laws you claim existed in our past is akin to not believing in all evidences beyond several minutes. OK.
    So, what, we just take your myths, and stories, and claims as gospel, for no reason, because the last 5 minutes really happened?? Interesting logic there.
    Seems kind of desperate to me, from someone that has no facts or science to bring to bear on a simple question.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by subbie, posted 11-18-2007 5:03 PM subbie has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by subbie, posted 11-18-2007 5:29 PM simple has responded

      
    subbie
    Member (Idle past 39 days)
    Posts: 3508
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 11 of 37 (435037)
    11-18-2007 5:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by simple
    11-18-2007 5:16 PM


    Re: A Simple Question
    No, 18Delta already produced the evidence when he explained that a significant loss of gravity would have drastically altered the atmosphere of the planet. When you continued in your bizarre musings after he pointed this out, I assumed evidence had nothing to do with it, so I thought I'd see how far down the rabbit hole I could get you to chase me.

    As far as my "myths, and stories, and claims" go, I haven't asked you and the mouse in your pocket to take anything as gospel. Reality much?


    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

    We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 5:16 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 11:38 PM subbie has responded

      
    Parasomnium
    Member (Idle past 775 days)
    Posts: 2191
    Joined: 07-15-2003


    Message 12 of 37 (435038)
    11-18-2007 5:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by simple
    11-17-2007 11:37 PM


    Mystery?
    Simple,

    First if all, the title of your thread is "Was there gravity at the dawn of history?" Then you ask "was there gravity at the start of the universe? [...] Was there gravity in the early days of Egypt, as we know it?" From this it seems that you think "the dawn of history", "the start of the universe", and "the early days of Egypt" were all close together in time. From scientific evidence, however, we know that the dawn of history - human history - and ancient Egypt happened just a moment ago, compared to the age of the universe.

    The evidence seems to suggest that it is a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks.

    It's quite baffling to consider how something can be evidence to support a mystery. If something is a mystery, isn't that because of a total lack of evidence? Anyway, those blocks were as heavy then as they are now and archaeologists have worked out methods by which the ancient Egyptians could have done it, with the means available to them at the time. We may not know for certain how they actually did it, but it is beyond doubt that it was feasible for them, without recourse to magic, supernatural things or altenative physics.

    From a biblical perspective, I see no reason to assume gravity existed as we now know it.

    Well, there were of course the walls of Jericho, which came tumbling down, did they not? But that aside, I simply cannot understand what prompts you to even consider this absurd notion that gravity was markedly different then from what it is now. Why on earth would you need this assumption?

    Guess it it merely an matter of opinion then?

    No, no, no, no, no, no! You've got it all wrong! Look, either gravity was different from what it is now, or it wasn't. But whichever situation was the case, it was a fact. It was, is, and will always be a fact. And facts are NEVER, EVER a matter of opinion. Facts are facts, they are true no matter what anyone opines about them.

    It amazes me no end how you can think this way. Your mindset really puzzles me beyond comprehension.


    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

    Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by simple, posted 11-17-2007 11:37 PM simple has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by jar, posted 11-19-2007 12:30 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 13 of 37 (435041)
    11-18-2007 5:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by simple
    11-18-2007 5:12 PM


    Re: Jar's Special Pleading
    The Science for my position is that the Bible is a Special Pleading to the supernatural. As I said, your references to the Bible are irrelevant, immaterial, unimportant and worthless.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 5:12 PM simple has not yet responded

      
    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 37 (435042)
    11-18-2007 5:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by simple
    11-17-2007 11:37 PM


    simple

    The evidence seems to suggest that it is a bit of a mystery how they moved all those now heavy blocks

    Well, are you suggesting that the value of the gravitational force was less back then simple? If so then the effects of a different value for the gravitational force has far reaching consequences. Perhaps you would care to give us the evidence you seem to think justifies asserting this claim?

    (Of course there were laws in place to keep us from flying off the planet, etc, but whether identical to present gravity, I do not think we can know by science)

    Hang on here. What do you mean "Of course"? You are making the claim that science can know nothing about gravity back then yet you get to claim there were laws to keep us from flying off the planet? Those laws are just the ones we use to declare and define that there is gravity so what are you getting at exactly?


    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

    Albert Einstein


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by simple, posted 11-17-2007 11:37 PM simple has not yet responded

      
    CK
    Member (Idle past 2207 days)
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 07-04-2004


    Message 15 of 37 (435043)
    11-18-2007 5:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by simple
    11-18-2007 4:56 PM


    why is this daftness allowed to go on?
    quote:
    That can't go toward proving that gravity was any way at all.

    Yes we can - we can model the effects of gravity on biological lifeforms (there was a great documentary about this on the BBC a couple of years ago). lots of NASAs work looks at this because it's vital to long-term space exploration.

    If the gravity on this planet had been different (weaker or stronger) at some stage then humans and other animals would have evolved in radically different ways. We would also see this in plants - For example, the roots grow toward gravity (positive gravitropism) and the shoots grow away from gravity (negative gravitropism). Since none of the bones we find from those times differ in that radical way then that clearly never happened.

    Edited by CK, : Clarification


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 4:56 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by simple, posted 11-19-2007 12:03 AM CK has not yet responded
     Message 26 by jar, posted 11-19-2007 12:34 AM CK has not yet responded

      
    1
    23Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019