I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[ChristineM]

Didn't someone come up with 'Intelligent Falling' as an alternative 'theory' of gravity

The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and missing.

Douglas Adams

 

[atanu]

Yes, I know certain things. So what? That does not stop someone from being an agnostic. I know that 2 + 2 = 4. And yes, you did have an allusion to God whether you know it or not.

That is funny. You seem to be able to read my mind.

And yes, scientists are noncommittal on fundamental questions that lie beyond the scopes of their studies. Do you think that you found one? You have yet to do so.

You seem rude. But okay. I am happy for the blue part that we agree. What about the red part? Do you think you have found the ultimate answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is funny. You seem to be able to read my mind.

An honest person would clearly state their point and not require others to conclude what they meant by the errors that they made.

You seem rude. But okay. I am happy for the blue part that we agree. What about the red part? Do you think you have found the ultimate answer?

Sorry, no more rude than you are. You began with a rude post and I responded in kind. And I never claimed to or implied that I have found the ultimate answer, though you were already given that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and missing.

Douglas Adams

So now we have two. I suppose I should flesh out my claim:

"MORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF It is commonly believed that people are held on the Earth by gravity (which remains “only a theory”). In truth it is His Noodliness pressing down on us with his noodly appendages that holds us here. The proof for this is that human beings are getting taller. This is because as the population grows, there are fewer noodly appendages per person pressing down, hence people get taller."

https://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/leaflet.pdf

 

[ChristineM]

So now we have two. I suppose I should flesh out my claim:

"MORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF It is commonly believed that people are held on the Earth by gravity (which remains “only a theory”). In truth it is His Noodliness pressing down on us with his noodly appendages that holds us here. The proof for this is that human beings are getting taller. This is because as the population grows, there are fewer noodly appendages per person pressing down, hence people get taller."

https://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/leaflet.pdf

Makes total sense and is more logical than other god magic

 

[atanu]

An honest person would clearly state their point and not require others to conclude what they meant by the errors that they made.

You have been attributing motives to me. And now, why do you think I am not honest?

Sorry, no more rude than you are. You began with a rude post and I responded in kind. And I never claimed to or implied that I have found the ultimate answer, though you were already given that.

Sorry. Can you point out the post where I was rude to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Makes total sense and is more logical than other god magic

They are only asking for equal time, just as the IDists are. From the same source:

"By now I’m sure you can grasp how important it is that the truth about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is taught alongside the scientific theory of evolution and non-scientific metaphysical ideas such as “Intelligent Design”. Of course, this truth should be taught whilst wearing His chosen outfit, i.e. full pirate regalia (it is difficult to explain why in concise way. In short, He becomes angry if we don’t). We all look forward to the time when the three theories of creation are given equal time in our science class rooms across the country, and eventually the world: One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Not me, my beard growing abilities are rather meager

It is merely an example of how an instructor should dress to properly teach intelligent falling. Ramen!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have been attributing motives to me. And now, why do you think I am not honest?

Your posts leave no choice, so yes. I am being honest. You could try to be honest in your postings so that such actions need not be taken.

Sorry. Can you point out the post where I was rude to you?

In your first clear response to me:

"Who is talking of atheism? Friend, it seems that you do not know what 'gnosis' means."

A personal attack and a false claim.

Now I have a question for you: Can you be honest? So far you have failed at being honest. If you are honest and polite we may get somewhere.

 

[atanu]

I am thankful for the ig

Your posts leave no choice, so yes. I am being honest. You could try to be honest in your postings so that such actions need not be taken.
In your first clear response to me:
"Who is talking of atheism? Friend, it seems that you do not know what 'gnosis' means."
A personal attack and a false claim.

In the post no. 252, which was meant for Salix, I meant that most scientists are non committal in respect of many fundamental questions that lie beyond scopes of their studies. I did not mention either atheism or God.

I Don't Believe in Gravity!

The post was not for you. But you assumed that I was talking of God and atheism and said "So what? Now it appears that you do not know what an agnostic is. "

I simply responded to that by saying "Who is talking of atheism? Friend, it seems that you do not know what 'gnosis' means."

I clarified that I had meant that most scientists are non committal in respect of many fundamental questions that lie beyond scopes of their studies.

Despite clarification, you again claimed "And yes, you did have an allusion to God whether you know it or not."
......

Now I have a question for you: Can you be honest? So far you have failed at being honest. If you are honest and polite we may get somewhere.

