"See how this cigarette smoke isn't going through the mask? That's proof that viruses don't, either!..."
"...I've just been informed that the science changed again and that some of the virus gets through. But you're absolutely selfish and anti-science when you don't wear a mask to stop even 0.0001% of the virus from traveling!"
If gravity is an all encompassing force with enough force to hold millions of tons of ocean water to a spinning ball how can we jump up and down and birds fly. The gravity would be so strong we'd be stuck to the ground.
If the earth is spinning as fast as they claim the water would fling off like a wet tennis ball.
The infinite "vaccum of space" could not exist without a physical barrier between us. Our "atmosphere" would be ripped apart.
I'll be the first to admit that gravity is weird and we don't understand it's fundamental origins, but this is pretty simple.
Much like how you can easily and in many ways observe the celestial bodies around us to conclude that we must be on a globe, without ever seeing it from above, we can observe the behaviour of gravity without understanding why it works.
Gravity does not exert an "all encompassing force". Gravity causes everything on Earth, regardless of it's mass, to accelerate at a constant rate.
This is weird because Force = Mass x Acceleration. That means that the force that gravity exerts on different masses varies depending on the mass.
This was demonstrated by the famous Tower of Piza experiment: if you drop a cannon ball and an apple, which vary greatly in mass, from the same height they will reach the ground at the same time (so long as their coefficient of friction is roughly the same). If gravity were exerting the same force on everything, the more massive cannonball would actually fall slower because it wouldn't accelerate as quickly.
The "force of gravity" for you, personally, is only as much as is needed to accelerate you towards the Earth at about 9.8m/s^2; if you can accelerate faster than that away from the Earth, you can leave the ground.
Now you can go ahead and nitpick my explanation (it's hardly complete) but I would point out that: if gravity doesn't work on a globe Earth, it doesn't work on a flat Earth either.
This also explains why, over time, more dense ("heavy") objects sink and less dense ("lighter") objects rise to the surface. This is because if two objects of the same size, but different mass, are accelerated to the same magnitude, the object with the greater mass has more inertia and force, and will displace the object with less mass.
It's one of the controlling aspects of weather phenomena, since cold air sinks and hot air rises (which creates clouds and rain). There's a neat kids physics experiment where you add multiple differently dense things to a tall clear container (stuff that can be shifted around, like dried rice, beans, foam peanuts, etc.), and shake the container. The greater density objects will sink to the bottom, and the lesser density objects will rise to the surface, creating clearly delineated layers.
observe my dear friend, gravity, drawing things toward a center of of mass. small scale experiments cannot compare to large scale physics, they can only serve as examples. consider the following: the average human has 90-110 iq. you have 4. you do not necessarily represent the rest of humanity.
observe my dear friend, gravity, drawing things toward a center of of mass. small scale experiments cannot
So you’re fine having faith in something you cannot test or directly observe?
Not very “scientific” ... much more of a religious view wouldn’t you say?
That’s true, things that are heavier than the media they displace fall. That’s the law of gravity! In its simplest form, it is the statement that “what goes up, must come down.
But the commenter i was responding to wasn’t talking about gravity, they were talking about gravitation the magical/mysterious/unknown postulated pseudoforce believed to cause that law. The former is, as you say, real. The latter is not.
Things fall merely because they were lifted and with the exact same energy used to lift them. They fall because the air beneath them cannot support their weight. Things do NOT fall because there is a magical “force” pulling them down. That is a stupid, unscientific, and fictional idea, as it was from its original inception.
why does the item fall downwards and not in any other direction?
Because that is the direction of its lowest energy state aka “rest”. Things tend towards rest/equilibrium. It’s also got a lot of matter above it pushing down; it’s the easiest way / path of least resistance for it to fall down.
I could easily argue that it is “blindingly retarded” to expect that it ought to fall in any other direction than the opposite of the one you lifted it. Or that “falling” ever could happen in any other direction than down, just as lifting could ever be in any other direction than “up”. It is arguably equally “blindingly retarded” to assume that air could or should support the weight of a physical object of significantly greater density that you lifted and released.
if they only dont fall because the air cant support them then why do things feel heavy?
