INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Gravity

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#21 Post by Fia » October 21st, 2010, 9:16 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Bugger, crossposted again, so will add a bit at the end and then gracefully retire :wink:
The problem occurs because you are not familiar with Eastern thought.
That may well be but
astrology establishes the celestial contour at the time of birth
So? What impact does it make on the newborn? What about women who've been induced, or have an accident which precipitates birth? You're surely not trying to tell us that where the universe happens to be in relation to the birth makes a difference to the new human's life? That the clouds of Jupiter made the poor child's mother fall down the stairs and go into labour?

Nirvanam, there are useful and distracting things in all human thought, whether Western, Eastern or any other *ern :D Many people in the UK think that many ills can be cured by a good strong cup of tea. That doesn't mean to say that tea has magical properties. If you think that we are missing something then show us the research...
what matters for most Humans is who it is coming from.
Of course it does. Despite his hair, I don't think Brian Cox has a hidden agenda, and he does have excellent academic credentials i.e. he has studied, thought, published, been peer reviewed etc. Would you like to be, say, operated on by someone who loves the human body and has read stuff or by someone who has undergone at least 7 years training?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#22 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:21 pm

Paolo wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:the main point - if astrology is woo then gravity is woo.
Except of course there are specific observable effects of gravity that can be repeated over and over again independently and without exception, whereas I have yet to see any specific observable effects of astrology, even without the requirement for repeatability and independence.

Gravity is an observable effect that lacks a theoretical explanation, astrology is a theoretical explanation that lacks an observable effect. That's the difference between science and woo.
And yet neither of them does both, innit? So which half do you choose to place your faith in today?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#23 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:25 pm

Fia wrote:Bugger, crossposted again, so will add a bit at the end and then gracefully retire :wink:
The problem occurs because you are not familiar with Eastern thought.
That may well be but
astrology establishes the celestial contour at the time of birth
So? What impact does it make on the newborn? What about women who've been induced, or have an accident which precipitates birth? You're surely not trying to tell us that where the universe happens to be in relation to the birth makes a difference to the new human's life? That the clouds of Jupiter made the poor child's mother fall down the stairs and go into labour?

Nirvanam, there are useful and distracting things in all human thought, whether Western, Eastern or any other *ern :D Many people in the UK think that many ills can be cured by a good strong cup of tea. That doesn't mean to say that tea has magical properties. If you think that we are missing something then show us the research...
what matters for most Humans is who it is coming from.
Of course it does. Despite his hair, I don't think Brian Cox has a hidden agenda, and he does have excellent academic credentials i.e. he has studied, thought, published, been peer reviewed etc. Would you like to be, say, operated on by someone who loves the human body and has read stuff or by someone who has undergone at least 7 years training?
Fia, you are asking me questions about Astrology...I don't know the abc of Astrology. All I have said is that the theoretical basis of heavenly objects' influence is the same in explaining Gravitational force and what Astrology seems to be doing.

And even if Gravity was proved to not exist that it is actually a confused force of some other force say electromagnetism, your mind will not change. And the same holds true for Astrology or anything else you may want to call woo. I maintain, 90% of our knowledge is based on the faith we have on certain people/ideas.

Now, I'll open this Gravity discussion to the latest theory in science...next post

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Gravity

#24 Post by Paolo » October 21st, 2010, 9:26 pm

Nirvanam wrote:
Paolo wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:the main point - if astrology is woo then gravity is woo.
Except of course there are specific observable effects of gravity that can be repeated over and over again independently and without exception, whereas I have yet to see any specific observable effects of astrology, even without the requirement for repeatability and independence.

