How/How is gravity a fact?

[proxywar]

I keep hearing evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact, but if gravity is not a fact that must mean evolution is not a fact. Basically what i'm asking is how is gravity a fact? And does not having a theory for quantum gravity contradict gravities existence?

For instance: You can drop a ball and it was always fall to the floor, but our understanding of gravity and its function in the universe have drastically changed a number of times... and probably will again (especially once quantum mechanics is better understood). The universe "is what it is" -- that ball will always fall -- but our understanding of the universe can never be complete. It's more accurate to say that, from observation, in the past a ball has always fallen when dropped, and based on what we know we can predict it will always happen in the foreseeable future. But what we know isn't complete, and what we observe isn't objective.

[Bluefire]

This is just semantic games. I'd say what is meant is that theory of evolution and theory of gravity are on the same footing scientifically.

Whether you want to call that "fact" or "really really strong theory" is semantics.

There is one possible relevant difference: that between phenomena, and explanation. As example, for gravity the phenomena would be "things with mass attract each other", and the explanation would be the theory of gravity.

Some want to call the observed phenomenas "facts", and the explanations "scientific theories", however, the line to draw between them are not always crystal clear.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

I keep hearing evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact, but if gravity is not a fact that must mean evolution is not a fact. Basically what i'm asking is how is gravity a fact? And does not having a theory for quantum gravity contradict gravities existence?

For instance: You can drop a ball and it was always fall to the floor, but our understanding of gravity and its function in the universe have drastically changed a number of times... and probably will again (especially once quantum mechanics is better understood). The universe "is what it is" -- that ball will always fall -- but our understanding of the universe can never be complete. It's more accurate to say that, from observation, in the past a ball has always fallen when dropped, and based on what we know we can predict it will always happen in the foreseeable future. But what we know isn't complete, and what we observe isn't objective.

Your first sentence is incorrect: if one thing is not a fact then this has no effect on whether another thing is not a fact. To use your logic:
Gravity is a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. If gravity is not a fact then 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact.

You are right in that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. However science does not need complete knowledge. It starts with incomplete sets of observations, explains them with a scientific theory that makes testable predictions and tests the theory from the predications. Theories are disproved (if they fail the tests) or confirmed if they pass the tests. Theories are never proved. Further observations may independently disprove or confirm the theory. Sometimes theories are modified to explain new observations.

There is a difference between fact and theory. Gravity is a fact. General Relativity is a theory of gravity. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory of evolution.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by proxywar

I keep hearing evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact, but if gravity is not a fact that must mean evolution is not a fact. Basically what i'm asking is how is gravity a fact? And does not having a theory for quantum gravity contradict gravities existence?

For instance: You can drop a ball and it was always fall to the floor, but our understanding of gravity and its function in the universe have drastically changed a number of times...

It is an observed fact that the ball falls to the floor when you drop it; the theory of gravity is a description of how and why this happens. In the same way it is an observed fact that species change over time, and the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that is currently thought to best explain this.

[MG1962]

The thing is, like gravity, the theory of evolution is an evolving theory within itself. Evolution could have it's own "Theory Of Relativity" Blow what we know out of the water.

At the momment, the theory of evolution is the best tool we have for what we find in the fossil record and other geological evidence. Not unlike the situation with Newton, until pesky Mercury refused to play by the rules

[erlando]

Originally Posted by proxywar

I keep hearing evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact, but if gravity is not a fact that must mean evolution is not a fact.

Please read this wiki-entry on non sequitur and understand why your argument is fallacious.

"A stone cannot fly. I cannot fly. Ergo I'm a stone..."

[proxywar]

Quote:

Gravity is a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. If gravity is not a fact then 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact.

So is gravity mathamatically a fact? How does a lay man know if the equation for it is wrong?

Is gravity being a fact really just a semantic game? Or are facts, laws, and theories three separate things? Why does quantum relativity have to be so stubborn. I want to tell people gravity is a fact but I don't know if it really is. I need more convicing. I hate calling gravity a theory because people take it as a hunch.

[proxywar]

Originally Posted by erlando

Please read this wiki-entry on non sequitur and understand why your argument is fallacious.

"A stone cannot fly. I cannot fly. Ergo I'm a stone..."

Thank you, but explain to me why people say gravity is a fact like evolution is a fact? If they can both be facts why can they both not be facts?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Thank you, but explain to me why people say gravity is a fact like evolution is a fact? If they can both be facts why can they both not be facts?

Anything can "not be facts". But you state there is a connection between between gravity not being a fact and evolution not being a fact. There is none. For example:
Gravity is a fact. Your existence is a fact.
The truth of the statements does not mean:
If gravity is not a fact then your existence is not a fact.

