Is gravity a push or a pull?

[AV1611VET]

Vaccum does not need cleaning.

} -- Mine does.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does a vacuum cleaner work in outer space?

Probably not, as they use the flowing air to suck things up. Even if it didn't explode, it wouldn't be able to pick anything up. Space is pretty darn dirty, though :/

 

[Eudaimonist]

Push and pull in this context aren't scientific concepts. They are analogies to human action, where we push or pull something with our arms, for instance. I don't see how this question is answerable, since we are just dealing with an analogy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

So finally a C has a retort to the o'l "can god make an object so heavy He can't lift it?"

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

If there was no atmosphere, then if I jumped out of a plane*, I'd accelerate towards the Earth at what amounts to 9.81 m s[sup]-2[/sup]. I'm falling down the Earth's gravitational well - and, conversely, the Earth is slightly rolling down my own body's exceedingly shallow gravitational well. Certainly I could be moving towards the Earth without accelerating, but ultimately the Earth has mass, this mass warps space, and this warped space accelerates me towards the Earth. I don't know who told you that you gravity isn't acceleration, but... they're wrong!

*Yes, planes can fly without an atmosphere

I think this might be what she was talking about

Gravitational acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the general relativity section.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I think I remember Lawrence Krauss saying once, "gravity sucks, it always pulls, it never pushes." IIRC

 

[Jazer]

Push and pull in this context aren't scientific concepts.

The point is you have two theorys of gravity, newton and einstein. They do not seem to agree. So who is correct?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The point is you have two theorys of gravity, newton and einstein. They do not seem to agree. So who is correct?

The answer is that Newton's theory works at speeds and energy densities that a human might experience: horses, trains, bowling balls, apples, etc. But when you're dealing with very fast moving objects (like things moving near the speed of light) or very dense objects (like black holes) then Einstein's theories take over. Now they're finding that for the world of the very small, Einstein's theories don't always work. No theory is 100% perfect. Advances are always going to be needed. But each theory represents the best of our knowledge at the time.

 

[Tiberius]

Gotta disagre with you there, DTOM.

Einstein was right. Repeated experiments have shown that it is amazingly correct.

However, Newton's is almost correct. It's only wrong by a very small amount. And it is much easier to work with. So it is used the most, such as the calculations for the courses of space probes. Einstein's is more accurate, but much more difficult to figure out.

True, the theory of relativity breaks down in certain conditions, but that in no way invalidates the fact that it is precisely accurate for the vast majority of the universe.

 

[Jazer]

But each theory represents the best of our knowledge at the time.

Sounds like creationism. It is the best we have to offer based on what science currently has to offer. When science gives us more to work with, then we can do more to explain how creationism works.

 

[Hespera]

Sounds like creationism. It is the best we have to offer based on what science currently has to offer. When science gives us more to work with, then we can do more to explain how creationism works.

you are funny! science has given you nothing but falsification and you didnt even notice!

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Sounds like creationism. It is the best we have to offer based on what science currently has to offer. When science gives us more to work with, then we can do more to explain how creationism works.

No not at all. Not all theories are as lucky as Newton's theory. Most theories die when a new and better one comes along. Newton's theory was correct but at some point it could no longer explain things and Einstein's theories took over.

Many theories are not so lucky. Sometimes a new theory comes a long that actually contradicts what was previously thought.

Creationism is not a theory. Theories are used to explain observed facts and to make predictions based on what was previously seen. Creationists insist on their conclusion despite what is observed. Creationism has no predictive power. If you disagree, make a prediction about something we should be able to find in nature that no one has discovered yet and that no other theory can explain and then go and find it. Then write up your results and submit them to peer review. That's how science works. That's what a theory is.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Gotta disagre with you there, DTOM.

Woops! Yeah that was a typo. I meant to say Newton's theories break down at high speeds. Fixed it.

 

[Jazer]

you are funny! science has given you nothing but falsification and you didnt even notice!

"Nothing but" ok where is your evidence that there was no neolithic revolution? Where is your evidence that there was no founding mother and father for the Hebrew people? Where is your evidence that there is no common ancestor? I am so glad we have nothing but evidence to falsify all of creationism so we can put it to rest once and for all with no more discussion or debate. How about if we take it one line at a time: "In the beginning" where is your scientific evidence that there was no beginning? "Heaven and Earth" where is your scientific evidence there is no Heaven or Earth? "Earth without form or void" where is your evidence that as the Ice age came to an end the earth was not without form or void? God said let there be light, where is your evidence that there was no light? God divided the light from the darknesss. Where is your evidence that there is no night and day, light and darkness? God seperated the sky from the sea, where is your evidence that there is no seperation from the sky above and the sea below? God seperated the dry land from the sea. Again where is your evidence that there is no seperation of sea and dry land? God said let the earth produce grass. Where is your evidence that there is no grass on the earth. I want to see all the scientific evidence you have to prove that creation never happened and that there is no Creator. Show me all of your falsification.

