Is Gravity Fake?

[Deuce]

I'm right and you're wrong, deal.

Explain the circular reasoning then. Should be simple to do.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Gravity is obviously fake. Without God, we would all float into space if she didn't constantly but gently press down on our heads with her many invisible noodly appendages.

 

[Matt Foley]

Explain the circular reasoning then. Should be simple to do.

What does keeps the ball spinning around the dimple in this visualization technique? C'mon this isn't rocket science, it's brain surgery.

 

[Deuce]

What does keeps the ball spinning around the dimple in this visualization technique? C'mon this isn't rocket science, it's brain surgery.

Gravity. I thought that was obvious. You don't even know what circular reasoning means, do you? They're not referring to things traveling in a circle.

 

[Matt Foley]

Gravity. I thought that was obvious. You don't even know what circular reasoning means, do you? They're not referring to things traveling in a circle.

That's right, it's using gravity to describe gravity = circular logic.

 

[Deuce]

That's right, it's using gravity to describe gravity = circular logic.

First off, circular logic would not be using gravity to describe gravity. It would be using gravity to provide evidence for gravity.

Second, no, it's not using gravity to describe gravity. It's using a depiction of a curved surface to describe gravity.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

No - it's not fake.

As Henry rollins once said "you throw a ball up in to the air and gravity brings it back to the ground . . . "

See - so real

 

[Matt Foley]

First off, circular logic would not be using gravity to describe gravity.

Circular logic is using gravity to describe gravity

It would be using gravity to provide evidence for gravity.

Same thing.

Second, no, it's not using gravity to describe gravity. It's using a depiction of a curved surface to describe gravity.

And that curved surface absolutely needs gravity to work otherwise the ball flies away in a straight line; therefore it's using gravity to describe gravity.

 

[Thunder]

does anyone believe Einstein's idea that gravity is merely a three-dimensional bending of space?

 

[Matt Foley]

does anyone believe Einstein's idea that gravity is merely a three-dimensional bending of space?

Doesn't matter what it is if you use a visualization technique that's totally bogus.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

does anyone believe Einstein's idea that gravity is merely a three-dimensional bending of space?

Well if that's the case then you'd have to answer 'what is space'

 

[digsbe]

I think his theory is plausible. I think matter could also be attracted to matter versus being repelled by each other. It could be that this theoretical attraction extends a physical distance through the void of space to influence other pieces of matter. Then again no one knows for sure yet.

 

[Deuce]

Doesn't matter what it is if you use a visualization technique that's totally bogus.

Let me paraphrase what you are saying so that you hopefully get an idea of how ridiculous you are being:

"Reality doesn't matter if your symbolic representation of reality is inadequate."

You just don't seem to get it. Visualization techniques are just a learning aid. They exist to help you grasp a concept. The concept is the important part, not the visualization technique. You, however, are going off the rails on a visualization technique. You are suggesting that the visualization technique is itself circular logic, which is absurd because visualization techniques are not logic themselves. They're teaching aids.

 

[The Mark]

So far as I know we don't currently fully understand the cause or the mechanism behind "gravity".


"Gravity" is more of a description of the effects that some little-understood force or forces has on objects, rather than a precise explanation of that force.

Gravity is, but we know not precisely WHAT it is.


Edit: So, regardless of whether gravity is "fake" or not, the concept of gravity is as good method of explaining it for our current purposes as we are likely to find

 

[Matt Foley]

Let me paraphrase what you are saying so that you hopefully get an idea of how ridiculous you are being:

"Reality doesn't matter if your symbolic representation of reality is inadequate."

I'm well aware that reality doesn't require an observer, unless you're a mime in a forest or a theoretical physicist, but all theories require visualization techniques so they can be actually applicable in everyday applications.

You just don't seem to get it.

No, you don't seem to get it

Visualization techniques are just a learning aid.

No, they're not.

They exist to help you grasp a concept.

They exist to perfect a concept

The concept is the important part, not the visualization technique. You, however, are going off the rails on a visualization technique. You are suggesting that the visualization technique is itself circular logic, which is absurd because visualization techniques are not logic themselves. They're teaching aids.

They're real bad teaching aids if:

A) You're using circular logic

B) 99% of students don't even catch it.

 

[Matt Foley]

Proof: They're parallel cause 180 = b + a the same way a + b = 180



"That's circular logic."

"No it's not"

"Yes it is"

"No it's not"

"Yes it is"

"No it's not"

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'm well aware that reality doesn't require an observer, unless you're a mime in a forest or a theoretical physicist, but all theories require visualization techniques so they can be actually applicable in everyday applications.

Greene has a pretty good 3D "picture" in one of this books. This is the best I could find on the web.




For me these are better representations than those 2D grids a lot of books use - but most people have problems with "3D" models like these.

 

[Matt Foley]

Greene has a pretty good 3D "picture" in one of this books. This is the best I could find on the web.

View attachment 67130211


For me these are better representations than those 2D grids a lot of books use - but most people have problems with "3D" models like these.

Ah I see, so that visualization technique tells me that light passing by the sun takes longer cause it has a longer distance to traverse.