Gravity is an observable effect that lacks a theoretical explanation, astrology is a theoretical explanation that lacks an observable effect. That's the difference between science and woo.
And yet neither of them does both, innit? So which half do you choose to place your faith in today?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. What do you mean?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Gravity

#25 Post by Alan C. » October 21st, 2010, 9:28 pm

Nirvanam
Whether you think some thing is woo or not does not make it woo.
Yes it does woo like anything else is in the eye of the beholder.
As I have maintained always, what matters is not the subject or the argument..what matters for most Humans is who it is coming from.
Explain please.
Give it a few months and most of the gang here will start believing Jesus existed.
I think quite a lot of folk on this forum do believe the guy existed (I'm not one of them) Gang? who are this gang of which you speak?
Why? Richard Dawkins thinks so as implied in his statement on a new theory about Jesus was made.
Linky?
Maybe me mentioning this thing might have the reverse effect of some people's views on Dawkins...can't rule that out.
Oh I think you can.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#26 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:29 pm

Since Gravity does not seem to explain close to 90% of the universe there is a new theory proposed which of course is called woo by the establishment (what more can you expect from them anyway). That theory is called the Electric Universe...or plasmic universe. As per the theory there are 4 states of matter...solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. the 90% of universe that we don't see...what theorists call dark energy and dark matter can be explained by Plasma.

What I notice is that Plasma is able to explain many anomalies of gravity...so I think it will be interesting to see how the theory develops.

Anyone heard of it? Paolo your particle energy example is referring to the existence of plasma in the space between nucleus and electrons.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#27 Post by Fia » October 21st, 2010, 9:31 pm

All I have said is that the theoretical basis of heavenly objects' influence is the same in explaining Gravitational force and what Astrology seems to be doing.
No it isn't.

I've had enough... off to play in some social threads... care to join me?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#28 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:33 pm

Alan C. wrote:
Nirvanam
Whether you think some thing is woo or not does not make it woo.
Yes it does woo like anything else is in the eye of the beholder.
you said it right! That's exactly what I intended to say...that woo is in the mind of the perceiver. Because you think it is woo, it is woo to you. may not be for everyone else.
Alan C. wrote:
As I have maintained always, what matters is not the subject or the argument..what matters for most Humans is who it is coming from.
Explain please.
You sure you didn't understand this? Ok, give me a topic of your choice and I'll explain the meaning of that sentence in reference to that topic.

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Gravity

#29 Post by Paolo » October 21st, 2010, 9:34 pm

Nirvanam wrote:Since Gravity does not seem to explain close to 90% of the universe there is a new theory proposed which of course is called woo by the establishment (what more can you expect from them anyway). That theory is called the Electric Universe...or plasmic universe. As per the theory there are 4 states of matter...solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. the 90% of universe that we don't see...what theorists call dark energy and dark matter can be explained by Plasma.

What I notice is that Plasma is able to explain many anomalies of gravity...so I think it will be interesting to see how the theory develops.

Anyone heard of it? Paolo your particle energy example is referring to the existence of plasma in the space between nucleus and electrons.
Not really, it's referring to electrons and their erratic movement within their quantum packets. Plasma is just ionised gas, like flames - it's interesting enough stuff I suppose, but nothing particularly new or paradigm shifting.

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Gravity

#30 Post by Paolo » October 21st, 2010, 9:34 pm

Oops - looks like I double posted by accident - must have been the plasma...

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#31 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:34 pm

Paolo wrote:Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. What do you mean?
Leave it, it ain't important

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#32 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:35 pm

Fia wrote:
All I have said is that the theoretical basis of heavenly objects' influence is the same in explaining Gravitational force and what Astrology seems to be doing.
No it isn't.

I've had enough... off to play in some social threads... care to join me?
Not now

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#33 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:36 pm

Paolo wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:Since Gravity does not seem to explain close to 90% of the universe there is a new theory proposed which of course is called woo by the establishment (what more can you expect from them anyway). That theory is called the Electric Universe...or plasmic universe. As per the theory there are 4 states of matter...solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. the 90% of universe that we don't see...what theorists call dark energy and dark matter can be explained by Plasma.

What I notice is that Plasma is able to explain many anomalies of gravity...so I think it will be interesting to see how the theory develops.

Anyone heard of it? Paolo your particle energy example is referring to the existence of plasma in the space between nucleus and electrons.
Not really, it's referring to electrons and their erratic movement within their quantum packets. Plasma is just ionised gas, like flames - it's interesting enough stuff I suppose, but nothing particularly new or paradigm shifting.
Do you know what is the Electric Universe theory? Paradigm shifting...hell scientists are ostracizing the people who have dared to express this...wow!