[proxywar]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Anything can "not be facts". But you state there is a connection between between gravity not being a fact and evolution not being a fact. There is none. For example:
Gravity is a fact. Your existence is a fact.
The truth of the statements does not mean:
If gravity is not a fact then your existence is not a fact.

True.

Anwser me this Gravity is not, in itself, a force, but merely a consequence of universal expansion? Does that mean the word and the force of gravity don't exist?

I keep reading on evolution being a fact and most people (not creationist) seem to be against it.


"Take for example, the so-called "zoo" hypothesis that states that evolution as proclaimed does not in fact occur, but rather the new species are simply placed on earth, by aliens, who then kill off the species that is being replaced. This theory explains the fossil record much better than the traditional Darwinian theory, (no need for messy "missing links," that refuse to be found), and works well with the DNA, evidence (obviously it would be easier to construct the new creatures out of the older ones blueprints).

Although farfetched, this theory, in fitting the evidence, illustrates that evolution is not a "proven" fact. If it was, then we would be easily able to point to a scientifically verified case of evolution, and say. "Here it is."

Mind you, I do not regard evolution below the species level as proof, as this is not what is under debate, but rather evolution above the species level.

For "proof" of any theory, the supporters need to satisfy exactly the same requirements as those required of those claiming paranormal powers. Proof needs to be unambiguous, and not up for reinterpretation after the event. Statistical significance, or likelihood is not a part of the equation.

So clearly, to prove that evolution can occur, there needs to be a scientifically verified, and indisputable example of evolution above the species level, something which has not occurred (and most likely will not happen, until scientists quit their squabbling over what it means to be a "species").

The most likely theory does not become "fact," just because a better one has not been thought of yet."
http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?t=6448

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Mojo

It is an observed fact that the ball falls to the floor when you drop it; the theory of gravity is a description of how and why this happens. In the same way it is an observed fact that species change over time, and the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that is currently thought to best explain this.

Requoting because this is basically it.

Both are facts.

Gravity is a fact. You can try and disprove it's not by jumping from a tall building and seeing whether you fall, ascend or remain stationary . Why and how it occurs is explained by "the theory of gravity" as best as we can but we are not 100% certain. Scientists still debate the how and why but that doesn't negate the fact that you will still go splat if their theory is wrong.

Evolution is a fact. Species are seen to change over vast amounts of time and the best way we have of describing this is "the theory of evolution". Now the theory is well tested because every new piece of evidence seems to fit the theory. We can predict using the theory and carry out experiments that confirm the theory, therefore we can use it to produce drugs, gene therapy etc that benefit mankind. However, the exact minutae of how and why are still being investigated and argued over but the consensus agrees on the main points. You and I and the great apes still share a common ancestor.

Science is always trying to come up with better and more accurate ways of describing the world and these are called theories. Theories are tested, evaluated and changed if necessary.

Quote:

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts

Quote:

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Have a quick look at those, they should make things much clearer for you.

You might say that we observe gravity and it's consistency, therefore it's a fact, we have a theory for what gravity actually is (but we are not exactly 100% sure our theory is correct but it seems to work) and we have mathematical laws that predict the effects of gravity. i.e interaction between two bodies.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

True.

Anwser me this Gravity is not, in itself, a force, but merely a consequence of universal expansion? Does that mean the word and the force of gravity don't exist?

Gravity is a force resulting from the curvature of pace-time by mass.

Originally Posted by proxywar

"Take for example, the so-called "zoo" hypothesis that states that evolution as proclaimed does not in fact occur, but rather the new species are simply placed on earth, by aliens, who then kill off the species that is being replaced. This theory explains the fossil record much better than the traditional Darwinian theory, (no need for messy "missing links," that refuse to be found), and works well with the DNA, evidence (obviously it would be easier to construct the new creatures out of the older ones blueprints).

That is a belief not a scientific theory. A scientific theory produces testable predictions that may falsify the theory.

[proxywar]

^ I agree with you don't get me wrong. Even though you've made the point clear I have to ask one more stupid question.

But...

"It's more accurate to say that, from observation, in the past a ball has always fallen when dropped, and based on what we know we can predict it will always happen in the foreseeable future. But what we know isn't complete, and what we observe isn't objective."

what we know isn't complete. what we observe isn't objective. Then how can we ever call gravity a objective Fact?

If Quantum gravity was proven to be a fact then could we call gravity a fact? Or does quantum gravity not even matter?


