Gravity - is it really there?

Kylie · Jul 29, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
"physicists … know that nobody knows what gravity is, because they know that they don’t know what gravity is."

washingtonpost

Get your science from scientists, not the Washington Post.

JohnEmmett · Jul 29, 2021

Kylie said:
Get your science from scientists, not the Washington Post.

"… knowing what you don’t know is a good start…"

JohnEmmett · Jul 29, 2021

Atheism is not about God!

Hans Blaster · Jul 29, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
"… knowing what you don’t know is a good start…"

You can start with this when making your list

:

JohnEmmett · Jul 29, 2021

It's about the atheist…

Hans Blaster · Jul 29, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
It's about the atheist…

I thought it was all about the Benjamins.

JohnEmmett · Jul 29, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
I thought it was all about the Benjamins.

No…

Kylie · Jul 30, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
"… knowing what you don’t know is a good start…"

You only think we don't know because you don't listen to the people who do know. You find something that supports your preconceived ideas and accept that as the truth, not because it's correct, but because it says what you want to hear.

JohnEmmett · Jul 30, 2021

I should… leave.

Freodin · Jul 30, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
gravity is a reason for wonder and faith in God

whereas you are (here) entirely missing this

It's always helpful when people say: "you are missing this"... and then leave it at that. Yes, very helpful.

So why is "gravity a reason for wonder and faith in God"?

Because it exists? Well... everything that exists... exists.
To paraphrase a famous "scientist": "If everything is special, nothing is."

Because it could not exist? That would be for you to demonstrate. Which I doubt you will do.

But to use a potential gap in understanding to squeeze in "God" is not really advancing your religious position. It's just an attempt to excuse it from scrutiny.

Freodin · Jul 30, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
I should… leave.

If you want... sure.

But we would rather you wise up, learn something, and realize the weakness of both your claims as well as you approach.

Freodin · Jul 30, 2021

d taylor said:
only on an assumed spinning ball do you need pulling down.

Really?

I see that you again managed to ignore my page-long response to your previous request.
But if you even read it, you might have noticed that I only mentioned the observable fact of "objects moving"... which they very obviously do, even if you assume that the earth is flat and stationary.
And we can also observe - even on an earth was assume is flat and stationary - that objects tend to move "down"... without any material object or agent "pushing" or "pulling" it.

So it seems that you need "pulling down" (a cute expression for "aquiring an accelaration in a specific direction") even on your flat and stationary earth.

d taylor · Jul 30, 2021

In God's actual creation that is stationary God's has place His created life and non life (rocks, etc..) on the surface of the earth.

The only moving part of creation is water, wind, clouds, sun, moon, and stars that he has set in motion.

So when an object (rock, etc..) which is at rest on the surface of the earth is moved after the force that has caused this object to move, dies out. The object resumes its natural created state at rest on the earth.

So if a person takes a ball and rolls it along a road after the force this person applied to roll the ball dies out the ball returns to it natural state at rest on the surface of the road/earth. Same as if a person was to pick up the ball and throw it in the air.

But there is no counter force working against the rolled or thrown ball to cause it to stop.

Freodin · Jul 30, 2021

d taylor said:
In God's actual creation that is stationary God's has place His created life and non life (rocks, etc..) on the surface of the earth.

The only moving part of creation is water, wind, clouds, sun, moon, and stars that he has set in motion.

So when an object (rock, etc..) which is at rest on the surface of the earth is moved after the force that has caused this object to move, dies out. The object resumes its natural created state at rest on the earth.

So if a person takes a ball and rolls it along a road after the force this person applied to roll the ball dies out the ball returns to it natural state at rest on the surface of the road/earth. Same as if a person was to pick up the ball and throw it in the air.

But there is no counter force working against the rolled or thrown ball to cause it to stop.

That is demonstrably false.

See, that's the problem with your statements, and your whole approach. You don't think about how you could test your claims... and if there might be tests that show your claims wrong.

essentialsaltes · Jul 30, 2021

I guess Christians have a long history of running to Aristotle for solutions to life's problems. But at least in the medieval world, they (like Aristotle) knew the earth was spherical.

Hans Blaster · Jul 30, 2021

d taylor said:
So when an object (rock, etc..) which is at rest on the surface of the earth is moved after the force that has caused this object to move, dies out. The object resumes its natural created state at rest on the earth.

It seems you are even more in need of post #224. (At least JE is only being obtuse in his vain attempt to look profound.)

This is not how physics works *at all* and we've known this for centuries. Newton expressed this the best and most simply. I would suggest a standard middle school course in the physical sciences. (I'm not sure which year that teach that nowadays.)

(This has nothing to do with the shape of the earth or existence of gravity; it is just basic Newtonian mechanics.)

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 31, 2021

d taylor said:
In God's actual creation that is stationary God's has place His created life and non life (rocks, etc..) on the surface of the earth.

The only moving part of creation is water, wind, clouds, sun, moon, and stars that he has set in motion.

So when an object (rock, etc..) which is at rest on the surface of the earth is moved after the force that has caused this object to move, dies out. The object resumes its natural created state at rest on the earth.

So if a person takes a ball and rolls it along a road after the force this person applied to roll the ball dies out the ball returns to it natural state at rest on the surface of the road/earth. Same as if a person was to pick up the ball and throw it in the air.

But there is no counter force working against the rolled or thrown ball to cause it to stop.

This is Aristotelian teleology if you didn't realise. Things tend towards their natural ends and states. Aristotle, of course, denied the existence of an intelligent designer.

JohnEmmett · Aug 5, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Aristotle, of course, denied the existence of an intelligent designer.

Romans 1:20

Hans Blaster · Aug 5, 2021

JohnEmmett said:
Romans 1:20

It seems Paul understood nature almost as poorly as Aristotle.

JohnEmmett · Aug 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
It seems Paul understood nature almost as poorly as Aristotle.

you may quote your understanding

Gravity - is it really there?

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Stranger in a Strange Land

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Similar threads