You may have misunderstood me. Things do fall because the air can’t support their weight, and because they were lifted and released. Things feel heavy because they are made of matter, and matter has weight. It is an intrinsic property of all matter, and because of the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces it exhibits a force that totals downwards.
did you think about this for longer than it took you to type?
I dare say i have thought about it, discussed it, and researched it far more than you have or ever will!
gravitational pull, while we dont quite understand the specifics of how it works, is a well understood fundemental force of reality, it is a key part of what holds literally everything together.
The greeks believed the same thing about zeus. You are describing belief in your mythology - not science. Gravitational pull does not make sense (it is intractable), is not consistent with reality, and is fundamentally unscientific and fictional. I know what i am saying sounds wild, because it is wild.
I recognize the prominent role it plays in the modern creation mythology (and dogma) of scientism. That changes nothing.
we dont know why that happens, but we know the exact way that it happens,
These are contradictory statements. We don’t know why that happens, which is ALSO the same as not knowing the exact way that it happens. You believe it is the cause of observable and well established phenomena, but that’s only because of rote under the guise of education from childhood.
and not knowing something does not proove that it isnt real.
No, but until something is discovered it is NOT discovered. Gravitation is NOT discovered. It was simply made up and weaseled its way into textbooks. No science was involved. In science, things are not real until they are proven to be. We can measure weight. We can measure the speed things fall. We can measure the minuscule attraction between certain types of matter. We cannot measure “gravitational pull”, which makes it unemperical aka unscientific. Things we cannot measure do not belong in science. Belief does not belong in science.
there is far more proof to gravitational force just existing than there is for whatever completely braindead alternative you have come up with.
So we are taught, and required to faithfully repeat. However in reality, it isn’t true. What we have is belief. In science, proof only comes from rigorous empiricism (scientific law - the “what”) and rigorous experiment (scientific theory - the “why/how”). Gravitational force has neither, and never has. Newton understood that it never could. This fact, and the meaning of it, is lost on most modern students :(
What we can actually test and observe are gravitation’s believed effects.
Gravity [gravitation, not gravity] is somewhere between mysterious and pure fiction - i.e. pseudoscience.
We can observe falling (which is the law/phenomenon of gravity - but NOT gravitation. It is merely believed to cause it...), and we can observe minuscule attraction between some types of matter - but gravitation cannot be measured, observed, understood (3+ centuries and counting :(), or manipulated (required for experiment of any kind). It doesn’t exist outside of equation and is often referred to as a “pseudo-force” (pseudo meaning NOT real) as a result.
Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.
I’ve already done that!
In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.
Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!
Lol. You mean you can’t believe i have done that! More blind faith from the supposed science lover? When a scientist is asked if his shoes are tied, he looks down before answering.
Writing down your rambling thoughts doesn't make a scientific theory.
I agree! Only experiment can bear theory, which is one of many reasons why gravitation never was, and continues to not be today 3+ centuries later, scientific theory! It’s just erroneously/disingenuously misrepresented as such through standardized “education” from childhood.
What is your explanation for the effects that normal people accept are those of gravity?
We can discuss that if you like, but you should recognize how silly and illogical your position is. Demanding a replacement for something before you will even consider it is wrong is stupid and unscientific.
Why can’t you recognize/determine that something taught as science is incorrect without discovering an alternative first? Furthermore, why would one even seek to discover an alternative unless they first suspect/recognize that their current explanation is wrong? One necessarily comes before the other and is the driving engine of both knowledge and all of science. Have you given that any thought?
What is your alternative explanation?
Explanations are cheap - they are merely mythology. What matters is validation. Science is about experiment!
Abandoning the scientific method (newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry purposes) is what got us into this mess and introduced the unscientific fiction/mythology of gravitation into physics in the first place!
The explanation is simple, demonstrable, and experimentally validatable.
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical fields of any kind.
