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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.