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Gravity

#34 Post by Paolo » October 21st, 2010, 9:46 pm

Nirvanam wrote:
Paolo wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:Since Gravity does not seem to explain close to 90% of the universe there is a new theory proposed which of course is called woo by the establishment (what more can you expect from them anyway). That theory is called the Electric Universe...or plasmic universe. As per the theory there are 4 states of matter...solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. the 90% of universe that we don't see...what theorists call dark energy and dark matter can be explained by Plasma.

What I notice is that Plasma is able to explain many anomalies of gravity...so I think it will be interesting to see how the theory develops.

Anyone heard of it? Paolo your particle energy example is referring to the existence of plasma in the space between nucleus and electrons.
Not really, it's referring to electrons and their erratic movement within their quantum packets. Plasma is just ionised gas, like flames - it's interesting enough stuff I suppose, but nothing particularly new or paradigm shifting.
Do you know what is the Electric Universe theory? Paradigm shifting...hell scientists are ostracizing the people who have dared to express this...wow!
OK, so it would be paradigm shifting if there was sufficient evidence for it, but it's 50 years old as an idea and the lack of any solid progress has led to it becoming sidelined and rather unfashionable. I agree that science shouldn't follow fashions, but usually the trends are related to areas of research which produce exciting outcomes, rather than exciting ideas. Plasma theory needs to start making some accurate testable predictions if it ever wants to be taken seriously. It's not a failure because it's ignored, it's ignored because it's a failure... at least so far.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Gravity

#35 Post by Alan C. » October 21st, 2010, 9:49 pm

Nirvanam
You sure you didn't understand this? Ok, give me a topic of your choice and I'll explain the meaning of that sentence in reference to that topic.
You're being patronising again :sad2:

OK my topic of choice is, is the distribution of condoms in Africa and other third world countries a good thing? If not why not.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#36 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 9:58 pm

Paolo wrote:OK, so it would be paradigm shifting if there was sufficient evidence for it, but it's 50 years old as an idea and the lack of any solid progress has led to it becoming sidelined and rather unfashionable. I agree that science shouldn't follow fashions, but usually the trends are related to areas of research which produce exciting outcomes, rather than exciting ideas. Plasma theory needs to start making some accurate testable predictions if it ever wants to be taken seriously. It's not a failure because it's ignored, it's ignored because it's a failure... at least so far.
Errr I am sorry there has been lots of progress made in this decade alone...mainly because there has been progress in technology, the plasmic properties of the universe is being able to be studied. Whether it is taken seriously or not, does not depend upon whether it explains things better than what other theories...it depends on what the individual wants to believe. If the Plasma theorist can win over Stephen Hawking, rest assured most will fall in line. As I maintain, it is not the theory itself, it is who it comes from that makes the difference. Ignoring that fact is at your own peril.

The early proponent of this theory back in the 70's was ostracized because the then big shot Chandrashekhar did not like his theory...one small sentence...something like, "this is more imaginative than I can think of" from Chandrashekhar who probably was 60-70 yrs by that time was enough to crush the theory there itself. The age of Chandrashelkhar is important...why? Because it is a very well known fact that as you grow older it becomes that much more difficult for you to change your mental illusionary universe. As Einstein grew older he could not accept the Quantum Theory inspite of the 2 split experiment. he was against it like the church against a purported witch.

I bet you don't know much about the theory, Paolo. It is apparent because you are not even aware that it is currently being proposed with a lot of experimental data. Of course I don't know anything either just that my awareness of its current state is maybe infinitesimally more than yours...lol

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#37 Post by Nirvanam » October 21st, 2010, 10:07 pm

Alan C. wrote:
Nirvanam
You sure you didn't understand this? Ok, give me a topic of your choice and I'll explain the meaning of that sentence in reference to that topic.
You're being patronising again :sad2:

OK my topic of choice is, is the distribution of condoms in Africa and other third world countries a good thing? If not why not.
Seriously Alan, I was not being patronising. I thought what I said was very much simple straight forward and so I did not expect you to ask me to explain it. Anyway, here goes with out example of distribution of condoms in Africa and third world countries (by the way the term is outdated and does not exist meaningfully since 1991).

