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

Re: Gravity

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

Latest post of the previous page:

I'm really shocked at your reply, Nirvanam
Attachments
imagesCAXZ9XO1.jpg
imagesCAXZ9XO1.jpg (6.33 KiB) Viewed 2369 times
"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

#42 Post by Nirvanam » October 22nd, 2010, 11:43 pm

getreal wrote:I'm really shocked at your reply, Nirvanam
What's there to be shocked? Do you believe that all the topics that you discuss here or elsewhere, you know them very well? Don't you make up your viewpoints based on who or what you choose to believe?

Anyway, what's the relevance of the picture...I didn't get the joke part in the picture...I know the value of the joke will go away if we have to explain it but anyway please tell me



Edit - Getreal, I read my post 4 times again to see what was in it that seems to be so shocking. Honestly, I don't see anything so shocking in there...maybe I hit a wrong cultural sensitive button...if that is so, forgive me but tell me what it is. From me reading it again and again I see that, a) I have expressed my relative indifference to the proverb you used, b) I asked you for an honest self-inquiry whether you think you are always learning things rationally...whether the source of the info influences your acceptance of it or not. Seriously, what sin has been committed here?

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

Re: Gravity

#43 Post by getreal » October 22nd, 2010, 11:57 pm

I was shocked because of the tone of your post. It appeared bad tempered.
You have completely failed to grasp what I was saying. Perhaps that is my fault, but as I cannot explain it any better, there seems no point in continuing. You also brought up a thread which is months old. I discontinued contributing to that as I did not know anything about the subject and it did not interest me. What you said did not give me "food for thought". Quite the reverse. I had completely forgotten about it altogether.
"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

#44 Post by Nirvanam » October 23rd, 2010, 12:14 am

getreal wrote:I was shocked because of the tone of your post. It appeared bad tempered.
You have completely failed to grasp what I was saying. Perhaps that is my fault, but as I cannot explain it any better, there seems no point in continuing. You also brought up a thread which is months old. I discontinued contributing to that as I did not know anything about the subject and it did not interest me. What you said did not give me "food for thought". Quite the reverse. I had completely forgotten about it altogether.
Ah ok! no, it wasn't bad tempered...it was more like 'dropped down droopy shoulders' kinda temper. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The other thread, ya maybe History is not one of your more 'interested' subjects. Of course although I am biased on the subject coz I absolutely love History, in a balanced frame of mind I feel it is very important for us to teach as close as possible to the true History to our children. Because when they are kids these things shape their beliefs. Take for example the Neo Nazis....alright maybe I should start new thread on this topic coz it doesn't belong here.

edit - changed interesting to interested

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Gravity

#45 Post by Marian » October 23rd, 2010, 1:10 am

Because you asked for an explanation as to why your post came across as bad-tempered, I'll have a go. As usual, I'll be direct. I have noticed that you are posting a lot of threads, which isn't a bad thing, but I also see that the threads are 'going south' pretty quickly. There is a reason for this.
You know what this forum is about yet everything seems to come down to what you want and what you think and not in a positive way. Hopefully, I can demonstrate this.

Nirvanam wrote: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.
Let's pull apart this paragraph. Your first sentence is judgemental. Who are you to say the phrase is used too often on this forum or that it isn't funny? This comes across as quite arrogant. I usually think of arrogance as a cover for great insecurity. It's ok to be insecure. Everyone is but some hide it better than others. Next, you use the word 'stupid' three times. Actually, the statement is not stupid. An 'open mind' can screw up your understanding because you let everything in without any critical thinking, without discernment.
Nirvanam wrote: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.
Telling people what they are supposedly doing ie. ego indulgence of oneupmanship and then assuming you know how someone is ie. "I know that your are also like me, as prone to putting faith....." is incredibly egotistical. You are coming across as a 'know-it-all' but by virtue of your age/experience, you can't be. How can you know getreal is like you? You can't.
Nirvanam wrote:... '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
Again, you assume what others are thinking or should think ie. 'it obviously must have given you food for thought...' . You bring up the issue of oneupmanship again but it seems that you are the one who is doing just that.
Your sentence about 'wanting to see more substance' is another arrogant statement. It's like you somehow missed the idea when you were younger that the world does not revolve around you. Maybe this is not how you want to come across but I say that this is exactly how it appears to me.

No one has said you aren't rational (at least most of the time :) ) or that you don't try to think deeply about things. It's obvious that you do but how others perceive you plays a big part in how they interact with you. Let me use myself as an example. I think that I often come across as being standoffish and distant to others when I'm face-to-face but that is a product of my disability. I tend to be extremely direct but I have difficulty when others are very direct with me. I also know that compared to some, I know very little so I try to be humble. I'm always trying to fix what I perceive as my shortcomings. But I never used to do this. I used to think I had all the answers, that I was going to show everyone a thing or two but it wasn't long before life showed me up.

