| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2008 12:53:03 PM · #601 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.
BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.
That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.
The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot. |
When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how? |
No, of course not. They are in orbit, driven by gravity.
Yes, it can be shown to exist while on the shuttle. As someone linked earlier, it's all about orbital mechanics. Very simple physics really. The simple fact that the shuttle moves around the Earth shows it exists.
You really should avoid venturing outside your sphere of knowledge, your blatant lack of knowledge in one area taints your arguments in others. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 12:54:49 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am saying that God used to intervene directly in the world through physical manifestation according to the bible, but no longer appears to do so (you appear to agree). If God still answered prayers in the way that he is reported to have done in eras past (eg curing people, keeping them safe, or appearing as a speaking burning bush) then it would be easily measurable and the question would be answered. But he does not. You appear to agree with me on this but for different reasons â your reason âhe does not do so in order to confound unbelieversâ â my reason âhe does not appear to do so because people are less easily fooled than they used to beâ. |
This is way, way tangent to the discussion at hand, but your paragraph made me think of it:
Julian Jaynes, in his extraordinary work "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Brain" distinguishes between human and animal brains, characterizing ours as "uni-cameral" and theirs as "bi-cameral", that is to say "having two, separate parts" functionally. According to Jaynes, it can be proven that within the human historical timespan, we began with a bicameral brain, and that we have developed or evolved the unicameral brain.
Why is this important, or interesting? Because (according to Jaynes) a creature with a bicameral brain cannot attain "consciousness" as we know it today, even if intelligence and communication are developing. According to Jaynes, textual analysis proves that, to give just an example) "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" are the product of a bicameral brain.
Very generally speaking, what this means is that before we had the unicameral brain we now possess, we literally "heard voices" in our heads, and it was just one side of the brain talking to the other as intelligence developed, sharpened, and spread throughout the brain. (I am very loosely describing something very complex, don't hold me to details please) Interestingly, Jaynes basically says that ALL humans of that (and earlier) eras would be diagnosed, today, as suffering from schizophrenia, and that a modern schizophrenic is a throwback to the bicameral brain.
I'm not saying I agree with all this, but it is a fascinating read, and one that has been much-discussed. Obviously, if this is true, it gives a completely different perspective on the origin of "religion" and explains, at least in part, why "modern" man is turning away from religion.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 12:59:28 PM · #603 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, it can be shown to exist while on the shuttle. As someone linked earlier, it's all about orbital mechanics. Very simple physics really. The simple fact that the shuttle moves around the Earth shows it exists.
You really should avoid venturing outside your sphere of knowledge, your blatant lack of knowledge in one area taints your arguments in others. |
Just for the heck of it, let's postulate an alien (to us) life force that has developed elsewhere in the universe, some sort of a "plasma consciousness" consisting of vast clouds of interstellar matter that have somehow cohered loosely developed intelligence (this type of free-space life form has been the subject of some great science fiction, I didn't come up with it on my own). The question would be, how long would it take this intelligence to observe/hypothesize/understand the concept and reality of "gravity"?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:01:30 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture does NOT include "...and adhere to a list of specific demands..." as an additional requirement. |
Christians do not limit their "responsibilities" to mere belief... |
Nor should they, but, so far as scripture is concerned, their salvation does not depend on fulfilling those responsibilities.
Originally posted by scalvert:
...and the lines you quote would exclude all people born before Jesus... |
Not true. For those born before Jesus, God's requirement was different. For example
James 2:23-25: "And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"
Hebrews 11:4: "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings."
Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God."
Hebrews 11:7: "By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."
Hebrews 11:13-16: "All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."
Originally posted by scalvert:
... and anyone ignorant of the stories of the Bible. |
Also not true. BELIEF does not require a knowledge of the Bible at all -
Romans 1:18-20: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
edited to correct quote blocks
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 13:31:45. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:06:21 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.
BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.
That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.
The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot. |
When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how? |
No, of course not. They are in orbit, driven by gravity.
Yes, it can be shown to exist while on the shuttle. As someone linked earlier, it's all about orbital mechanics. Very simple physics really. The simple fact that the shuttle moves around the Earth shows it exists.
You really should avoid venturing outside your sphere of knowledge, your blatant lack of knowledge in one area taints your arguments in others. |
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:06:45 PM · #606 |
Robert, interesting ideas, I'd be interested in the details and in how he studied the brains of people long dead.
Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell" offers some fascinating insight on the "evolution" of religions (it's a tough read, though, and takes significantly more concentration than other books. This guy is a philosopher...).