So when I say what matters is who it is coming from and not the thing in itself it can be explained in your situation this way -

Suppose it comes from the Pope that distributing condoms to... is a bad thing then you will automatically say the pope is wrong because in your mental construct the Pope is an idiot. but suppose it comes from Richard Dawkins then you will tend to open your mind and see why he thinks so because in your mental construct Richard Dawkins is kinda "the" god of rational thought.

Please understand the concept behind the example rather than focusing on the example itself. Another example - if there is a newsletter for Humanists and in that newsletter there is an article that Gravity is a misunderstood force of nature you will be more likely to believe it than if you read it in a newsletter that also has articles about how Ayurveda works. Belief lies in the mind of the believer...you believe what you want to believe...there is hardly any rationality involved in it.

You can argue for the sake of arguing but if you are being honest to yourself, you will try to observe this phenomenon in yourself and until you are absolutely certain you are truly a rational being you will not have the conviction in your arguments.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Gravity

#38 Post by getreal » October 21st, 2010, 11:28 pm

Ah! But there's the rub! I think most rational people already know this, Nirvanam. They know that there will be a propensity to reject out of hand something coming from a source you deem unreliable. However rational people will take this into consideration when judging the worth of something. They will endeavour to remain as unbiased as possible when looking at a claim. It is important to remember, though that "if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out"
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Gravity

#39 Post by Nirvanam » October 22nd, 2010, 12:43 am

getreal wrote:Ah! But there's the rub! I think most rational people already know this, Nirvanam. They know that there will be a propensity to reject out of hand something coming from a source you deem unreliable. However rational people will take this into consideration when judging the worth of something. They will endeavour to remain as unbiased as possible when looking at a claim. It is important to remember, though that "if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out"
I have heard that phrase being used as the Scud anti-missile on this Forum a lil too often, and it isn't funny any more. Forget the physical stupidity of that statement but seriously how can an open mind, no matter whether it is fully open or not cause you to screw up your experience of the universe? Unless you actually believe that the mind is your skull such that opening it will fell your brain down, it is a stupid statement. I understand it is metaphoric however, when does an open mind ever cause one to understand a false universe...I know a closed mind does it.

What I mentioned regarding who it is coming from, be honest to your own self Getreal...forget the ego indulgence of oneupmanship with me. Just ask yourself, or observe yourself why you believe in what you believe? Do you really try to understand the subject? If you did then you would be a scholar in every thing you seem to have knowledge in. It is more than likely that you think a little and gain insight on the cover, of issues that come from someone or something that appeals to your world-view. I have already discussed with you on other topics and I know that your are also just like me, as prone to putting faith in people and concepts as I do. Our thread on History hit a wall the moment I said 'what if all the peers believed the Earth was 6000 yrs old?'. It obviously must have given you food for thought but I still don't know whether you continue to believe that Aryan crap or whether you are willing to learn otherwise. At the end of the day, as long as we view these threads as some kinda oneupmanship then we are wasting our time. I want to see more substance in the guys' arguments here instead of ridicule and just asserting 'this is so because I believe it is so and I am rational therefore my viewpoint is right'. At some point it gets boring. This is not personal against you as such...I am guilty of the same too. The only difference I see between us is that I openly admit that I am prisoner to such biases whereas I don't notice that in the guys here...maybe it is just personality differences. But please sell that I am rational, I think deep thing to someone else...my whole life experiences which includes this forum has only strengthened this fact. And that phrase about brain and mind...please find a different joke, it is getting boring...lol. Pls don't misunderstand me I am just getting tired of that joke, that's all...pls pull my leg with some other joke...lol

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Gravity

#40 Post by Alan C. » October 22nd, 2010, 10:13 pm

Well that post does it for me Nirvanam, some of us here have tried to be friendly but you just don't (want to?) get it?, Go forth and multiply. And take your juvenile "text-speak" with you.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Gravity

#41 Post by getreal » October 22nd, 2010, 11:11 pm

I'm really shocked at your reply, Nirvanam
Attachments
imagesCAXZ9XO1.jpg
imagesCAXZ9XO1.jpg (6.33 KiB) Viewed 2219 times
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Post Reply