Sir, you are very honest and I am not. I have no need to prove otherwise. (I have put you on ignore list).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am thankful for the ig


In the post no. 252, which was meant for Salix, I meant that most scientists are non committal in respect of many fundamental questions that lie beyond scopes of their studies. I did not mention either atheism or God.

I Don't Believe in Gravity!

The post was not for you. But you assumed that I was talking of God and atheism and said "So what? Now it appears that you do not know what an agnostic is. "

I simply responded to that by saying "Who is talking of atheism? Friend, it seems that you do not know what 'gnosis' means."

I clarified that I had meant that most scientists are non committal in respect of many fundamental questions that lie beyond scopes of their studies.

Despite clarification, you again claimed "And yes, you did have an allusion to God whether you know it or not."
......



Sir, you are very honest and I am not. I have no need to prove otherwise. (I have put you on ignore list).

You protest too much. And this is a public forum. Wrong on two points before I even get serious. Here is what you posted:

"I feel that Neo Darwinism is a deviation from science. Scientists are mostly agnostics. But Neo Darwinists will swear that they know that their own awareness emerged from inert materials through some evolutionary process."

Your post makes you sound like a creationist, like it or not. Scientists draw conclusions based upon evidence and that is why they understand how awareness arose. You made a claim that I seriously doubt that you can support about Neo Darwinism not being science. You made the sort of post that a creationist would post. If it quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck . . .

 

[SalixIncendium]

Didn't someone come up with 'Intelligent Falling' as an alternative 'theory' of gravity

And of course let's not forget our Flat Earth friends and their "Theory of Universal Acceleration." Apparently, the earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2, which explains how everything is held down.

Universal Acceleration

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation? Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method? Or is it because we know the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) and we have an understanding that without it, we would be flung into space like fleas being shaken off of a dog (until they hit the ground because of gravity)?

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Another scientific theory is Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Like gravity, it is a scientific theory arrived at through use of the scientific method. Yet 42% of the population (according to a poll I made up for this thread) does not buy into evolution or natural selection even though it uses the same scientific method used to arrive at the theory of gravity (systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). One can hypothesize (as I do) that the only reason that one would not believe in evolution is because s/he lacks subjective experience.

So In this thread, I would like to hear from those that believe in gravity and do not believe in evolution through natural selection. Why is gravity more valid to you than evolution?


Edited for typos

58% believing in Darwinian evolution seems extremely high, according to Gallup it's about 19%..

We believe in gravity for the same reason we believe in adaptation, it's demonstrable, repeatable, observable, measurable.. scientific, in the true sense, rather than the academic sense.

Darwinism, and theories surrounding how gravity works, are not, they are more in the realm of philosophical speculation

 

[Subduction Zone]

58% believing in Darwinian evolution seems extremely high, according to Gallup it's about 19%..

We believe in gravity for the same reason we believe in adaptation, it's demonstrable, repeatable, observable, measurable.. scientific, in the true sense, rather than the academic sense.

Darwinism, and theories surrounding how gravity works, are not, they are more in the realm of philosophical speculation

Why limit it to "Darwinian Evolution"? Fiftyeight percent accept the fact of common descent. They may believe that God had a hand in it.

And you still don't understand the theory that you hate. If you used proper terminology you might do better.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why, you don't know how to do the work yourself and evaluate scientific papers properly.

You are the one saying you understand the evidence better than the scientific community at large.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yep, that doesn't make the theory wrong but indicates it isn't fully right not that t is incomplete.

Sorry for the delay...I actually have a life LOL What is the difference between incomplete and not fully right?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Gravity like Evolution are both theories that are still unproven today and I have issues with each explanation and each has had their formulas tweaked along the years to better represent the new scientific data. I have no reason to believe that the tweaking is going to stop and have multiple reasons to doubt parts of each theory.

Gravity and evolution are both facts, not theories. The Gravitational Theory and The Theory of Evolution are scientific theories to explain these facts. And as more data is gathered, we have a better understanding of these facts, and hence the theories are modified and updated from time to time.
I have seen many, many people confuse the fact with the explanation of the fact. They are two separate things.
Example:
A man is dead.
Captain: What's your theory?
Dumb Detective: He is dead.
Smart Detective: Given the fact that he has a knife sticking out of his left side, I would say he has been stabbed from the back, by a left handed person.

Smart detective gave a theory to explain the fact. Dumb detective just stated the fact as though it's a theory. It's not that complicated.