It seems to me that the relative proportions of subjectivity and objectivity in science are crucial for understanding truth. David Bloor considers subjectivity to be the critical factor and to dominate (Physics World March p23). Scientists, however, strive to be completely objective and to eliminate subjective bias before, during and after their work. Nevertheless, there is some element of subjectivity. Evgeny Feinberg gave the following example to me. Suppose a theory is proposed and then experiments are done to test it. After a certain number of experiments that agree with the predictions, people assume the theory to be "proved". But how many experiments are needed? This is a subjective decision that depends on the nature and quality of the experiments and the experimenters. Thus science has a subjective element, but it is dominantly objective.So what is the truth of science?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2548

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

^ I agree with you don't get me wrong. Even though you've made the point clear I have to ask one more stupid question.

But...

"It's more accurate to say that, from observation, in the past a ball has always fallen when dropped, and based on what we know we can predict it will always happen in the foreseeable future. But what we know isn't complete, and what we observe isn't objective."

what we know isn't complete. what we observe isn't objective. Then how can we ever call gravity a objective Fact?

If Quantum gravity was proven to be a fact then could we call gravity a fact? Or does quantum gravity not even matter?


It seems to me that the relative proportions of subjectivity and objectivity in science are crucial for understanding truth. David Bloor considers subjectivity to be the critical factor and to dominate (Physics World March p23). Scientists, however, strive to be completely objective and to eliminate subjective bias before, during and after their work. Nevertheless, there is some element of subjectivity. Evgeny Feinberg gave the following example to me. Suppose a theory is proposed and then experiments are done to test it. After a certain number of experiments that agree with the predictions, people assume the theory to be "proved". But how many experiments are needed? This is a subjective decision that depends on the nature and quality of the experiments and the experimenters. Thus science has a subjective element, but it is dominantly objective.So what is the truth of science?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2548

Gravity is an observed fact. Objective and subjective do not have anything to do with it.

Scientific theory is never proven only confirmed or disproven. It takes 1 experiment to confirm or disprove a scientific theory.

[proxywar]

Are you sure we are not just subjecting gravity exists? could it be something else? And if you are sure. Answer the following with a real answer.

"Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it."

"icrogravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity."

"The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links."

"Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said."

"Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs. Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it. To make matters worse, gravitationalists hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them."

"The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest Airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called."

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

If Quantum gravity was proven to be a fact then we could call gravity a fact? Or does quantum gravity not even matter?

I keep hearing all these things. I like science but I am not a scientist. Which is why I come to you guys.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Are you sure we are not just subjecting gravity exists? could it be something else? And if you are sure. Answer the following with a real answer.

"Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it."

"icrogravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity."

"The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links."

"Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said."

"Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs. Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it. To make matters worse, gravitationalists hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them."

"The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest Airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called."

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

If Quantum gravity was proven to be a fact then we could call gravity a fact? Or does quantum gravity not even matter?

I keep hearing all these things. I like science but I am not a scentist. Which is why I come to you guys.

Throw a ball up in the air. It comes down. Therefore gravity exists.

What holds you on the surface of the earth? Gravity holds me there.

If a theory of quantum gravity were to be proposed and confirmed (never proven) then gravity is still a fact.

[proxywar]

You think it's gravity? So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact? Lets suppose quantum gravity is proven. You're saying that makes gravity nolonger a fact? What if it becomes quantum relativity? Would that better define gravity Like Einstein did for Newton?

can you explain macrogravity and Why the moon not falling on us?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Why the moon not falling on us?

It is. It just keeps missing.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by proxywar

You think it's gravity? So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact? Lets suppose quantum gravity is proven. You're saying that makes gravity nolonger a fact? What if it becomes quantum relativity? Would that better define gravity Like Einstein did for Newton?

None of this changes the observed fact that when you drop a ball it falls.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

You think it's gravity? So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact? Lets suppose quantum gravity is proven. You're saying that makes gravity nolonger a fact? What if it becomes quantum relativity? Would that better define gravity Like Einstein did for Newton?

can you explain macrogravity and Why the moon not falling on us?

If quantum gravity is proven then it is a theory of gravity. Gravity is a fact.

[proxywar]

Quote:

It is. It just keeps missing.

You're joking right? If our knowledge about the universe is incomplete how can gravity be a completed fact?

[proxywar]

Did I stump you?

[kedo1981]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
You really had us going Prox
I mean could anyone really be that dim.
Your link is a superb parody of the moronic thought processes, and ridiculous semantically arguments of the creationists retards ( and I apologize to people with downs syndrome for implying that they are in the same category)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by proxywar

You're joking right? If our knowledge about the universe is incomplete how can gravity be a completed fact?

I suggest you go and ask your high school science teacher about this.

[Bluefire]

Originally Posted by proxywar

You're joking right? If our knowledge about the universe is incomplete how can gravity be a completed fact?

He is not joking, though it is a playful way to phrase what is happening.

Before you try to overthrow the scientific consensus in entire areas, please make sure you have at least a very basic understanding of how things are thought to work. Asking your teacher or opening a basic science textbook are excellent ideas.

