Gravity - is it really there?

JohnEmmett said:

Paradigm - Wikipedia

Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking.

~

Click to expand...

There's a paradigm that proposes that if I drop the egg I'm holding it won't fall towards the kitchen floor?

Why in the world would I want to shift to a paradigm as insane as that one?

d taylor said:

I am a gravity atheist, you should understand that.

Like the atheist sates prove to me there is a god.

So prove there is a force needed for a flat and stationary earth, that has been called gravity.

Click to expand...

In order to move objects, there has to be something to move them. Even theists like this one; it's one of Aquinas' famed arguments.

You can test different kinds of objects, use different ways to move them, try to get them to different speeds in different amounts of time... if you do your tests and measurements correctly, and with some simple limitations, you will at some point arrive at what is today called Newton's Second Law of Motion:
The acceleration an object will receive is proportional to the force applied, and reciprocally proportional to the massiveness of the object.
Mathematically: A = F/M

We can observe objects moving on our Earth - flat and stationary or round and moving. Things "fall down". Yes, not all do... but we'll get to that later.
Still, most of the usual things in our daily life do "fall down". They move in specific direction, even if not pushed or pulled by us.

So, according to Newton's Laws that we have previously established, we can conclude that there is some sort of "force" involved making them move. A "mover".
A "mover" that is very precise, rather constant and independent from us as observers.

Now we can make further experiments regarding this "mover". What does it react with? What conditions influence it?
Applying these questions, using different testable ideas like the Archimedian Principle, and creating experimental situations that check some assumptions against each other, we will come to the conclusion that this "mover" is almost exclusively dependent on the massiveness of the object we test.
Not on any other physical concept. Not on magnetism... we can experimentally refute this. Not on "relative density"... we can experimentally refute this.

And there you have it, in it's most simple form: a reliable, caculable "mover".
We call these "movers" "force". That's convention. You could call it "splunk"... it would mean the same concept. Something that gives objects speed.
We call the attribute it works on "mass". A convention. Something that makes objects more or less easy to give speed to.
And we call that effect of objects being given speed in the direction of the ground "weight". It describes how "heavy" an object is. Based on this "heaviness", and that the scientists of old liked to use Latin to make their statements, we call this whole concept "gravity".

That's only the start... but still it is the gist of why "gravity" is a real thing. Whatever it "really" is.

Any further questions? Or evasions?

JohnEmmett said:

The afterlife is real. But atheists only "plan" for death.

This cancels spiritual potential.

Click to expand...

Things happen when they happen, regardless whether you plan for them or not.
If you don't consider yourself eternal, at some point you didn't exist. It would be quite difficult to "plan" to start to exist in that case. And still you do.

chilehed said:

There's a paradigm that proposes that if I drop the egg I'm holding it won't fall towards the kitchen floor?

Why in the world would I want to shift to a paradigm as insane as that one?

Click to expand...

Drop the egg under water, and it won't fall.
The real problem is that this is still covered with the existing "paradigm"... and that the other side cannot offer a consistent "model" to explain it at all.

It's quite easy to demand that you should look "beyond the current models of thinking"... but it's quite difficult to do that... when there is nothing there to look at.

JohnEmmett said:

The afterlife is real. But atheists only "plan" for death.

This cancels spiritual potential.

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question: How is atheism "dangerous"?

Perhaps this needs exposition: To whom or what is atheism "dangerous"?

JohnEmmett said:

The lower realms are the only destiny of atheists.


This is the danger.

Click to expand...

So it's only "dangerous" to us then?

JohnEmmett said:

The beginning cannot be discovered.

Click to expand...

How convenient.

JohnEmmett said:

The lower realms are the only destiny of atheists.


This is the danger.

Click to expand...

Then why are you here, in our "lower realm"?

JohnEmmett said:

Spiritual development lessens the danger.

Click to expand...

Again, you fail to answer the question asked. Does my non-belief cause *you* any danger?

JohnEmmett said:

This is not heaven… nor hell.

Click to expand...

It's where we atheists are. And where you are. Any "further" existence is speculation.

JohnEmmett said:

Kali Yuga is a degenerate time. The age of strife.

Basically a haunted world.

Like this song.

Click to expand...

What's any of that got to do with me not believing in your or anyone else's god?

Hans Blaster said:

What's any of that got to do with me not believing in your or anyone else's god?

Click to expand...

God is not the factor. Just the afterlife.


I mean God is "a" factor.

JohnEmmett said:

God is not the factor. Just the afterlife.


I mean God is a factor.

Click to expand...

Can't even maintain consistency in a 14 word post, sigh. Perhaps this is why you don't try post longer than 20 words...