|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2006 : 12:14:37 [Permalink]
|
| Hippy, your grasp of physics leaves a lot to be desired. Inertia and gravity laws hardly contradict each other unless you don't have a clue what you're talking about. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 13:02:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Gravity is impossible according to the known laws of physics. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If you apply upward force to a ball, the ball begins to move up. But then, amazingly enough, the ball slows down and comes back. What material object applied enough downward force to the ball to cancel and reverse the upward force which you provided?
Gravity provided a constant downward force, even when you were holding the ball in your hand just thinking about tossing it into the air. Gravity constantly provides an upward force against the bottom of your feet while you stand. For a real twist, when you throw the ball into the air, your body actually "recoils" against the planet, pushing it away from the ball by the teeniest bit. Of course, the gravity of the ball pulls the Earth back "upwards" by a teensy bit, as well.
Gravity is only "impossible" according to the known laws of physics if you don't have even a grade-school knowledge of physics and have to make shit up as you go along. Good grief. I could have told you what was wrong with your statements back when I was 12. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 13:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Gravity is impossible according to the known laws of physics. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If you apply upward force to a ball, the ball begins to move up. But then, amazingly enough, the ball slows down and comes back. What material object applied enough downward force to the ball to cancel and reverse the upward force which you provided?
This is, as has been mentioned, simply a complete misunderstanding of physics on your part. Your incredulity does not constitute evidence of a miracle, not in the formation of giant hailstones, and not in the effects of gravity. You're making yourself look pretty darn foolish with comments like that.quote:
If a divine being's will is accepted as the explanation for an event, then there is no reason to continue looking for any other explanation. I do not equate the supernatural with a divine being's will. Classifying something as supernatural is not an admission of the existence of a divine being, it is the admission of how little we actually know about the universe.
Your incredulity does not constitute evidence of the supernatural, nor will it ever be accepted by science as such, ever. Although I will have to admit, I find it nearly outside the bounds of natural law that someone could be as totally dense and incapable of understanding as you are, and still be able to operate a device as complicated as a computer keyboard.quote:
I didn't say "present a case", I said "find evidence". If the evidence points to the defendant being guilty, the defense attorney is not given unlimited time to find evidence before the defendant is convicted. If he was, nobody would ever be convicted of anything unless they plead guilty.
Convicted or not, the lawyer has, for all practical purposes, forever to demonstrate that his client is not guilty. You can keep trying to make your faulty analogies work. You aren't getting any closer to proving anything, well, other than that you are virtually incapable of understanding simple science.quote:
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
Doing the little childish semantic shucking and jiving again I see. Well at least you haven't disappointed me. I would have expected nothing less.
Now let's take it from the top one more time. You asked at the outset whether supernatural causes should be eliminated, a priori, from the list of possible causes for an, as yet, unexplained event. The answer is: Supernatural causes are not eliminated a priori as an explanation. Two things are considered. One, has there ever been a verifiable event that is scientifically accepted to have been the result of supernatural causes, giving any weight to it being considered this time? And two, is there a method that might be employed to test for supernatural causes in a scientifically acceptable way? The answer to both questions is, "No." Then the possibility of supernatural causes is set aside.
In order for magic to be reasonably considered as the cause of an event, occurrence, or phenomenon, those two questions, or at the very least the question regarding a method for testing, must be answered in the affirmative.
You seem to insist that your magic terrorist buddy should be considered as a possibility when trying to determine the cause of an event. You've been asked a dozen times or more to describe any event for which science has accepted magic as the cause. You've been asked a dozen times to describe how one might go about scientifically testing to determine that magic is the cause of an event. You haven't even tried in any realistic way to answer those questions.
So I think it's safe to take your continued refusal to answer, or to even barely acknowledge the questions, as your admission that no such event has ever occurred, and that there is not an acceptable method for testing to determine if an event was the result of magic.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 14:27:12 [Permalink]
|
How did I miss this the first time?quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Classifying something as supernatural is not an admission of the existence of a divine being, it is the admission of how little we actually know about the universe.
We can admit that all day long without having to acknowledge even the possibility that something supernatural exists.
We know relatively little about the universe.
See how easy that is? I'll do it again:
We know relatively little about the universe. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 15:44:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
If you can agree that things happen which are against the known laws of physics, why would you exclude the possibility that there might be an intelligence controlling it?
You can include the possibility that there might be an intelligence controlling it and still exclude the supernatural. After all, the intelligence might be a LIE.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
If the evidence points to the defendant being guilty, the defense attorney is not given unlimited time to find evidence before the defendant is convicted. If he was, nobody would ever be convicted of anything unless they plead guilty.
