• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Universe: fine-tuned or not?

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let me give you an example from the perspective of a formula.

Gravity = m₁m₂/r²

This tells me, at a glance, why you can drop a golf ball and a bowling ball off a ledge and they will hit the ground at the same time.

In fact, in a vacuum, if you shoot a Colt .45 parallel to the ground, while at the same time dropping a penny, both the bullet and the penny will hit the ground at the same time.

Please excuse me while I put my Analytic Philosopher's thinking cap on and ask the following: while in principle your little scenario is physically likely, where is it plausible you'll find a physical vacuum in proximity to "the ground"?

And please, in responding, don't give me your simplistic, Electrolux salesman sales pitch of an answer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,844
52,888
Guam
✟5,242,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Please excuse me while I put my Analytic Philosopher's thinking cap on and ask the following: while in principle your little scenario is physically likely, where is it plausible you'll find a physical vacuum in proximity to "the ground"?


1783704347082.png
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,844
52,888
Guam
✟5,242,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
:doh:What? Uh.....................NO!!!!!!!

Q: If you shoot a gun on the moon while dropping a penny, will both hit the ground at the same time?

AI Overview: Yes, if the gun is fired perfectly horizontally at the exact same moment the penny is released, both will strike the lunar surface simultaneously. Because horizontal and vertical motions are completely independent, the bullet's forward speed does not affect how quickly gravity pulls it downward.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Q: If you shoot a gun on the moon while dropping a penny, will both hit the ground at the same time?

AI Overview: Yes, if the gun is fired perfectly horizontally at the exact same moment the penny is released, both will strike the lunar surface simultaneously. Because horizontal and vertical motions are completely independent, the bullet's forward speed does not affect how quickly gravity pulls it downward.

OH..............my..................... you just don't get it.

Dude. Just stop. You're not proving anything about God's existence here or teaching a lesson by taking an extremely isolated scenario and asserting your KISS principle, as if the tiny slice of theoretical physics you've cited somehow stands alone and apart from everything else in existence.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Frankly, I don't care. I am thoroughly uninterested in the theological implications of physics. (That is not my problem.) The article was full of bad physics (or rather generally lacking in any content from any experts on the topic).

You could have just waited until I commented on the article.

O brother. :rolleyes:

And I don't care about the article. If I were to care about something related to 'fine-tuning,' I'd listen instead to someone like Bernard Carr talk about it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,844
52,888
Guam
✟5,242,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You're not proving anything about God's existence here or teaching a lesson by taking an extremely isolated scenario and asserting your KISS principle, as if the tiny slice of theoretical physics you've cited somehow stands alone and apart from everything else in existence.

Um ...

Philo: Where is it plausible you'll find a physical vacuum in proximity to "the ground"?

AV: The moon.

Philo: No.

AV: Shows otherwise from AI Overview.

Philo: You're not proving anything about God's existence.


What am I missing here, chief?

Other than the fact that you asked me a good question, got a good answer, and can't handle it?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Um ...

Philo: Where is it plausible you'll find a physical vacuum in proximity to "the ground"?

AV: The moon.

Philo: No.

AV: Shows otherwise from AI Overview.

Philo: You're not proving anything about God's existence.


What am I missing here, chief?

Other than the fact that you asked me a good question, got a good answer, and can't handle it?

One thing you're not taking into consideration with your blithe examples of "KISS".............is the recoil you're going to experience by insisting that others abide by it.

And yes, that's a bit of humor in connection to your weak and exaggerated stance regarding the use of Colt 45s and dropped pennies within a Lunar **cough** vacuum.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,844
52,888
Guam
✟5,242,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And yes, that's a bit of humor in connection to your weak and exaggerated stance regarding the use of Colt 45s and dropped pennies within a Lunar **cough** vacuum.

Do you have a better example?

Give us a good strong example.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you have a better example?

Give us a good strong example.

What is it exactly you're wanting me to give here, Mr. Motte and Bailey ?? An example of what?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
m₁m₂/r²

AV, you're stilling missing the point. Being this is the case, please don't go firing any guns on the Moon's surface. You'll get someone killed.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
m₁m₂/r²

Anyway, before I offer my alternative set of 'complexities and complications' to your Lunarcy, let's steel man a stronger version of what it is you were, I suppose, attempting to say. Let's take a look at what Jason Gibson has to say to better flesh out your 'simple' equation illustration:



Next, let's ask Gemini AI the following question to tease out some possible over extension of your illustration:

How does the expression, m₁m₂/r² , not stand on its own?:

The expression m₁m₂/r² fails as a standalone description because it is merely a mathematical relationship. It lacks physical constants, dimensionality, and perspective—treating objects as isolated points while raising deeper philosophical questions about action-at-a-distance and the geometry of the universe.​
1. The Missing Constant (G)​
The formula does not balance mathematically; it is a proportion, not an absolute measurement. It lacks the Universal Gravitational Constant (G ≈ 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg²). Without this scalar, you cannot calculate the actual force in Newtons. It only states that force scales with the masses and the inverse square of the distance. [1, 2, 3, 4]​
2. Physical Dimensions​
It describes mass and distance but says nothing about force, acceleration, or the universal properties that link them. The term does not inherently represent physical reality—you can swap m₁ and m₂ for charges (q₁ and q₂) and m₁m₂/r² instantly becomes Coulomb's Law for electrostatics. The variables alone cannot tell you if the phenomenon being calculated is gravity, magnetism, or light intensity. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]​
3. Dimensionality and Space​
The r² points to a geometric reality rather than an intrinsic property of the masses. It represents the surface area of a sphere (A = 4π r²). Any influence spreading evenly in all directions from a point source (like gravity, light, or sound) dilutes across this expanding spherical surface. The formula assumes a 3D universe; in a 4-dimensional space, the denominator would be r³. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]​
4. The Problem of "Action at a Distance"​
Descriptively, the expression implies instantaneous attraction across empty space. Newton himself recognized this issue, noting that it is absurd for one body to act on another at a distance through a vacuum without physical contact. [1]​
5. Einstein's Upgrade​
General Relativity discards m₁m₂/r² entirely for highly precise descriptions. It describes gravity not as a direct pull between masses over distance, but as mass curving spacetime, and objects simply following the natural curvature of the universe. The mass-distance formula describes what happens in most everyday scales, but completely fails near black holes or at the speed of light. [1, 2, 3]​
Would you like to explore:​
  • How the inverse-square law applies to light and radiation?
  • The transition from Newtonian gravity to Einstein’s spacetime?
  • How this same mathematical structure describes electric fields?
Let me know what you'd like to dive into next.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Under the Southern Cross I stand...
Aug 19, 2018
25,826
17,979
73
Bondi
✟441,917.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So I'm supposed to believe life arose by sheer chance, requiring the production of complicated enzymes before the reactions can even take place, if I give it enough time!
A couple of points.

There is a small rock on the dark side of an nondescript moon circling a planetoid in a tiny solar system with a dead star in a part of the distant universe that is already expanding away from us faster than the speed of light.

There was a similar discussion I was involved with many years ago and a similar question was asked. Which was: why are the stars so far away? What purpose do they serve? And the serious answer was: 'God put them there so that we'll have something to look at through our telescopes'. Yeah, crazy, eh? But in the case of the small rock, any available information about the system is moving away from us and will get further and further from us every second. So it effectively does not exist as far as we are concerned.

If God created everything, what is the purpose of that rock? It's as if God has built us a huge house to live in and you ask Him if you can check out some of the rooms at the far end of the property. And He says: 'Ah, sorry. I built it in such a way so that can never go there'. You'd have to think that that was a quite odd thing to do.

The second point is that...yes, the universe and the human body in particular is incredibly complicated. You'd need many years of study to fully understand how even the most basic aspects of biology actually work. Bearing in mind that God is omnipotent - He can literally do anything - why did He make us as we are? We could have literally been made 'from the dust from the ground'. We could literally be animated mud. Your point that our bodies are so immensely complex (and quite badly designed) isn't an argument for God. It's an argument against Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,511
5,317
✟399,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Anyway, before I offer my alternative set of 'complexities and complications' to your Lunarcy, let's steel man a stronger version of what it is you were, I suppose, attempting to say. Let's take a look at what Jason Gibson has to say to better flesh out your 'simple' equation illustration:



Next, let's ask Gemini AI the following question to tease out some possible over extension of your illustration:

How does the expression, m₁m₂/r² , not stand on its own?:

The expression m₁m₂/r² fails as a standalone description because it is merely a mathematical relationship. It lacks physical constants, dimensionality, and perspective—treating objects as isolated points while raising deeper philosophical questions about action-at-a-distance and the geometry of the universe.​
1. The Missing Constant (G)​
The formula does not balance mathematically; it is a proportion, not an absolute measurement. It lacks the Universal Gravitational Constant (G ≈ 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg²). Without this scalar, you cannot calculate the actual force in Newtons. It only states that force scales with the masses and the inverse square of the distance. [1, 2, 3, 4]​
2. Physical Dimensions​
It describes mass and distance but says nothing about force, acceleration, or the universal properties that link them. The term does not inherently represent physical reality—you can swap m₁ and m₂ for charges (q₁ and q₂) and m₁m₂/r² instantly becomes Coulomb's Law for electrostatics. The variables alone cannot tell you if the phenomenon being calculated is gravity, magnetism, or light intensity. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]​
3. Dimensionality and Space​
The r² points to a geometric reality rather than an intrinsic property of the masses. It represents the surface area of a sphere (A = 4π r²). Any influence spreading evenly in all directions from a point source (like gravity, light, or sound) dilutes across this expanding spherical surface. The formula assumes a 3D universe; in a 4-dimensional space, the denominator would be r³. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]​
4. The Problem of "Action at a Distance"​
Descriptively, the expression implies instantaneous attraction across empty space. Newton himself recognized this issue, noting that it is absurd for one body to act on another at a distance through a vacuum without physical contact. [1]​
5. Einstein's Upgrade​
General Relativity discards m₁m₂/r² entirely for highly precise descriptions. It describes gravity not as a direct pull between masses over distance, but as mass curving spacetime, and objects simply following the natural curvature of the universe. The mass-distance formula describes what happens in most everyday scales, but completely fails near black holes or at the speed of light. [1, 2, 3]​
Would you like to explore:​
  • How the inverse-square law applies to light and radiation?
  • The transition from Newtonian gravity to Einstein’s spacetime?
  • How this same mathematical structure describes electric fields?
Let me know what you'd like to dive into next.​
I would ask Gemini AI why gravity is a fictitious force in GR and how the Equivalence Principle would explain this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would ask Gemini AI why gravity is a fictitious force in GR and how the Equivalence Principle would explain this.

I could, but AV asked me to ............... 'KISS' it for him, so I'm doing the best that I can to do so. For him. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
23,171
6,862
73
✟421,225.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Q: If you shoot a gun on the moon while dropping a penny, will both hit the ground at the same time?

AI Overview: Yes, if the gun is fired perfectly horizontally at the exact same moment the penny is released, both will strike the lunar surface simultaneously. Because horizontal and vertical motions are completely independent, the bullet's forward speed does not affect how quickly gravity pulls it downward.
Wrong.

An extreme example would be a railgun. Escape velocity of the moon is 2.38 Km/second. Muzzle velocity of a railgun can exceed 2.43 Km/second.

Pick the right spot, e.g. one with no hill or mountain in the way and the bullet will never hit the ground. Or at least will not if the moon is in a pure vacuum.

Even at much lower speeds the ground will drop away because the moon is basically a globe, curved, not flat.

AI can and often does get things wrong. It does better when one knows the right questions to ask.

EDIT:
I asked the wrong question. I should have asked for the speed of an orbit just above the moon's surface. That gives 1.68 Km/second which is less than the muzzle velocity of some current military weapons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
9,428
3,559
Pennsylvania, USA
✟1,089,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I believe the conservation laws apply to an existing universe in time. It is a reality in which we live and die but cannot tell us right from wrong & hold us accountable.

The only conservation law ( I comprehend) that points to a Creator & beyond any sense of time is energy. There is an ongoing energy of an always living God. To me within a creation matter may be neither created or destroyed but there was a time when it was created to exist.

John 1:1-5, Colossians 1:15-18, Psalm 104:1-35, Psalm 148:1-14, 1 John 3:11-12, Genesis 1:1-2, Genesis 1:31 etc.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,511
5,317
✟399,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I could, but AV asked me to ............... 'KISS' it for him, so I'm doing the best that I can to do so. For him. :sorry:
The answer to the question represents a period of time in history when Einstein only used physical intuition in the development of GR.
Here is Gemini's response.

Yes, gravity is considered a fictitious (inertial) force in General Relativity (GR).
In GR, what we perceive as gravity is not a physical pull, but rather the result of objects moving along straight lines through curved spacetime.

The Equivalence Principle Explained​

The Equivalence Principle states that the effects of gravity are completely indistinguishable from the effects of uniform acceleration. Albert Einstein illustrated this using his famous "elevator" thought experiment:
  • The Sealed Box on Earth: Imagine you are in a windowless elevator resting on Earth. You feel your feet pressed to the floor with a force equal to your weight (mg). If you drop a ball, it falls to the floor at 9.8 m/s².
  • The Sealed Box in Space: Now imagine the same elevator is out in deep space, far from any gravity, but a rocket is towing it with a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s². You feel your feet pressed to the floor with the exact same force. If you drop a ball, the floor accelerates up to meet it at 9.8 m/s².
Inside the box, there is no experiment you can perform to determine whether you are sitting in a gravitational field or accelerating through empty space.