Not trying to be mean.
Transformative fire...

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

Re: Gravity

#46 Post by Nirvanam » October 23rd, 2010, 1:51 pm

I'll argue my side of the story.
Marian wrote:Because you asked for an explanation as to why your post came across as bad-tempered, I'll have a go. As usual, I'll be direct. I have noticed that you are posting a lot of threads, which isn't a bad thing, but I also see that the threads are 'going south' pretty quickly.
Going south, in what way? I can't help it if these threads are forcing you to question long held beliefs, and it is very difficult to change those beliefs...the resistance will always be there and it is always difficult to fight it.
Marian wrote: There is a reason for this.
You know what this forum is about yet everything seems to come down to what you want and what you think and not in a positive way.
Initially I thought this was a forum where Humanists get together to discuss Humanism and its philosophies. Then I noticed it is not only about Humanism...there are lot other topics that are discussed here. My interest is in the other topics and especially to debate folks here because they consider their views to be rational, logical. So it can help me understand logical flaws in my views and also reinforce my belief that all Humans are both rational and irrational (which I am very surprised to observe that it is met with lot of resistance here). I think I have made myself amply clear many times that I am not interested in Humanism and its philosophies. If that is what this site is all about then please do correct my understanding and I shall find my way out.
Marian wrote: Hopefully, I can demonstrate this.
Nirvanam wrote: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.
Let's pull apart this paragraph. Your first sentence is judgemental.
Perceptive...not quite judgmental I'd think, but maybe I am wrong.
Marian wrote: Who are you to say the phrase is used too often on this forum or that it isn't funny?
Because in my experience, it is so. It's upto you whether you would want to empathize or even make yourself aware of the opposite's person's perception towards that, or believe that there can only be one version of "truth" which is what you perceive it to be (that the statement is funny and that it is not used often enough).
Marian wrote: This comes across as quite arrogant. I usually think of arrogance as a cover for great insecurity. It's ok to be insecure. Everyone is but some hide it better than others. Next, you use the word 'stupid' three times. Actually, the statement is not stupid.
Actually it is stupid because the statement is equating mind as some kind of covering membrane of the brain...that is the stupidity in its physical description. Metaphorically it was getting boring to me.
Marian wrote: An 'open mind' can screw up your understanding because you let everything in without any critical thinking, without discernment.
Wrong. You assume that an open mind implies lack of critical thought. An open mind is just that...open...what you do with the information you have opened your mind to comes next. You may choose to analyze it further or not. So, yes I am wrong when I say "how can open mind ever cause someone to understand the universe wrongly". However, I am not wrong in saying opening ones mind is necessary to understand the Universe.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote: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.
Telling people what they are supposedly doing ie. ego indulgence of oneupmanship and then assuming you know how someone is ie. "I know that your are also like me, as prone to putting faith....." is incredibly egotistical. You are coming across as a 'know-it-all' but by virtue of your age/experience, you can't be. How can you know getreal is like you? You can't.
Of course, there is another you can interpret this...that a friendly voice is trying to suggest something which he thinks is happening. But anyway, it doesn't matter. I may come across as egotistical but I believe that I have understood the situation quite rightly here...that of "believing things based on who or where or how it comes from". Experience also tells me that many arguments go on just for the sake of it...neither individual wants to back down coz it hurts their ego. I have no problem accepting that I am guilty of the same.
Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:... '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
Again, you assume what others are thinking or should think ie. 'it obviously must have given you food for thought...' .
I'd assume it does give them food for thought but if it doesn't then they are ignoring facts, which I think is not the case. Or perhaps they are not interested in the subject...but that is hard to believe because they were participating in the argument till that point in time when we hit a wall.
Marian wrote: You bring up the issue of oneupmanship again but it seems that you are the one who is doing just that.
Oh yes, I sure am guilty of the same...no doubt about it. When you notice it, please just mention it, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge it. I understand it gets difficult to notice it from the first person's perspective hence we keep going on and on. The moment someone points it out, our minds break down the cocoon in which they are sitting while arguing their case. Very natural human behavior. The person that I am, I find it necessary for me to inform the opposite person of my views...I may be wrong in my assessment but that gets clarified when the opposite person responds to it. However, forming an opinion without letting the opposite person know how you are interpreting them (without giving them a chance to clear any misunderstanding) is not beneficial for my own self. That's my nature.
Marian wrote:Your sentence about 'wanting to see more substance' is another arrogant statement. It's like you somehow missed the idea when you were younger that the world does not revolve around you. Maybe this is not how you want to come across but I say that this is exactly how it appears to me.
Misunderstanding. I say that because that's the way some argue here...there is not much substance in their argument. I have also on many occasions hinted who I believe have substance in their arguments by recognizing that they are very knowledgeable. An easy way of understanding this phenomenon in work is by studying my conversations with the various folk here...you will be able to recognize with whom conversations go south, with whom arguments lack substance, with whom arguments get into the mode of "it is so, because I say so, and you are a nut coz you think different"
Marian wrote:No one has said you aren't rational (at least most of the time :) ) or that you don't try to think deeply about things.
But that's fine coz we are all never fully rational...my only expectation is people move away from the stance that, 'I am rational and hence what I think is correct, what you think is woo'.
Marian wrote:It's obvious that you do but how others perceive you plays a big part in how they interact with you.
That perception itself may not be rational...here's the best example of the irrationality all of us possess. Our perceptions of people is based on our cultural sensitivities...cultural sensitivities themselves are not rational fully...so why do people find it difficult to admit they will never be fully rational? I don't know for sure but my understanding of the way things are tells me it is because of our ego.
Marian wrote: Let me use myself as an example. I think that I often come across as being standoffish and distant to others when I'm face-to-face but that is a product of my disability. I tend to be extremely direct but I have difficulty when others are very direct with me. I also know that compared to some, I know very little so I try to be humble. I'm always trying to fix what I perceive as my shortcomings. But I never used to do this. I used to think I had all the answers, that I was going to show everyone a thing or two but it wasn't long before life showed me up.