 

[Hawkins]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation?

No. It's because objects following gravity are with their behavior predictable.

Humans can't know the future. If we can use a theory to predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we thus confirm that our theory is correct.

We use a theory to predict that how earth evolving around the sun and where it's relative location will be a year later (repeat into future). If next year it's in the exact location as we predict today, then it says that the theory we are using for such a prediction is thus can be regarded as a theory of truth.

In terms of evolution, if you are given a bacteria (or single cell organism) you can predict by using your theory that it will become a rat 10 million years later. And it is then confirmed to be so 10 million years later. Then it says that your theory is correct and can thus be regarded as a theory of truth.

This is already the minimum requirement as it only happened once but not infinitive number of times as general science does. In the example of earth revolving around sun, this repeats every year infinitively for humans to do repeating confirmations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It's because objects following gravity are with their behavior predictable.

Humans can't know the future. If we can use a theory to predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we thus confirm that our theory is correct.

We use a theory to predict that how earth evolving around the sun and where it's relative location will be a year later (repeat into future). If next year it's in the exact location as we predict today, then it says that the theory we are using for such a prediction is thus can be regarded as a theory of truth.

In terms of evolution, if you are given a bacteria (or single cell organism) you can predict by using your theory that it will become a rat 10 million years later. And it is then confirmed to be so 10 million years later. Then it says that your theory is correct and can thus be regarded as a theory of truth.

This is already the minimum requirement as it only happened once but not infinitive number of times as general science does. In the example of earth revolving around sun, this repeats every year infinitively for humans to do repeating confirmations.

That is not the only way that one could make predictions with the theory of evolution. Tiktaalik was found using the theory to predict that such a fossil could exist where they found it.

The theories predictive powers have been tested in many ways, that was merely one of the more famous ones.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity?

We don't, generally.

Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation?

No. Newtonian gravity was first criticized as obviously and horrendously false by the noted natural philosopher...Isaac Newton:
"That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
Later, after Maxwell and others reformulated Faraday's notion of "fields" into a suitably rigorous form, the instantaneous-action-at-a-distance issue with Newtonian gravitation was more or less removed, but serious flaws remained. Mach explored many of these, but many of the issues were rendered moot by, one the one hand, the development of general relativity (in which there is no gravitational force) and the inability to reconcile Newtonian physics with...well...modern physics.

Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method?

There is no such method. There are scientific methods, but currently gravity is a serious outstanding problem. Not to most scientists (or most people) who can use Newtonian gravitation as a so-called "effective theory" which we know to be wrong or flawed (or, to some, a theory valid in the sense that it works to produce answers in its domain).

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Subjective experience is one form of evidence scientists use. We don't use some algorithmic-like process popularly known and taught (even to college students!) known as "The Scientific Method". Despite the efforts of many scientists from various fields as well as organizations like the AAAS, the NAS, etc., the misconception or myth known as The Scientific Method remains.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nope. Not my field of expertise. That doesn't make the theory of gravity wrong, just incomplete.

Currently there are several distinct theories of gravity. The most commonly known is a variation of Newtonian gravity from classical mechanics. This theory is not incomplete, it is wrong. It is known to be wrong. It is known to be wrong on several levels and for several reasons. First, even when Newton's action-at-a-distance version (which he himself abhorred) is mediated by gravitational fields, the force described is quite simply incompatible with classical electromagnetism, relativistic physics, quantum mechanics and quantum theory more general, etc.
The problem is not that it needs to be extended or somehow completed. It cannot and can never be made to be compatible even with the highly successful components of classical field theory, let alone relativistic physics and quantum theory. Our best theory of gravity holds that there exists no such force. In general relativity, which explains and predicts phenomena that Newtonian gravity fails to, gravity doesn't actually exist. Gravitation is instead the name given to the manner in which spacetime interacts with physical systems according to the field equation(s) of general relativity. These consist of one or more equations (Einstein summation convention and tensor calculus can condense quite a lot into a single line) which tell us how the presence of physical systems will locally determine the metric structure of the spacetime manifold and thereby cause what appears or can appear to be something like gravitational attraction.
In fundamental physics, neither general relativity nor Newtonian gravity work, but whereas general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory because of the difficulties posed by quantizing dynamical spacetime as a quantum field, Newtonian gravity just breaks down pure and simple. Newtonian gravity is central to Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is built upon a mathematical and logical structure that fails, along with its predictive power and validity as a physical theory.