What (primarily/chiefly) governs wether an object will rise (levity), fall (gravity), or neither (neutrality) is the relationship/interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces - nothing more. Archimedes had gravity (a scientific law millennia old) most all figured out 2+ millennia ago.
Formulate it and then conduct experiments to confirm it.
I have already done that! But i’m happy to go over it with you at length if you wish!
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects. The 'cause' behind these effects (most recently: Higgs Boson) are indeed science fiction and literally everyone admits so (despite what popsci publications would have one believe).
There are a number of these phenomenological terms in science, where the effects are studied but causes not understood, e.g. diffraction, surface tension, etc. all terms of which are defined by their effects. People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation. And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
The 'cause' behind these effects
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
"Gravitation" is the noun form of the (nonexistant?) verb for gravity, which would roughly be 'to experience gravity'. The noun 'gravitation', per basic English/latin rules, would be the term describing the noun form of objects experiencing gravity. This word can't be used to describe someone's pet theory without some other modifier (e.g. 'electric', 'coalescing', 'fairy-induced', etc).
There is no magic or anything spooky.
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena. You describe the epistemological problem of reverse engineering the black box of nature, which, though true, dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory. You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'. which is a proper noun (and thus requires the words 'theory' and 'of')?
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
There is no magic or anything spooky.
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
This is not exactly right. It is true that proof, outside of mathematics, is subjective, provisional, and historically doomed to refutation - but the scientific method is ALL about proving to the best of our abilities.
Experiment is how we prove that our scientific understandings for the cause of phenomena are correct. It isn’t truth, but it is the best we’ve got - and the closest thing (in my estimation) to proof that exists.
Sadly the vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate due to poor education, and so do not actually know what an experiment is or how the scientific method works or why. To make matters worse, they learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions for the vernacular (experiment, theory, hypothesis, etc.) so they can’t even have a discussion, let alone practice or study science - even if they wanted to :(
Assumption has no place in science whatsoever outside of hypothesis generation - which exists only for experimental validation/refutation (ideally). Science has no place for belief/assumption (it’s called bias, and is a four letter word).
Are perceptions bias? Also, please don't misunderstand, I agree with science. I am actually looking to pursue a career in mechanical engineering (or pure mathematics, because of proof as you mentioned). I believe that science done properly should be believed, but science, as far as observability, struggles to compete with propaganda, and is oftentimes difficult to differentiate. I agree with you in all that you have stated, I just wish that people would use commonsense more than their eyes and ears.
Generally, yes. Perceptions are subjective, and subjectivity is bias. Science is the attempt to suppress that inherent human quality and study objectively.
Also, please don't misunderstand, I agree with science
Likewise, i also appreciate and value science as a method of learning about the world and gaining new understanding and capacity/ability.
I believe that science done properly should be believed
Science should NEVER be believed. Belief has no place in science whatsoever - that’s what religion is for. Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
One of the best things about science is that it requires no (and is, in fact, significantly hindered by) belief!
and is oftentimes difficult to differentiate
If you don’t know what science is, you can never differentiate between it and pseudoscience/religion/mythology presented under its guise. This is the purpose of the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.
I disagree with your first point. Perspective is not bias, it forms bias.
Second point we both agree upon.
Third point, I didn't clarify what I meant properly. I meant that science done right should be agreed with but still questioned in a likewise scientific manner. I confused this with belief as they are similar in conceptual structure.
Agreed. I sometimes don't communicate what I think well with words, as concepts can be stated many ways incorrectly, and but few correctly.
Perhaps, to the weak minded. But for the capable and curious, it is intriguing and well worth exploring.
Fuck off, flatty.
Lol. “Flatty” (and “globetard” etc.) is a derogatory made up and popularized by the flat earth psyop to make you sound like a stupid child. I’d recommend avoiding using it for that reason - but suit yourself.
I am not a “flat earther” as i have explained to you many times. I am a flat earth researcher - we study the psyop, the products/agents/“flat earthers” it creates/fosters, and related topics.
Is this supposed to be an argument?
I really hope you guys aren't sending your best, for your sake...
"See how this cigarette smoke isn't going through the mask? That's proof that viruses don't, either!..."