He explains that early in our development, it was a good idea to suspect someone behind everything we observed in the world. If you hear movement in the woods, it's better to assume there's an adversary and to think about what his intentions might be than to say "Ah, that was probably just the wind." and get eaten by a tiger. ;-) However, this also lead to believing that someone was responsible for the rain, for example. Here's an excerpt from the book:
But sometimes the tactic of seeking an intentional-stance perspective comes up dry. Much as our ancestors would have loved to predict the weather by figuring out what it wanted and what beliefs it harbored about them, it simply didn't work. It no doubt often seemed to work, however. Every now and then the rain dances were rewarded by rain. What would the effect be? Many years ago, the behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner (1948) showed a striking "superstition" effect in pigeons that were put on a random schedule of reinforcement. Every so often, no matter what the pigeon was doing at the moment, a click and a food-pellet reward were delivered. Soon the pigeons on this random schedule were doing elaborate "dances," bobbing and whirling and craning their necks. It's hard to resist putting a soliloquy into these birds' brains: "Now, let's see: the last time I got the reward, I'd just spun around once and craned my neck. Let's try it again. ... Nope, no reward. Perhaps I didn't spin enough. ... Nope. Perhaps I should bob once before spinning and craning. ... YESSS! OK, now, what did I just do? ..." |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:09:59 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
Ron, if you're in a hole stop digging. Gravity exists between all objects of mass. You can make experiments with marbles on the space shuttle if you want to. The measurements then simply depends on the accuracy of your equipment and the forces measured are a lot smaller than those we experience here on the surface of the planet. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:12:29 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
(according to Jaynes) a creature with a bicameral brain cannot attain "consciousness" as we know it today, even if intelligence and communication are developing. |
Self-awareness, morality and imagination have been demonstrated in several species of animal. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:25:36 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by RonB:
BELIEF does not require a knowledge of the Bible at all - |
Of course it does. Your prior post indicated the *only* requirement for salvation was belief in Jesus. How is anyone supposed to know about Jesus without the Bible? Explorers did not land in the New World to find a bunch of Christians who already knew. There is no inscription on the moon or voices from the clouds, and even if you assume "something must have created all this," there is no way to inherently know a particular person died in another country 2000 years ago. There is absolutely nothing obvious about it. You cannot believe in Peter Pan unless you've heard the story.
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 13:26:20. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:26:26 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Let me restate the questions, because apparently you did not understand them.
Can it ( gravity ) be shown to exist by someone on the space shuttle?
If so, how can it ( gravity ) be shown to exist by someone on the space shuttle?
Point: Just because you cannot measure it, does not mean that it does not exist. |
Actually, if you had sensitive enough equipment (highly sensitive and highly accurate, mind you), you could test gravity in the space shuttle. There would be minute differences between objects located closer to a local gravity well as opposed to objects locate on the other side of the shuttle away from the gravity well. If you were orbiting a black hole, those differences would be even more pronounced. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:28:46 PM · #611 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
Ron, if you're in a hole stop digging. Gravity exists between all objects of mass. You can make experiments with marbles on the space shuttle if you want to. The measurements then simply depends on the accuracy of your equipment and the forces measured are a lot smaller than those we experience here on the surface of the planet. |
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede.
I'll accept an experiment using marbles, if you can find one. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:29:00 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
if you had sensitive enough equipment (highly sensitive and highly accurate, mind you), you could test gravity in the space shuttle. |
Orbital degradation would be measurable enough. Satellites don't just stay up there forever. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:32:13 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede. |
Done. You can actually measure gravity more precisely from space than on earth.
EDIT- Note that the acronym for this particular gravitational experiment is GRACE. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 13:35:38. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:34:40 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
Ron, if you're in a hole stop digging. Gravity exists between all objects of mass. You can make experiments with marbles on the space shuttle if you want to. The measurements then simply depends on the accuracy of your equipment and the forces measured are a lot smaller than those we experience here on the surface of the planet. |
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede.
I'll accept an experiment using marbles, if you can find one. |
I assume any old space vehicle will do? Or does the existence of gravity in space depend on it being measurable only from the space shuttle? Gravity Probe A and Gravity Probe B. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:35:24 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede.
I'll accept an experiment using marbles, if you can find one. |
RonB accepts micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
RonB accepts macro-gravity, but not micro-gravity.
... I think I'm beginning to see a pattern. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:41:18 PM · #616 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.
BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.
That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.
The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot. |
When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how? |
No, of course not. They are in orbit, driven by gravity.
Yes, it can be shown to exist while on the shuttle. As someone linked earlier, it's all about orbital mechanics. Very simple physics really. The simple fact that the shuttle moves around the Earth shows it exists.
You really should avoid venturing outside your sphere of knowledge, your blatant lack of knowledge in one area taints your arguments in others. |
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
I mentioned earth bound observation? Where?