The problem with your analogy is that in your case, you have no evidence of the defendant being guilty in the first place. You haven't even got the defendant in court. Heck, you don't even know who the defendant is. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 13:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
Gravity provided a constant downward force, even when you were holding the ball in your hand just thinking about tossing it into the air.
Yes, I never disputed that. But if every action of gravity was met with an equal and opposite reaction then nothing would ever coalesce. If you have two atoms out in space their gravity will draw them together; they will constantly accelerate (i.e., gain energy, isn't that against the conservation of matter and energy?) until they collide at which time their momentum will cause them to rebound, and then be drawn together again. Each time this happens they won't rebound as far as the last time until finally they stop rebounding and are stuck together. So at some point in which they were moving closer to each other they had more energy then when they were stuck to each other.
quote:
Gravity constantly provides an upward force against the bottom of your feet while you stand.
Really? A diagram on this site shows a book on a table; gravity is providing downward force, the table is providing upward force. If gravity provided the same amount of upward force as it did downward force then the two forces would cancel each other out.
I have studied gravity, and the best answer that anyone can give me is that it's a "fundamental force of the universe". Does that mean that something non-material is acting upon something material?
Mack:
quote:
Convicted or not, the lawyer has, for all practical purposes, forever to demonstrate that his client is not guilty.
Yes, even after someone is convicted evidence can be brought forth that they are innocent. Even after we determine that something supernatural has happened more evidence can be brought forth to show that it was actually natural. But a lawyer will not be given forever to find evidence before his client is convicted, and you should not be given forever to find evidence that something supernatural is natural.
quote:
One, has there ever been a verifiable event that is scientifically accepted to have been the result of supernatural causes, giving any weight to it being considered this time? And two, is there a method that might be employed to test for supernatural causes in a scientifically acceptable way? The answer to both questions is, "No." Then the possibility of supernatural causes is set aside.(emphasis added)
From your previous posts it is obvious that by "scientifically acceptable" you mean "accepted by scientists". Scientists can be full of shit, and many of them are. Plus, this statement contains a catch-22: there has to be a scientifically accepted supernatural event before the supernatural can be considered to be the cause of the event. But if you never consider the supernatural to be the cause of an event, then you'll never accept that an event had a supernatural cause even if one bit you in the ass.
Attention all:
quote:
quote:
I said:
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
Mack said:
Doing the little childish semantic shucking and jiving again I see. Well at least you haven't disappointed me. I would have expected nothing less.
Do you see how he didn't dispute my statement, he merely insulted me?
Hawks:
quote:
The problem with your analogy is that in your case, you have no evidence of the defendant being guilty in the first place.
In my analogy the defendant is not analogous to Yahweh, it is analogous to the supernatural.
Matt:
quote:
Maybe, but how will clasifying the aspects of nature that they describe as supernatural aid us in discovering the truth.
By challenging the assumption that everything works according to the laws of physics.
quote:
If something is supernatural then it is outside of the realm of science so what would be the point of studying it further?
Remember, my definition of the supernatural is "that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what you're really saying is "if something is caused by a divine being's will then it is outside of the realm of science". To which I reply, it is only outside the realm of the physical sciences.
quote:
However as there is no evidence for such a being I don't give it much consideration either.
If someone received a divine vision what evidence would there be of it? If I go walking on the beach barefoot and I haven't seen any broken glass I have no evidence that there is broken glass, but I always consider the possibility that there might be some where I haven't seen it. It's a very good way of keeping from getting my foot cut.
quote:
If you could prove that Yahweh exists you wouldn't need faith, and you do need faith.
I'm not attempting to prove that Yahweh exists, I'm merely trying to prove that the universe doesn't always work according to the known laws of physics. I'm also saying that if you're going to investigate a possibility which lies in "field of knowledge 'A'" then you shouldn't judge the evidence by "field of knowledge 'B'".
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 13:43:47 [Permalink]
|
'Gravity' cannot really be said to act in the strictest sense of the word. Gravity is a principle or a law, it is the the acting, rather than the cause. Although it is fair to say that the law of gravity is the formal cause of movement.
As such, one atom acts upon another, and we label that action gravity.
Further: the idea of collision is a simplification of the process, it is closer to the truth to say that forces that repel the two atoms (most likely electromagnetic) eventually become larger than the force of gravity between them as the two atoms get closer.