"...I've just been informed that the science changed again and that some of the virus gets through. But you're absolutely selfish and anti-science when you don't wear a mask to stop even 0.0001% of the virus from traveling!"
If gravity is an all encompassing force with enough force to hold millions of tons of ocean water to a spinning ball how can we jump up and down and birds fly. The gravity would be so strong we'd be stuck to the ground.
If the earth is spinning as fast as they claim the water would fling off like a wet tennis ball.
The infinite "vaccum of space" could not exist without a physical barrier between us. Our "atmosphere" would be ripped apart.
All praise the Holy God Gravity 🙌🙏.
I'll be the first to admit that gravity is weird and we don't understand it's fundamental origins, but this is pretty simple.
Much like how you can easily and in many ways observe the celestial bodies around us to conclude that we must be on a globe, without ever seeing it from above, we can observe the behaviour of gravity without understanding why it works.
Gravity does not exert an "all encompassing force". Gravity causes everything on Earth, regardless of it's mass, to accelerate at a constant rate.
This is weird because Force = Mass x Acceleration. That means that the force that gravity exerts on different masses varies depending on the mass.
This was demonstrated by the famous Tower of Piza experiment: if you drop a cannon ball and an apple, which vary greatly in mass, from the same height they will reach the ground at the same time (so long as their coefficient of friction is roughly the same). If gravity were exerting the same force on everything, the more massive cannonball would actually fall slower because it wouldn't accelerate as quickly.
The "force of gravity" for you, personally, is only as much as is needed to accelerate you towards the Earth at about 9.8m/s^2; if you can accelerate faster than that away from the Earth, you can leave the ground.
Now you can go ahead and nitpick my explanation (it's hardly complete) but I would point out that: if gravity doesn't work on a globe Earth, it doesn't work on a flat Earth either.
This also explains why, over time, more dense ("heavy") objects sink and less dense ("lighter") objects rise to the surface. This is because if two objects of the same size, but different mass, are accelerated to the same magnitude, the object with the greater mass has more inertia and force, and will displace the object with less mass.
It's one of the controlling aspects of weather phenomena, since cold air sinks and hot air rises (which creates clouds and rain). There's a neat kids physics experiment where you add multiple differently dense things to a tall clear container (stuff that can be shifted around, like dried rice, beans, foam peanuts, etc.), and shake the container. The greater density objects will sink to the bottom, and the lesser density objects will rise to the surface, creating clearly delineated layers.
observe my dear friend, gravity, drawing things toward a center of of mass. small scale experiments cannot compare to large scale physics, they can only serve as examples. consider the following: the average human has 90-110 iq. you have 4. you do not necessarily represent the rest of humanity.
So you’re fine having faith in something you cannot test or directly observe? Not very “scientific” ... much more of a religious view wouldn’t you say?
That’s true, things that are heavier than the media they displace fall. That’s the law of gravity! In its simplest form, it is the statement that “what goes up, must come down.
But the commenter i was responding to wasn’t talking about gravity, they were talking about gravitation the magical/mysterious/unknown postulated pseudoforce believed to cause that law. The former is, as you say, real. The latter is not.
Things fall merely because they were lifted and with the exact same energy used to lift them. They fall because the air beneath them cannot support their weight. Things do NOT fall because there is a magical “force” pulling them down. That is a stupid, unscientific, and fictional idea, as it was from its original inception.
Because that is the direction of its lowest energy state aka “rest”. Things tend towards rest/equilibrium. It’s also got a lot of matter above it pushing down; it’s the easiest way / path of least resistance for it to fall down.
I could easily argue that it is “blindingly retarded” to expect that it ought to fall in any other direction than the opposite of the one you lifted it. Or that “falling” ever could happen in any other direction than down, just as lifting could ever be in any other direction than “up”. It is arguably equally “blindingly retarded” to assume that air could or should support the weight of a physical object of significantly greater density that you lifted and released.
