| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2008 01:57:07 PM · #626 |
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. |
Ron, this is getting ridiculous. The laws of gravity have been established quite a while ago and been verified since. Under extreme circumstances they are not perfectly accurate, that's why Einstein came up with his theory of relativity. And this stuff is now being studied, because the other questions have long been settled.
I doubt that anyone would take marbles and super-sensitive equipment to a space station because we already know what the results would be. We have been applying this knowledge for decades. Guess why the GPS in your car works? The time and money can be used for more interesting experiments on the space station.
If you keep claiming that gravity cannot be measured on a space shuttle and therefore God exists, you're simply making a fool of yourself. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 01:59:55 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Shannon, I was merely hoisting Spazmo by his own petard.
The simple fact that that doesn't happen to the space shuttle is, indeed, a direct, measurable evidence of gravity - but it is not a measurement OF gravity performed ON the space shuttle.
And yes - I took physics in high school and I got an A+ also. In fact, I graduated 4th in my class ( of 262 seniors ).
It would seem, however, that as many times as I say it, y'all can't seem to limit yourselves to answering the question from the position of the space shuttle without referring to knowledge gained from a different environment. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:00:28 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Get that, by recording SPACECRAFT SEPARATION, gravity is mapped - by INFERENCE, not by direct measurement. |
Ron, I don't know what you think of when you want something to be "measured directly". Would you also argue that temperature is not measured directly, but by inference from the expansion of mercury, for example? How would temperature or gravity be measured directly? You obviously have no clue when it comes to science. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:01:32 PM · #629 |
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. |
No, I meant what I said. And what I said stipulated that the experiment had to be one that measured a gravitational pull.
So far, no one has met that stipulation. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:03:02 PM · #630 |
| Distance is not measured directly, but by inference from the graduated ticks of a measuring device. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:04:17 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The simple fact that that doesn't happen to the space shuttle is, indeed, a direct, measurable evidence of gravity - but it is not a measurement OF gravity performed ON the space shuttle. |
Your weight and the acceleration of falling objects on earth is inferred evidence of gravity, too. How would your high school physics class measure it directly? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:09:33 PM · #632 |
| I don't believe in the space shuttle. I have no evidence of it that doesn't require faith in the media and our government. I've never seen one in person to know that it actually exists. It may well be that it is all computer graphics and conspiracy. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:21:21 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Get that, by recording SPACECRAFT SEPARATION, gravity is mapped - by INFERENCE, not by direct measurement. |
Ron, I don't know what you think of when you want something to be "measured directly". Would you also argue that temperature is not measured directly, but by inference from the expansion of mercury, for example? How would temperature or gravity be measured directly? You obviously have no clue when it comes to science. |
By directly, I mean by measuring the pull of gravity, as with a gravimeter.
I would consider a thermometer to be a direct measurement of heat, and, if calibrated, a direct measurement of temperature, as well. I would not consider a measurement of the number of the length of an icicle, or the time it takes to fry an egg on the sidewalk, as a direct measurement of temperature. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:26:31 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Distance is not measured directly, but by inference from the graduated ticks of a measuring device. |
Distance is "a linear extent of space". It can be measured digitally ( the ticks of a measuring device ) by inference, or it can be measured analogically by a piece of string cut to the same length - no inference required. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:26:32 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by RonB:
By directly, I mean by measuring the pull of gravity, as with a gravimeter. |
Gravimeters measure acceleration. I seem to recall you had a problem with that earlier... :-/
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I don't believe in the space shuttle. I've never seen one in person to know that it actually exists. |
You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like, but you can also see or even touch a space shuttle without faith.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:26:47 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by RonB:
By directly, I mean by measuring the pull of gravity, as with a gravimeter. |
And what does a gravimeter do? It doesn't measure gravity "directly", but the length of a spring. Or the acceleration of mass falling (and I guess this will involve a time measurement...). The hole keeps getting deeper, Ron... |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:32:37 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I would not consider a measurement of the number of the length of an icicle, or the time it takes to fry an egg on the sidewalk, as a direct measurement of temperature. |
Your question was about detecting the existence of gravity, would these not be direct evidence of the existence of heat? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:35:45 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Distance is not measured directly, but by inference from the graduated ticks of a measuring device. |
Distance is "a linear extent of space". It can be measured digitally ( the ticks of a measuring device ) by inference, or it can be measured analogically by a piece of string cut to the same length - no inference required. |
Heh. Whoosh! Those ticks and that string are the same device, incidentally. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:38:42 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
By directly, I mean by measuring the pull of gravity, as with a gravimeter. |
Gravimeters measure acceleration. I seem to recall you had a problem with that earlier... :-/
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I don't believe in the space shuttle. I've never seen one in person to know that it actually exists. |
You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like, but you can also see or even touch a space shuttle without faith. |
I was really only making a joke... ha ha
This thread has severely swerved off course.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:41:32 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
This thread has severely swerved off course. |
Long ago. That's why it's in Rant now. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:48:35 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The simple fact that that doesn't happen to the space shuttle is, indeed, a direct, measurable evidence of gravity - but it is not a measurement OF gravity performed ON the space shuttle. |
Your weight and the acceleration of falling objects on earth is inferred evidence of gravity, too. How would your high school physics class measure it directly? |
I have, unfortunately, permitted and participated in taking the discussion away from my original point, and have been guilty, myself, of letting the terms "gravity" and "gravitational pull" be compromised in the discussion.