As such there is no activity in the universe whatsoever which is not simply the growing and weakening of forces, and the law of the conservation of matter and energy means that the function which describes these forces mathematically must be continuous. Should any force follow a discontinuos function against time, this would suggest that we need to rethink our concepts of cause and effect. (Although quantum mechanics allows this to an extent, meaning that the quantum phycisist requires a non-deterministic worldview. This is not philosophically viable however, for which reason I am confident that at some point in the future it will prove that, given enough data, all reactions will prove to be - theoretically - accurately predictable.)
Also, your claim that the supernatural is a category of explanations doesn't hold water. Since your definition of the supernatural is simply 'That which has not been explained' (paraphrased from your posts) it is merely a lack of explanation to appeal to the supernatural.
Saying that the unexplained comes of the unexplained is analytically true; a tautology, a logical nothing. You do not explain anything at all, you are just making sounds. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 13:56:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
When I see a magician do a card trick that I cannot figure out I do not think that maybe he is using 'real' magic. I assume it is some sort of trick.
Like wise when there is a aspect of physics that I do not understand such as the accelerating expansion of the universe, I do not consider that it is a magical or supernatural cause. Nothing to this point in history has been shown to be due to supernatural causes so why should they be considered - it would be a waste of energy. If a college was spending research money to determine which God or magician was responsible for the expansion of the universe - they would be a laughing stock.
The supernatural is excluded because there is no viable reason to include it!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 14:02:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
quote:
Gravity provided a constant downward force, even when you were holding the ball in your hand just thinking about tossing it into the air.
Yes, I never disputed that. But if every action of gravity was met with an equal and opposite reaction then nothing would ever coalesce. If you have two atoms out in space their gravity will draw them together; they will constantly accelerate (i.e., gain energy, isn't that against the conservation of matter and energy?) until they collide at which time their momentum will cause them to rebound, and then be drawn together again. Each time this happens they won't rebound as far as the last time until finally they stop rebounding and are stuck together. So at some point in which they were moving closer to each other they had more energy then when they were stuck to each other.
Your site is aimed at a younger audience that wouldn't understand that the attractive forces exert force towards one another. In my high school natural science books, they showed this as two arrows pointing towards one another (one inscribed inside a human and one inscribed in a representation of the Earth) to show the attractive force that humans and the Earth have on one another.
quote:
quote:
Gravity constantly provides an upward force against the bottom of your feet while you stand.
Really? A diagram on this site shows a book on a table; gravity is providing downward force, the table is providing upward force. If gravity provided the same amount of upward force as it did downward force then the two forces would cancel each other out.
I have studied gravity, and the best answer that anyone can give me is that it's a "fundamental force of the universe". Does that mean that something non-material is acting upon something material?
It's actually a property which is not fully understood. The mechanism of what causes gravitation is not fully understood, but the effects of gravitation is understood. It is wholly natural but the mechanism of it is unknown. Supernatural does not apply to the mechanism of gravity but the term unexplained does.
quote:
Mack:
quote:
Convicted or not, the lawyer has, for all practical purposes, forever to demonstrate that his client is not guilty.
Yes, even after someone is convicted evidence can be brought forth that they are innocent. Even after we determine that something supernatural has happened more evidence can be brought forth to show that it was actually natural. But a lawyer will not be given forever to find evidence before his client is convicted, and you should not be given forever to find evidence that something supernatural is natural.
Science is a journey, not a destination. Unlike a court case.
quote:
quote:
One, has there ever been a verifiable event that is scientifically accepted to have been the result of supernatural causes, giving any weight to it being considered this time? And two, is there a method that might be employed to test for supernatural causes in a scientifically acceptable way? The answer to both questions is, "No." Then the possibility of supernatural causes is set aside.(emphasis added)
From your previous posts it is obvious that by "scientifically acceptable" you mean "accepted by scientists". Scientists can be full of shit, and many of them are. Plus, this statement contains a catch-22: there has to be a scientifically accepted supernatural event before the supernatural can be considered to be the cause of the event. But if you never consider the supernatural to be the cause of an event, then you'll never accept that an event had a supernatural cause even if one bit you in the ass.
Actually, from my reading of his question, it is a definition of scientifically acceptable mean that the event can be tested and measured using the scientific method and the same determination of supernatural origins be likely, not accepted by scientists per se.
quote:
Attention all:
quote:
quote:
I said:
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
Mack said:
Doing the little childish semantic shucking and jiving again I see. Well at least you haven't disappointed me. I would have expected nothing less.
Do you see how he didn't dispute my statement, he merely insulted me?
He didn't dispute your statement because it lacks relevance to the question asked. There has to be a positive claim and defined terms with which to evaluate. You are forwarding (through usage and context) that the term "supernatural" has a different meaning for you than the dictionary definition. You do not fully define what the terms means for you. Without a common agreed to nomenclature which is static, discussion of complex ideas is impossible.
quote:
Hawks:
quote:
The problem with your analogy is that in your case, you have no evidence of the defendant being guilty in the first place.