If you're on the shuttle you can observe the fact that you are in orbit around the earth. Orbital motion is evidence of gravity. Relative motion can be observed and measured from any reference point. The rest is just simple math. Of course you can use a reference point on the shuttle as the center of motion, it just makes the equations a bit more complex.
Did you fail physics in high school? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:41:57 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede. |
Done. You can actually measure gravity more precisely from space than on earth. |
Not done. Two points:
1) A link to an experiment that WILL be attempted, and its hoped for results, is not a scientifically acceptable proof.
2) I actually went the extra step and looked up the GRACE experiment and found this ( easy find - it's in Wikipedia )
"The goal of the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) space mission is to obtain accurate global and high-resolution determination of both the static and the time-variable components of the Earth's gravity field. GRACE is intended to enable precise measurement of Earth's shifting water masses by detecting their effects on our planet's gravity field" ( emphasis mine )
In other words, they aren't measuring gravity from THEIR perspective. Rather they are inferring EARTH's gravity by detecting the effects ON EARTH. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:43:26 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'll accept an experiment using marbles, if you can find one. |
You've lost your marbles and want us to find them in outer space? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:44:38 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
Ron, if you're in a hole stop digging. Gravity exists between all objects of mass. You can make experiments with marbles on the space shuttle if you want to. The measurements then simply depends on the accuracy of your equipment and the forces measured are a lot smaller than those we experience here on the surface of the planet. |
If you can provide a link to the published results of a scientific experiment that measured a gravitational pull performed on the space shuttle or orbiting space station, then I will concede.
I'll accept an experiment using marbles, if you can find one. |
I assume any old space vehicle will do? Or does the existence of gravity in space depend on it being measurable only from the space shuttle? Gravity Probe A and Gravity Probe B. |
Neither experiment measured gravity. They measured TIME and INFERRED gravity based on a predisposition to acceptance of Einstein's theory of relativity. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:46:22 PM · #620 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Not done. Two points:
1) A link to an experiment that WILL be attempted, and its hoped for results, is not a scientifically acceptable proof.
2) I actually went the extra step and looked up the GRACE experiment and found this... |
Absolutely done. 1. The satellites were launched 6 years ago, and the resulting gravity maps are readily available. 2. The experiment works by using the trailing satellite to directly measure the pull of gravity on the leading satellite as it moves over areas of different mass. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:48:26 PM · #621 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you're on the shuttle you can observe the fact that you are in orbit around the earth. Orbital motion is evidence of gravity. |
So if I swing a rubber ball on a string, the fact that the ball circles my fist is evidence of gravity?
Did you fail physics in high school????
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:49:05 PM · #622 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So if I swing a rubber ball on a string, the fact that the ball circles my fist is evidence of gravity? |
Is the space shuttle connected to earth with a string? Cut the string and see what happens to the rubber ball. The simple fact that that DOESN'T happen to the space shuttle is direct, measurable evidence of gravity.
P.S.- I got an A+ in high school physics.
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 13:53:01. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:52:54 PM · #623 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Not done. Two points:
1) A link to an experiment that WILL be attempted, and its hoped for results, is not a scientifically acceptable proof.
2) I actually went the extra step and looked up the GRACE experiment and found this... |
Absolutely done. 1. The satellites were launched 6 years ago, and the resulting gravity maps are readily available. 2. The experiment works by using the trailing satellite to directly measure the pull of gravity on the leading satellite as it moves over areas of different mass. |
Absolutely NOT done.
From Wikipedia: "As the pair flies over a gravity anomaly, the leading spacecraft approaches and speeds up due to higher angular momentum. This causes the pair to increase separation. The first spacecraft then passes the anomaly, and slows down again; meanwhile the following spacecraft accelerates, then decelerates over the same point. By recording spacecraft separation, gravity is mapped; cycles of growing/shrinking separation indicate the size and strength of anomalies."
Get that, by recording SPACECRAFT SEPARATION, gravity is mapped - by INFERENCE, not by direct measurement. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:54:09 PM · #624 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither experiment measured gravity. They measured TIME and INFERRED gravity based on a predisposition to acceptance of Einstein's theory of relativity. |
Ah. So when you said you would concede if it could be shown that experiments in gravity have been conducted in space, you actually meant that you would argue your position no matter how abstract it had become. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:55:40 PM · #625 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Neither experiment measured gravity. They measured TIME and INFERRED gravity based on a predisposition to acceptance of Einstein's theory of relativity. |
Ah. So when you said you would concede if it could be shown that experiments in gravity have been conducted in space, you actually meant that you would argue your position no matter how abstract it had become. |
Louis, did you really expect anything different? |
|