Not trying to be mean.
Beautiful and I applaud you for having the guts to 'face the mirror' in an open thread like this. It is very hard to do that...it is very hard to rise over the ego's self-indulgent construct of the universe but the ability to silence our minds at such times is what determines humility. You come across as a humble person to me...I'd like to believe I am too but I am aware people may misunderstand my lack of modesty for lack of humility. I am by no means a modest person...lol.

No, you are not being mean to me, Marian...you are enabling a good dialog internally for me by questioning me like this. It will only make me a better Human Being but if I have a nature of dwelling only on the negatives then it'll make me a worser Human Being and I'd be richly deserving that.

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Gravity

#47 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 23rd, 2010, 5:08 pm

Nirvanam wrote:My understanding is that astrology establishes the celestial contour at the time of birth but never says your life is etched in stone from now on.
Yes, you're right, and I shouldn't have implied that, by saying that astrologists claim that they can predict all the things that happen to a human being based on the position of the stars and planets at the time of birth. They do make predictions on that basis, but they also make predictions on the basis of the position of the stars and planets at other points in people's lives. The relationship between human lives and events on Earth and the positions of celestial bodies is allegedly continuous.
Nirvanam wrote:My beef is straight forward - if heavenly objects can influence us then the theoretical basis for gravity and astrology seem to be the same.
Yes, you've made that pretty clear, Nirvanam, but I'm not convinced that you've really taken the objections to it on board. Those objections are being made, not because we're all blinkered and biased and Eurocentric and obsessed with oneupmanship, though we might be, but because there are some serious problems with your conclusion. The first is that we are subject to the gravitational pull not just of distant celestial bodies but of all sorts of massive objects we happen to be near, as well as the very planet we're living on, as Alan H. pointed out. You seem to think that's irrelevant, but I'm not sure why. Well, maybe it is irrelevant. I'm not aware of any astrologist who has claimed that the effect of the planets and stars on human beings has anything to do with gravity, anyway, but if one did, they would either have to explain why heavenly bodies had an effect and earthly bodies didn't, or stop focusing on the stars and planets and start taking other things into account. Another problem is that you're using the word "influence" in two very different ways. Gravity does have an influence on human beings; there's no denying it. It's the Earth's gravity that enables us to develop muscles, and that causes us to lose about a centimetre in height over the course of the day (and more over the course of our adult lives). But there's no reason to think that a much smaller gravitational force, whether it's from a distant constellation or a nearby building, would have any significant impact on our bodies, let alone on our personalities or on the way our lives progress. And there is no plausible mechanism for it doing the latter. And in any case, as others have mentioned, there's no good evidence of it. And finally, as I understand it, a lot of astrologers don't even claim that celestial bodies actually do have an influence on human beings and events on Earth, but rather see them as a way of reading or divining our lives, like the lines in our palms, or Tarot cards, or the entrails of a goat. There appears to be no single "theoretical basis" for astrology. There's not even a single astrology.
Nirvanam wrote:The problem occurs because you are not familiar with Eastern thought ...
What problem, Nirvy? :innocence:
Nirvanam wrote:The theoretical basis for astrology is the existence of influence of bodies on each other...
Not necessarily. Carl Jung had an alternative explanation. Jung did not believe that it was possible for celestial bodies to influence events on Earth, but he suggested that some other forces were having a simultaneous effect both on the constellations and on events on Earth. He called it "synchronicity". In other words, he claimed, there is a relationship between the pattern of celestial bodies and the pattern of events on Earth, but it is not causal. Both are caused by something else.
Nirvanam wrote:... and that to me is not woo no matter how one tries to qualify it with hospitals, midwives, or any other things. Although I am not absolutely convinced this theoretical basis is beyond you, I am willing to take the risk of betting something very valuable that you will be able to figure the theoretical basis of bodily influences on things.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here, so I certainly hope you haven't wagered anything too valuable! :D