 

[Jazer]

Creationism has no predictive power.

Of course we have predictive power. Archeology is one area the Bible has been used to predict where they will find Archeology sites and has been proven to be accurate for well over 100 years. There is a prophecy that Isreal will be gathered again as a nation and in 1948 that is exactly what happened. We are told that this generation will not perish before all is accomplished. It just so happens that people in Isreal live to be 81 years of age on the average. So 1948 plus 81 equals 1929, the year we predict this current church age will come to an end. Care to wait around for 18 years to see how accurate the Bible is with predictions?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

"Nothing but" ok where is your evidence that there was no neolithic revolution?

What?

Where is your evidence that there was no founding mother and father for the Hebrew people?

Huh? Just like all people, the semitic people don't have one founding mother and father but rather migrated to that region and adapted Semitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is your evidence that there is no common ancestor?

But...Huh? But the theory of evolution hinges on common ancestry.

here is your scientific evidence that there was no beginning?

Who said there was no beginning?

"Heaven and Earth" where is your scientific evidence there is no Heaven or Earth?

You're loosing me. Are you be facetious?

"Earth without form or void" where is your evidence that as the Ice age came to an end the earth was not without form or void?

What does the phrase Tohu wa bohu have to do with the ice age?

God said let there be light, where is your evidence that there was no light?

You're missing the point. There is light, but there's no reason to suspect a god is responsible for it. Isn't the whole whole idea of the creationism debate? No one is saying these things don't exist, we're saying they happen naturally and there doesn't necessarily have to be a god involved.

God divided the light from the darknesss. Where is your evidence that there is no night and day, light and darkness? God seperated the sky from the sea, where is your evidence that there is no seperation from the sky above and the sea below? God seperated the dry land from the sea. Again where is your evidence that there is no seperation of sea and dry land? God said let the earth produce grass. Where is your evidence that there is no grass on the earth. I want to see all the scientific evidence you have to prove that creation never happened and that there is no Creator. Show me all of your falsification.

Ok this is getting out of hand. We understand very clearly how all of these phenomena occur. The god of the gaps is shrinking every day. If there is a god, he started the big bang 14 billion years ago and then everything has happened naturally since then. Maybe you could say he sparked the first life into some early self-replicating protein 4 billion years ago, but since then, evolution can explain all of the complexity we see around us. Again, you're starting with your conclusion and working backwards. That's not how science is done. We observe, make predictions, test those predictions, and then either confirm or deny them. Only then can we arrive at a conclusion. Until then, we say "I don't know." I'll grant you that we don't know how the first self replicating protein became life, and we'll probably never know how the big bang began. But we know that it DID happen and we know that life has evolved from single celled organisms, whether a God created the first one or not. But we shouldn't jump to a supernatural conclusion. Why? Because so far, everything we have ever discovered, every question about the universe we have ever answered has turned out to be not magic.

Maybe God created the first RNA molecule, I can't say. But we do know one thing for sure. It didn't happen like in Genesis.

 

[Hespera]

"Nothing but" ok where is your evidence that there was no neolithic revolution? Where is your evidence that there was no founding mother and father for the Hebrew people? Where is your evidence that there is no common ancestor? I am so glad we have nothing but evidence to falsify all of creationism so we can put it to rest once and for all with no more discussion or debate. How about if we take it one line at a time: "In the beginning" where is your scientific evidence that there was no beginning? "Heaven and Earth" where is your scientific evidence there is no Heaven or Earth? "Earth without form or void" where is your evidence that as the Ice age came to an end the earth was not without form or void? God said let there be light, where is your evidence that there was no light? God divided the light from the darknesss. Where is your evidence that there is no night and day, light and darkness? God seperated the sky from the sea, where is your evidence that there is no seperation from the sky above and the sea below? God seperated the dry land from the sea. Again where is your evidence that there is no seperation of sea and dry land? God said let the earth produce grass. Where is your evidence that there is no grass on the earth. I want to see all the scientific evidence you have to prove that creation never happened and that there is no Creator. Show me all of your falsification.

well you sure showed me your rant.