 

[PrometheusBound]

So far as I know we don't currently fully understand the cause or the mechanism behind "gravity".


"Gravity" is more of a description of the effects that some little-understood force or forces has on objects, rather than a precise explanation of that force.

Gravity is, but we know not precisely WHAT it is.


Edit: So, regardless of whether gravity is "fake" or not, the concept of gravity is as good method of explaining it for our current purposes as we are likely to find

We can't make progress if we are stuck on our current purposes. If we could understand what causes gravity, we could block it.

 

[Matt Foley]

Not too get too philosophical but wouldn't it be cool if Heaven/Afterlife is where you could go back in time or to the future, and observe anything you wanted.

I'd zip around, watch the continents form,

zip around, watch evolution of man,

zip around and watch the first cities,

zip around and watch how language forms,

zip around and watch the look on the face of the first anatomically modern human when he comes up with the idea of a bow and arrow, or the first 3 dimensional carving, or the first guy that comes up with the idea of a cave painting,

I'd then zip back and forth to see if the mitochondria EVE/ADAM theory is correct,

zip around and watch a Jesus sermon,

zip around and watch the battle of battle of teutoburg forest, then zip back to see if the Remus/Romulus legend is correct, then zip forward and watch Caesar's assassination, zip forward to see what happened to Legio IX Hispania,

zip around to look for the origin of the Prometheus legend or the first guy who told the story, and then ghost glare at him for making **** up, dittos Atlantis,

zip to the future or to the heavenly Library Of Everything to see what the real nature of matter is, the real fundamental forces of nature; but that would be cheating wouldn't it.

That's at least 1,000 years of pure entertainment right there, before it got old.

 

[Moot]

Not too get too philosophical but wouldn't it be cool if Heaven/Afterlife is where you could go back in time or to the future, and observe anything you wanted.

I'd zip around, watch the continents form,

zip around, watch evolution of man,

zip around and watch the first cities,

zip around and watch how language forms,

zip around and watch the look on the face of the first anatomically modern human when he comes up with the idea of a bow and arrow, or the first 3 dimensional carving, or the first guy that comes up with the idea of a cave painting,

I'd then zip back and forth to see if the mitochondria EVE/ADAM theory is correct,

zip around and watch a Jesus sermon,

zip around and watch the battle of battle of teutoburg forest, then zip back to see if the Remus/Romulus legend is correct, then zip forward and watch Caesar's assassination, zip forward to see what happened to Legio IX Hispania,

zip around to look for the origin of the Prometheus legend or the first guy who told the story, and then ghost glare at him for making **** up, dittos Atlantis,

zip to the future or to the heavenly Library Of Everything to see what the real nature of matter is, the real fundamental forces of nature; but that would be cheating wouldn't it.

That's at least 1,000 years of pure entertainment right there, before it got old.

Sounds like you want to be reincarnated as a fly. LOL Perhaps....perhaps time is a dimension that can bend or fold in on itself like a piece of fabric, so that all your zipping around might only take a couple of hours or days rather than thousands of years. But I think time only moves forward so you will probably only be able to visit the future and not the past....unless we can bend space and fold it toward us as we travel forward through time....and unfold it as we travel back in time. But even then, I don't think it possible to travel back in time, except in our minds....which can sometimes seem very real.

Stephen Hawking - Black Hole Time Travel - YouTube


But there might also be a problem in traveling to the past because it could destroy the time and space causal relationship and alter history. Therefore just your mere presence at one of the events that you wished to visit would alter all the history that took place afterwards, if it even existed at all.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ah I see, so that visualization technique tells me that light passing by the sun takes longer cause it has a longer distance to traverse.

Thank you for making the case for me. :lol:

Most people can't "see" the other piece of the puzzle, which is why what you're calling the "circular logic" demonstration is used so often.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Sounds like you want to be reincarnated as a fly. LOL Perhaps....perhaps time is a dimension that can bend or fold in on itself like a piece of fabric, so that all your zipping around might only take a couple of hours or days rather than thousands of years. But I think time only moves forward so you will probably only be able to visit the future and not the past....unless we can bend space and fold it toward us as we travel forward through time....and unfold it as we travel back in time. But even then, I don't think it possible to travel back in time, except in our minds....which can sometimes seem very real.

Stephen Hawking - Black Hole Time Travel - YouTube


But there might also be a problem in traveling to the past because it could destroy the time and space causal relationship and alter history. Therefore just your mere presence at one of the events that you wished to visit would alter all the history that took place afterwards, if it even existed at all.

Everything we perceive has already happened, we see only history ...

 

[Matt Foley]

Everything we perceive has already happened, we see only history ...

That's like saying the Jet in the sky is 1,000 meters behind where you see it because that's where the sound is coming from.

"I'm hearing back in time, whoah this is trippy." Not really.

 

[The Mark]

That's like saying the Jet in the sky is 1,000 meters behind where you see it because that's where the sound is coming from.

"I'm hearing back in time, whoah this is trippy." Not really.

You misunderstand, I think.

What he's talking about is that, if you think about it, everything we see happen has already happened.