Why Gravity is Fictitious​

A fictitious force is an apparent force that pops up when you observe the world from an accelerating frame of reference.
  • The Car Example: When a car brakes hard, you feel a "force" throwing you forward. No physical hand is pushing you; your body is just trying to keep moving at a constant speed while the car slows down. The forward force is fictitious.
  • The Earth Example: When you stand on Earth, your natural path (your inertial frame) is to free-fall toward the center of the planet along the curvature of spacetime. However, the physical ground blocks you and constantly pushes you upward. Because you are being accelerated upward by the ground, you feel a fictitious "gravitational force" pulling you down.
In short, you only feel "gravity" when you are being prevented from falling. True weightlessness—like an astronaut in orbit—is actually a state of zero acceleration, where no fictitious forces are felt at all.
If you want to look at this further, I can:
  • Explain how spacetime curvature replaces the concept of a gravitational pull.
  • Contrast how Newton vs. Einstein defined a "straight line."
  • Discuss the difference between local and global inertial frames.
Physical intuition takes you only so far, GR required a mathematical framework and Einstein struggled but fortunately had the support from mathematicians such as Marcel Grossman.
Once again from Gemini.

Yes, mathematicians entirely built the raw mathematical tools that made General Relativity (GR) possible, but Albert Einstein was the one who gave those tools physical meaning.
Einstein did not invent the mathematics of curved spacetime. When he realised that gravity was a consequence of curved geometry, he lacked the advanced mathematical vocabulary required to prove it. He had to rely heavily on existing mathematical frameworks and collaborate directly with contemporary mathematicians to finalise the theory.

The Mathematicians Behind the Framework​

Einstein standing on the shoulders of giants applies directly to the mathematical architecture of GR:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ber...lbWFubiIRCgVrZ21pZBIIL20vMGJqdnEoABhFIO-fjbUI
Bernhard Riemann (Riemannian Geometry): In 1854, Riemann developed the mathematics of multi-dimensional curved spaces (manifolds). At the time, it was treated as pure, abstract geometry with no expected applications to the physical world.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gre...zdHJvIhIKBWtnbWlkEgkvbS8wMmhybmQoABhFIKa97NEG
Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro & Tullio Levi-Civita (Tensor Calculus): Around 1900, these Italian mathematicians developed "absolute differential calculus" (now known as tensor calculus). Tensors are the exact mathematical language needed to write laws of physics that remain true regardless of the coordinate system used.

Einstein's Mathematical Shield: Marcel Grossmann​

In 1912, stuck and frustrated, Einstein famously wrote to his mathematician friend Marcel Grossmann: "Grossmann, you must help me, or else I'll go crazy!"
Grossmann went to the library, researched the latest geometry, and introduced Einstein to Riemann's and Ricci's works. Together, they published an early, foundational outline of GR in 1913.

The Race with David Hilbert​

By 1915, Einstein was struggling to finalise the exact field equations for gravity. He visited the University of Göttingen and lectured on his ideas. In the audience was David Hilbert, arguably the greatest mathematician of that era.
Recognising the brilliance of Einstein's physical ideas, Hilbert entered a friendly but intense race to find the final equations. Hilbert actually derived the core equations using an elegant mathematical method (the principle of least action) around the exact same time Einstein reached them through grueling physical intuition.

Fixing Energy Laws: Emmy Noether​

Shortly after the theory was published, physicists noticed a massive mathematical flaw: GR appeared to violate the conservation of energy. Hilbert recruited the legendary mathematician Emmy Noether to solve it. She proved Noether's Theorem, a fundamental cornerstone of modern physics which mathematically proved how symmetries (like the universe behaving the same way yesterday as it does today) guarantee conservation laws.

Why is it "Einstein's" Theory?​

Despite the immense mathematical contributions of others, Hilbert himself famously remarked that any boy in the streets of Göttingen understood the geometry better than Einstein, yet it was Einstein who did the work.
Mathematicians built the sandbox, but Einstein understood what the sand represented. He alone possessed the physical insight to map abstract geometric concepts to real-world variables:
  • He equated the abstract metric tensor guv to the physical gravitational potential.
  • He equated curvature to mass, momentum, and energy Tuv
  • He realized that the math was describing a dynamic, physical universe where space could warp, stretch, and ripple.
Without mathematicians, Einstein would have lacked the tools to build GR. Without Einstein, the math would have remained an abstract curiosity locked in geometry textbooks.

If you'd like to dive deeper into this historical intersection, I can:

  • Break down how Noether's Theorem saved the conservation of energy in GR.
  • Explain what a tensor actually does in simple terms.
  • Explore the priority dispute and timeline between Einstein and Hilbert in November 1915.
Let me know what you want to explore next.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unsupported Claims? Smash'em!!!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,139
12,546
Space Mountain!
✟1,536,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The answer to the question represents a period of time in history when Einstein only used physical intuition in the development of GR.
Here is Gemini's response.


Physical intuition takes you only so far, GR required a mathematical framework and Einstein struggled but fortunately had the support from mathematicians such as Marcel Grossman.
Once again from Gemini.

Let's see if AV reads it.
 
Upvote 0