Emma

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Gravity

#48 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 23rd, 2010, 5:21 pm

Nirvanam wrote:
getreal wrote: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.
Marian wrote:Let's pull apart this paragraph. Your first sentence is judgemental. Who are you to say the phrase is used too often on this forum or that it isn't funny? This comes across as quite arrogant.
I'm going to have to come clean here, and say that I agree with Nirvanam. Not that I've noticed that that phrase is used too often on this particular forum, particularly, but I do think it sounds stupid, and always have done, ever since I first heard it, from the lips of A.C. Grayling, of all people. I understand what it's supposed to mean, but I don't think it conveys what it's supposed to mean particularly well, and I don't blame Nirvanam for failing to "get it".

Having said that, the song by Tim Minchin to which getreal linked, the title of which happens to be "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out", is funny. And if you haven't watched it yet, Nirvanam, please do. You might also see the significance of the photograph that getreal attached to her post.

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Gravity

#49 Post by animist » October 23rd, 2010, 6:17 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Carl Jung had an alternative explanation. Jung did not believe that it was possible for celestial bodies to influence events on Earth, but he suggested that some other forces were having a simultaneous effect both on the constellations and on events on Earth. He called it "synchronicity". In other words, he claimed, there is a relationship between the pattern of celestial bodies and the pattern of events on Earth, but it is not causal. Both are caused by something else.
what did Jung think this was? Just synchronicity? - that is hardly a force. He always, to me, seemed excessively mystical in his (unproveable) notion of the collective unconscious

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

Re: Gravity

#50 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 7:51 am

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:The first is that we are subject to the gravitational pull not just of distant celestial bodies but of all sorts of massive objects we happen to be near, as well as the very planet we're living on, as Alan H. pointed out. You seem to think that's irrelevant, but I'm not sure why.
I am not sure what gave you that impression.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Well, maybe it is irrelevant. I'm not aware of any astrologist who has claimed that the effect of the planets and stars on human beings has anything to do with gravity, anyway, but if one did, they would either have to explain why heavenly bodies had an effect and earthly bodies didn't, or stop focusing on the stars and planets and start taking other things into account.
On reason could be that the term Gravity came into being only in the last few centuries but the sciences of the heavenly bodies have existed in human understanding at least for 15 millenia. This is where I find the expectations of the modern narrow minded 'science is god' people...they expect ancients to have used the same words and terminologies and same methods to arrive at the understanding that modern science has. we need to understand that no two human beings understand a phenomenon the same way...you and I, I am ready to bet but dunno how to prove it, will not understand 2+2 = 4 in the same way. Best way is to see commonality...they say a force exists...modern science also establishes gravity is a force.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Another problem is that you're using the word "influence" in two very different ways. Gravity does have an influence on human beings; there's no denying it. It's the Earth's gravity that enables us to develop muscles, and that causes us to lose about a centimetre in height over the course of the day (and more over the course of our adult lives). But there's no reason to think that a much smaller gravitational force, whether it's from a distant constellation or a nearby building, would have any significant impact on our bodies, let alone on our personalities or on the way our lives progress. And there is no plausible mechanism for it doing the latter.And in any case, as others have mentioned, there's no good evidence of it.
When I mention the difference in Eastern philosophy...this is a clear example of that. In your world-view things are separate, boxed..gravity works on physical things not on mental things. In Eastern philosophy there is a "putting it all together" kinda base to their world views. Life is not just physical things...there is the mind, there is the spirit. So gravity or any force for that matter influencing a person will influence them in physical, mental, and spiritual contexts. Evidence can be presented only to people who are willing to view it as evidence. If you close your mind of two a minimum 50% of your own experiences and how the understanding of the world then no matter what evidence is presented, it will not matter. The better way of saying this is as follows:

We tend to believe stuff based on the faith we have in who, where, how it comes from.

The above is true, you can keep arguing against it till the cows come home. I have already put myself and lots of people here with whom I have had decent length conversations in situations where that phenomenon can be observed.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: And finally, as I understand it, a lot of astrologers don't even claim that celestial bodies actually do have an influence on human beings and events on Earth, but rather see them as a way of reading or divining our lives, like the lines in our palms, or Tarot cards, or the entrails of a goat. There appears to be no single "theoretical basis" for astrology. There's not even a single astrology.
Why should there be a single theory? No theory answers everything and I believe we will never have a theory that answers everything.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:The theoretical basis for astrology is the existence of influence of bodies on each other...
Not necessarily.
You are welcome to believe what you want. I believe what I want to.

Post Reply