You may have misunderstood me. Things do fall because the air can’t support their weight, and because they were lifted and released. Things feel heavy because they are made of matter, and matter has weight. It is an intrinsic property of all matter, and because of the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces it exhibits a force that totals downwards.
I dare say i have thought about it, discussed it, and researched it far more than you have or ever will!
The greeks believed the same thing about zeus. You are describing belief in your mythology - not science. Gravitational pull does not make sense (it is intractable), is not consistent with reality, and is fundamentally unscientific and fictional. I know what i am saying sounds wild, because it is wild.
I recognize the prominent role it plays in the modern creation mythology (and dogma) of scientism. That changes nothing.
These are contradictory statements. We don’t know why that happens, which is ALSO the same as not knowing the exact way that it happens. You believe it is the cause of observable and well established phenomena, but that’s only because of rote under the guise of education from childhood.
No, but until something is discovered it is NOT discovered. Gravitation is NOT discovered. It was simply made up and weaseled its way into textbooks. No science was involved. In science, things are not real until they are proven to be. We can measure weight. We can measure the speed things fall. We can measure the minuscule attraction between certain types of matter. We cannot measure “gravitational pull”, which makes it unemperical aka unscientific. Things we cannot measure do not belong in science. Belief does not belong in science.
So we are taught, and required to faithfully repeat. However in reality, it isn’t true. What we have is belief. In science, proof only comes from rigorous empiricism (scientific law - the “what”) and rigorous experiment (scientific theory - the “why/how”). Gravitational force has neither, and never has. Newton understood that it never could. This fact, and the meaning of it, is lost on most modern students :(
You can test and observe gravity very easily.
So we are taught!
What we can actually test and observe are gravitation’s believed effects.
Gravity [gravitation, not gravity] is somewhere between mysterious and pure fiction - i.e. pseudoscience.
We can observe falling (which is the law/phenomenon of gravity - but NOT gravitation. It is merely believed to cause it...), and we can observe minuscule attraction between some types of matter - but gravitation cannot be measured, observed, understood (3+ centuries and counting :(), or manipulated (required for experiment of any kind). It doesn’t exist outside of equation and is often referred to as a “pseudo-force” (pseudo meaning NOT real) as a result.
Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments. That is how science works.
Hahahaha. Oh wow. Haven't heard the Electric Universe mentioned in quite a while.
Holy shit - he died? When did that happen?
What a shame.
I’ve already done that!
In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.
Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!
If only!
No you have not. Writing down your rambling thoughts doesn't make a scientific theory.
What is your explanation for the effects that normal people accept are those of gravity?
What is your alternative explanation?
Formulate it and then conduct experiments to confirm it.
Lol. You mean you can’t believe i have done that! More blind faith from the supposed science lover? When a scientist is asked if his shoes are tied, he looks down before answering.
I agree! Only experiment can bear theory, which is one of many reasons why gravitation never was, and continues to not be today 3+ centuries later, scientific theory! It’s just erroneously/disingenuously misrepresented as such through standardized “education” from childhood.
We can discuss that if you like, but you should recognize how silly and illogical your position is. Demanding a replacement for something before you will even consider it is wrong is stupid and unscientific.
Why can’t you recognize/determine that something taught as science is incorrect without discovering an alternative first? Furthermore, why would one even seek to discover an alternative unless they first suspect/recognize that their current explanation is wrong? One necessarily comes before the other and is the driving engine of both knowledge and all of science. Have you given that any thought?
Explanations are cheap - they are merely mythology. What matters is validation. Science is about experiment!
Abandoning the scientific method (newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry purposes) is what got us into this mess and introduced the unscientific fiction/mythology of gravitation into physics in the first place!
The explanation is simple, demonstrable, and experimentally validatable.
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical fields of any kind.
What (primarily/chiefly) governs wether an object will rise (levity), fall (gravity), or neither (neutrality) is the relationship/interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces - nothing more. Archimedes had gravity (a scientific law millennia old) most all figured out 2+ millennia ago.
I have already done that! But i’m happy to go over it with you at length if you wish!