You seem to think science does or will back creationism. Any data relevant to the subject serves only to falsify any such claims.

No flood, no 6000 yr old earth, no none of it.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Of course we have predictive power. Archeology is one area the Bible has been used to predict where they will find Archeology sites and has been proven to be accurate for well over 100 years.

The Enuma Elish talked about Babylon, therefore Marduk is the god of storms and the Earth is really the body of the great dragon Tiamat.

Of course historical fiction and mythology would talk about real places.

What I want to know is does the science of CREATIONISM make predictions? For example:

If the Earth is less than 10,000 years old we should expect to find...

Since birds were created before land animals we should expect to see...

See what I'm saying? The locations of ancient cities and archaeological sites are not something that can ONLY be explained with the Bible. Plenty of other historical documents talk about landmarks in Jerusalem.

There is a prophecy that Isreal will be gathered again as a nation and in 1948 that is exactly what happened.

This is not a scientific prediction.

And it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Meaning, the people who fulfilled it, knew about it. I predict that someone will type the word Shamladu sometime in this thread. Let's see if my prediction comes true.

A scientific prediction is not a prophecy. It's more like "Hm this is a very interesting phenomenon. Oh yes I think I can understand the pattern behind this. If I'm right, the following should also be true." And then you test to find out if it is. And then other people test it and tell you that you're brilliant or terribly terribly wrong.

We are told that this generation will not perish before all is accomplished. It just so happens that people in Isreal live to be 81 years of age on the average. So 1948 plus 81 equals 1929, the year we predict this current church age will come to an end. Care to wait around for 18 years to see how accurate the Bible is with predictions?

Every time someone makes a prophesy based on a holy book, I brew a special beer and open it the day AFTER the event is supposed to happen. So far I haven't had to miss an opening. I don't think this one will be any different. Hm. I wonder what type of beer I'll brew for this one. I'm already doing Long Count Chocolate Stout for the 2012 thing next year. Oh and that Apocalypse Ale I opened last May 21st was quite delicious. Maybe I'll do a wine this time. Wine was popular in Biblical times right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The point is you have two theorys of gravity, newton and einstein. They do not seem to agree. So who is correct?

As I said, the terms "push" and "pull" are merely metaphors to human action. They are not what distinguish both theories from each other. So they are both correct on this count, since they both accept that gravity, whatever it may be, causes an acceleration or deceleration on entities with mass.

Where Einstein's paradigm improved on Newton's paradigm was to show how there is no absolute frame of reference, and also to suggest that space itself may be curved by gravity.

We may yet see an even better paradigm come along that will explain gravity in the context of quantum physics as well. (Perhaps some version of quantum gravity.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The point is you have two theorys of gravity, newton and einstein. They do not seem to agree. So who is correct?

Einstein trumps Newton, of course. Then again, there is some evidence that Einstein's theory, as good as it is, is itself wrong. But Einstein's theory is the one we use, simply because it's so darn accurate.

Of course we have predictive power. Archeology is one area the Bible has been used to predict where they will find Archeology sites and has been proven to be accurate for well over 100 years.

Really? So, where's the global evidence of Noah's Flood? Floods leave hallmarks, so we can predict that we'd find these hallmarks all over the world at the same geological stratum - where is it?

Beyond that, no one doubts that there really was an Egypt, Israel, etc, but not because the Bible has advanced knowledge that tells us as such, but because there is a plethora of independent evidence that happens to support those broad aspects of the Bible. To take that and infer that all the rest is also vindicated is fallacious.

There is a prophecy that Isreal will be gathered again as a nation and in 1948 that is exactly what happened.

Of course it is - Israel reformed as a nation because it was predicted. If no such prophecy was made, if there was nothing inherently special about that strip of the Middle East, do you think Jews would clamour to return there? It's called a 'self-fulfilling prophecy': the creation of the prophecy, even by a charlatan, encourages people to bring that prophecy to fruition.

We are told that this generation will not perish before all is accomplished. It just so happens that people in Isreal live to be 81 years of age on the average. So 1948 plus 81 equals 1929, the year we predict this current church age will come to an end. Care to wait around for 18 years to see how accurate the Bible is with predictions?

I think you mean 2029. And yes, I will join you on that date with a smile on my face as, like every other apocalyptic prophecy, the world doesn't end. Dubious statistics and fallacious prophecies aren't particularly convincing.