My original point was that one cannot measure gravitational PULL whilst on the space shuttle. I still maintain that position. Somehow gravitational PULL got twisted to gravity, and the topic went off-course into measuring gravity rather than gravitational PULL.
Back on topic.
I will grant that nothing can be "measured" directly, if by "measured" one means a quantitative figure - e.g. liters, meters, seconds, degrees, etc.
However things CAN be "measured" directly if one accepts analog results - e.g. the second hand on an analog clock, the position of the waterline on a dock pier.
The problem is that analog measurements have to be converted to quantitative equivalents, subject to interpretation or extrapolation, in order to be communicated to someone who can not directly observe the analog device doing the measuring.
So, to directly measure the pull of gravity one needs only an analog scale or gravimeter to demonstrate that a gravitational pull has been detected. Of course, any good scientist would first insure that no other external influences could interfere - e.g. using a scale with a steel panel in close proximity to a large magnet. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:50:53 PM · #642 |
This is how you can measure gravity at the micron scale. How do I know? Because it says so.
Additionally, the speed of gravity can be measured. (interesting, so I thought I would throw it in).
Lets get on with this - RonB is being ridiculous. It would be easy to take an absolute gravimeter onto the space shuttle to measure gravity but obviously the scientific world doesn't care. They do care about the gravity on Mars though. When that is complete will that count? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 02:52:28 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by RonB:
My original point was that one cannot measure gravitational PULL whilst on the space shuttle. |
Gravitational pull IS the acceleration of objects in space resulting from the natural attraction of mass. Gravimeters and the GRACE experiment measure that acceleration directly. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:00:10 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Get that, by recording SPACECRAFT SEPARATION, gravity is mapped - by INFERENCE, not by direct measurement. |
Ron, I don't know what you think of when you want something to be "measured directly". Would you also argue that temperature is not measured directly, but by inference from the expansion of mercury, for example? How would temperature or gravity be measured directly? You obviously have no clue when it comes to science. |
By directly, I mean by measuring the pull of gravity, as with a gravimeter.
I would consider a thermometer to be a direct measurement of heat, and, if calibrated, a direct measurement of temperature, as well. I would not consider a measurement of the number of the length of an icicle, or the time it takes to fry an egg on the sidewalk, as a direct measurement of temperature. |
A gravimeter requires measuring the extension of a spring, which is a distance. To calculate gravity, that spring's constant must be known, while that can be done in a variety of ways, all involve measurement of mass, time and/or distance. So, by your demented reasoning, any measurement of gravity is not direct, it's inferred from the measurement of all of those things. Even temperature as you describe it is not a direct measurement of temperature, it's inferred from a measure in the volumetric increase of a fluid or worse, the difference in thermal expansion of 2 metals.
In fact, using your logic, NO measurement can be made of anything because every measurement is inferred from some other measurement.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:03:45 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The simple fact that that doesn't happen to the space shuttle is, indeed, a direct, measurable evidence of gravity - but it is not a measurement OF gravity performed ON the space shuttle. |
Your weight and the acceleration of falling objects on earth is inferred evidence of gravity, too. How would your high school physics class measure it directly? |
I have, unfortunately, permitted and participated in taking the discussion away from my original point, and have been guilty, myself, of letting the terms "gravity" and "gravitational pull" be compromised in the discussion.
My original point was that one cannot measure gravitational PULL whilst on the space shuttle. I still maintain that position. Somehow gravitational PULL got twisted to gravity, and the topic went off-course into measuring gravity rather than gravitational PULL.
Back on topic.
I will grant that nothing can be "measured" directly, if by "measured" one means a quantitative figure - e.g. liters, meters, seconds, degrees, etc.
However things CAN be "measured" directly if one accepts analog results - e.g. the second hand on an analog clock, the position of the waterline on a dock pier.