In my analogy the defendant is not analogous to Yahweh, it is analogous to the supernatural.
It also assumes that science is a |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:47:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
...you view science as a destination. It is a journey where we learn things and then modify the laws of physics to encompass all observed phenomenon.
I refer to science as a process, not as a set of beliefs. It the process of testing the information around you to see if indeed the conclusions you are drawing are correct or not.
I like your poetic version as well. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:11:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
quote:
Gravity constantly provides an upward force against the bottom of your feet while you stand.
Really? A diagram on this site shows a book on a table; gravity is providing downward force, the table is providing upward force. If gravity provided the same amount of upward force as it did downward force then the two forces would cancel each other out.
I suspect that this is a simple mistake on Dave's part. I expect that he meant to say that the ground rather than gravity provides the upward force.
quote:
Attention all:
quote:
quote:
I said:
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
Mack said:
Doing the little childish semantic shucking and jiving again I see. Well at least you haven't disappointed me. I would have expected nothing less.
Do you see how he didn't dispute my statement, he merely insulted me?
I agree that GeeMack's style is quite agressive, perhaps overly so at times. His point regarding semantic misdirection seems valid though, although I don't think you are doing it on purpose.
quote:
Matt:
quote:
Maybe, but how will clasifying the aspects of nature that they describe as supernatural aid us in discovering the truth.
By challenging the assumption that everything works according to the laws of physics.
Seems to me that that would amount to arbitrarily tossing out the laws of physics.
quote:
Remember, my definition of the supernatural is "that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what you're really saying is "if something is caused by a divine being's will then it is outside of the realm of science". To which I reply, it is only outside the realm of the physical sciences.
If you want 'supernatural science' to be accepted as science you'll need to follow the methodolodgy of science. Otherwise on what basis can you call it science?
quote:
If someone received a divine vision what evidence would there be of it?
I don't know. If there is no evidence that it is supernatural then on what basis would you consider it to be supernatural? Alternatively if there is evidence then let's examine it scientifically.
quote:
If I go walking on the beach barefoot and I haven't seen any broken glass I have no evidence that there is broken glass, but I always consider the possibility that there might be some where I haven't seen it. It's a very good way of keeping from getting my foot cut.
Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no evidence that beaches may be littered with broken glass?
quote:
I'm not attempting to prove that Yahweh exists, I'm merely trying to prove that the universe doesn't always work according to the known laws of physics.
Right, sometimes it works according to the yet to be discovered laws of physics.
quote:
I'm also saying that if you're going to investigate a possibility which lies in "field of knowledge 'A'" then you shouldn't judge the evidence by "field of knowledge 'B'".
So in what field of knowledge does the supernatural lie? Is it part of science? In that case we must evaluate it with the tools of science. Or is it outside science? You seem to want it to be in and out at the same time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:12:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Yes, I never disputed that.
No? You found it "amazing" that the ball would stop and come back down. Why would it not do so given a constant downward force?quote:
But if every action of gravity was met with an equal and opposite reaction then nothing would ever coalesce.
No, the fact that your two hypothetical atoms are drawn together means that each is having "an equal and oppsite reaction" on the other.quote:
If you have two atoms out in space their gravity will draw them together; they will constantly accelerate (i.e., gain energy, isn't that against the conservation of matter and energy?)...
No, because each atom's potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy as they accelerate. The net energy gain of each is zero.quote:
...until they collide at which time their momentum will cause them to rebound, and then be drawn together again. Each time this happens they won't rebound as far as the last time until finally they stop rebounding and are stuck together. So at some point in which they were moving closer to each other they had more energy then when they were stuck to each other.
Indeed, because each collision releases some of their combined kinetic energy as heat, which radiates off into space.quote:
quote:
Gravity constantly provides an upward force against the bottom of your feet while you stand.
Really? A diagram on this site shows a book on a table; gravity is providing downward force, the table is providing upward force. If gravity provided the same amount of upward force as it did downward force then the two forces would cancel each other out.
Yes, I wrote "gravity" while I was thinking "the Earth." My mistake.quote:
I have studied gravity...
Not if you think that acceleration due to gravity causes a net gain of energy in contradiction to the law of conservation of energy, you haven't.quote:
...and the best answer that anyone can give me is that it's a "fundamental force of the universe". Does that mean that something non-material is acting upon something material?
No more than radio waves are something "non-material" which act on purely material antennae. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