Dude you might be actually retarded.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects. The 'cause' behind these effects (most recently: Higgs Boson) are indeed science fiction and literally everyone admits so (despite what popsci publications would have one believe).
There are a number of these phenomenological terms in science, where the effects are studied but causes not understood, e.g. diffraction, surface tension, etc. all terms of which are defined by their effects. People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation. And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
"Gravitation" is the noun form of the (nonexistant?) verb for gravity, which would roughly be 'to experience gravity'. The noun 'gravitation', per basic English/latin rules, would be the term describing the noun form of objects experiencing gravity. This word can't be used to describe someone's pet theory without some other modifier (e.g. 'electric', 'coalescing', 'fairy-induced', etc).
There is no magic or anything spooky.
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena. You describe the epistemological problem of reverse engineering the black box of nature, which, though true, dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory. You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'. which is a proper noun (and thus requires the words 'theory' and 'of')?
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
science cannot be proved anymore than your own perspective. but we must assume in order to understand, and we must understand to survive.
This is not exactly right. It is true that proof, outside of mathematics, is subjective, provisional, and historically doomed to refutation - but the scientific method is ALL about proving to the best of our abilities.
Experiment is how we prove that our scientific understandings for the cause of phenomena are correct. It isn’t truth, but it is the best we’ve got - and the closest thing (in my estimation) to proof that exists.
Sadly the vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate due to poor education, and so do not actually know what an experiment is or how the scientific method works or why. To make matters worse, they learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions for the vernacular (experiment, theory, hypothesis, etc.) so they can’t even have a discussion, let alone practice or study science - even if they wanted to :(
Assumption has no place in science whatsoever outside of hypothesis generation - which exists only for experimental validation/refutation (ideally). Science has no place for belief/assumption (it’s called bias, and is a four letter word).
Are perceptions bias? Also, please don't misunderstand, I agree with science. I am actually looking to pursue a career in mechanical engineering (or pure mathematics, because of proof as you mentioned). I believe that science done properly should be believed, but science, as far as observability, struggles to compete with propaganda, and is oftentimes difficult to differentiate. I agree with you in all that you have stated, I just wish that people would use commonsense more than their eyes and ears.
Generally, yes. Perceptions are subjective, and subjectivity is bias. Science is the attempt to suppress that inherent human quality and study objectively.
Likewise, i also appreciate and value science as a method of learning about the world and gaining new understanding and capacity/ability.
Science should NEVER be believed. Belief has no place in science whatsoever - that’s what religion is for. Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
One of the best things about science is that it requires no (and is, in fact, significantly hindered by) belief!
If you don’t know what science is, you can never differentiate between it and pseudoscience/religion/mythology presented under its guise. This is the purpose of the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.
I disagree with your first point. Perspective is not bias, it forms bias. Second point we both agree upon. Third point, I didn't clarify what I meant properly. I meant that science done right should be agreed with but still questioned in a likewise scientific manner. I confused this with belief as they are similar in conceptual structure. Agreed. I sometimes don't communicate what I think well with words, as concepts can be stated many ways incorrectly, and but few correctly.
To any and all with an interest in this topic (for, against, neutral) please join us on flatearthresearch to exchange views!
Die immediately.
Oh tallest, as erudite and intellectual as ever i see ;)
You’re banned here. You’re clinically insane. Get the fuck out.
After you, good sir ;)
Perhaps, but you are a pathologically belligerent fool. I’d prefer the former over the latter any day.
Besides, has conpro taught you nothing? Still using the poppsy slanders of our enemies eh?
Your existence is gaslighting. Fuck off, flatty.
Perhaps, to the weak minded. But for the capable and curious, it is intriguing and well worth exploring.
Lol. “Flatty” (and “globetard” etc.) is a derogatory made up and popularized by the flat earth psyop to make you sound like a stupid child. I’d recommend avoiding using it for that reason - but suit yourself.
I am not a “flat earther” as i have explained to you many times. I am a flat earth researcher - we study the psyop, the products/agents/“flat earthers” it creates/fosters, and related topics.
No, you didn’t make it up.
Kill yourself for being a flat earther.