The problem is that analog measurements have to be converted to quantitative equivalents, subject to interpretation or extrapolation, in order to be communicated to someone who can not directly observe the analog device doing the measuring.
So, to directly measure the pull of gravity one needs only an analog scale or gravimeter to demonstrate that a gravitational pull has been detected. Of course, any good scientist would first insure that no other external influences could interfere - e.g. using a scale with a steel panel in close proximity to a large magnet. |
You really revel in your display of scientific ignorance, don't you? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:10:31 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly I believe the world makes more sense with God. This too is rational and is also fine by me. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you saying that faith is rational?
To me, part of what works for me as faith is not necessarily rational.....it's what I believe.
I may have come about it in a way that is rational to me, yet that doesn't fly with the other men in my small group from church.
Most of that group does NOT believe in God, so to them, my thinking, and faith, is not perceived as rational.
That's fine by me.....I live by my beliefs, not theirs. |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
There is a group of men who you know through your church and they do not believe in God? Or they do not believe in the Christian God? This caught me as a little odd that people would attend a church (any church) and not believe in God. Not being critical but just seems odd. |
Wow, dude!
Talk about a narrow spectrum.
You know I'm not a Christian, never have been, I was reasonably sure you picked up on that during the many exchanges we had during another religious discussion in another thread.
I can't have a church?????
That goes way past critical into ignorant.
Oh, and BTW......these men are a group that comprise a small group ministry. They are some of the finest, most giving and decent human beings I have ever met in my 53 year journey through this life.
I don't give a hoot what they believe as long as it gives them reason for living, feeds their soul, and makes them the fine people that they are.....in fact, I wholeheartedly support their quest for peace and spirituality, whatever path that may take them.
I, and they, are Unitarian Universalists......do yourself a favor, open your eyes and your mind, maybe even do a little research, and perhaps discover something outside your sheltered view. |
Ignorance aside... what is it exactly... a 'church' where there are no core beliefs? ie some might worship trees and others might revere the sun and still others believe in the Christian God and others Buddah? Please don't get all excited and think that I think you can't have a 'church'. I just have never heard of a 'church' where people gathered together and believed completely different things. I most definitely am ignorant of such a 'church'. Do you have any kind of services and if you do how? If you all believe different things do you incorporate all the congregants deities or spiritual beliefs? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:23:50 PM · #647 |
How did this end up a discussion on gravity?
Does the bible discuss gravity? Someone should have told Einstein and Hawking. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:35:17 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How did this end up a discussion on gravity?
Does the bible discuss gravity? Someone should have told Einstein and Hawking. |
:) |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:42:25 PM · #649 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly I believe the world makes more sense with God. This too is rational and is also fine by me. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you saying that faith is rational?
To me, part of what works for me as faith is not necessarily rational.....it's what I believe.
I may have come about it in a way that is rational to me, yet that doesn't fly with the other men in my small group from church.
Most of that group does NOT believe in God, so to them, my thinking, and faith, is not perceived as rational.
That's fine by me.....I live by my beliefs, not theirs. |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
There is a group of men who you know through your church and they do not believe in God? Or they do not believe in the Christian God? This caught me as a little odd that people would attend a church (any church) and not believe in God. Not being critical but just seems odd. |
Wow, dude!
Talk about a narrow spectrum.
You know I'm not a Christian, never have been, I was reasonably sure you picked up on that during the many exchanges we had during another religious discussion in another thread.
I can't have a church?????
That goes way past critical into ignorant.
Oh, and BTW......these men are a group that comprise a small group ministry. They are some of the finest, most giving and decent human beings I have ever met in my 53 year journey through this life.
I don't give a hoot what they believe as long as it gives them reason for living, feeds their soul, and makes them the fine people that they are.....in fact, I wholeheartedly support their quest for peace and spirituality, whatever path that may take them.
I, and they, are Unitarian Universalists......do yourself a favor, open your eyes and your mind, maybe even do a little research, and perhaps discover something outside your sheltered view. |
Ignorance aside... what is it exactly... a 'church' where there are no core beliefs? ie some might worship trees and others might revere the sun and still others believe in the Christian God and others Buddah? Please don't get all excited and think that I think you can't have a 'church'. I just have never heard of a 'church' where people gathered together and believed completely different things. I most definitely am ignorant of such a 'church'. Do you have any kind of services and if you do how? If you all believe different things do you incorporate all the congregants deities or spiritual beliefs? |
The basic answer is that UU's are united by shared values, not creed, dogma or specific beliefs.
For more details, why don't you read here? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 03:43:28 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How did this end up a discussion on gravity?
Does the bible discuss gravity? Someone should have told Einstein and Hawking. |
One of RonB's red herring detours. |
|