As a comment about the completeness of our knowledge:
It is not necessary to know _everything_ to know _something_. We do know that things fall, and more knowledge will not cause apples to spntaneously hover in the air after being severed from the tree.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Why the moon not falling on us?

There are other forces acting against gravity.That is why moon is not falling because there is force opposite to gravitational.It is called centrifugal force...

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by proxywar

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

Thanks for the link.

Now I'm really puzzled. Normally, I'd conclude that this thread is a joke and you're pulling everyone's leg - particularly after you posted a link to that (rather brilliant) parody. However you write badly enough to make me wonder if you might not have realized that site is satirical... so please satisfy my curiosity - which is it?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Klimax

There are other forces acting against gravity.That is why moon is not falling because there is force opposite to gravitational.It is called centrifugal force...

That's a valid way to think about it - in a frame of reference rotating with the orbit of the moon there is a centrifugal force which balances gravity, and so it's that force which holds the moon up.

However people usually prefer to think in a non-rotating frame. In that case there is no other force acting than gravity which means the moon is always falling towards the earth. However it's also moving forward in its orbit, and the resulting motion is circular (or actually slightly elliptical).

[proxywar]

[quote=sol invictus;3551847]Thanks for the link.

Now I'm really puzzled. Normally, I'd conclude that this thread is a joke and you're pulling everyone's leg.QUOTE]

That would be correct. I wanted to see if this site actually thought gravity was a fact. On a different site people thought gravity was not a fact. I found them funny. So I tested their assumptions here. I'm very much aware of centrifugal force. I had to showcase bad grammar inorder for you to think I was dumber than a box of rocks. Did it work?

Just entertain me ok. I promise next time I will make a serious thread.

How can there be other forces if gravity is the only force being figured? There are only 4 fundamental forces correct?

[sol invictus]

Quote:

How can there be other forces if gravity is the only force being figured? There are only 4 fundamental forces correct?

Yes, there are only four that we know of.

Pre-Einstein, the answer would have been that centrifugal force is a "fictitious" force - it arises only because you're in a non-inertial reference frame, and so it somehow shouldn't count as a real force. This is still the way everybody learns it in school.

Post-Einstein, the best answer is probably that one can't really distinguish between fictitious forces and gravitational forces, and so centrifugal force should be regarded as part of gravity.

[proxywar]

Why should it be accepted as gravity if it isn't gravity? Doesn't that really just make centrifugal force a fictitious force inorder to explain why the moon doesn't fall on the earth? Thus, gravity doesn't exist just like centrifugal force doesn't?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by proxywar

I keep hearing evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact, but if gravity is not a fact that must mean evolution is not a fact. Basically what i'm asking is how is gravity a fact? And does not having a theory for quantum gravity contradict gravities existence?

Yes, you're exactly right: conflating the lay meaning of words with their scientific meanings in an attempt to obfuscate the entire issue is precisely the best way of proving the existence of god.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by proxywar

True.

Anwser me this Gravity is not, in itself, a force, but merely a consequence of universal expansion? Does that mean the word and the force of gravity don't exist?

I keep reading on evolution being a fact and most people (not creationist) seem to be against it.

Not true, cite your source, only in the USA!

Quote:

"Take for example, the so-called "zoo" hypothesis that states that evolution as proclaimed does not in fact occur, but rather the new species are simply placed on earth, by aliens, who then kill off the species that is being replaced.

Show you evidence to back your hypothesis and it can become a theory.

Quote:

This theory explains the fossil record much better than the traditional Darwinian theory,

Um, really? Data and evidence?

Quote:

(no need for messy "missing links," that refuse to be found),

Straw man.

Quote:

and works well with the DNA, evidence (obviously it would be easier to construct the new creatures out of the older ones blueprints).

yeah, right.. You are new to argumentation aren't you, generalise a lot?

Quote:

Although farfetched, this theory, in fitting the evidence, illustrates that evolution is not a "proven" fact.

Except for one thing, you have stated a hypothesis, what predictions does your theory make and how does it account for the data?

Like the chromosone in humans that seems to bve made out of two seperate chromosone in other apes. Hmm?

Quote:

If it was, then we would be easily able to point to a scientifically verified case of evolution, and say. "Here it is."

Ah I see you are reffering to your private defintion of science, ever read about astrophysics? It is a science too. Do you think that you have studied a theory that you are arguing against?

Quote:

Mind you, I do not regard evolution below the species level as proof, as this is not what is under debate, but rather evolution above the species level.

So you argue from lack of evidence and say that means you are right.

God of the gaps, insert miracle here, sort of stuff. Maybe some people just ignore the evidence that exists thats species do evolve.

What is a mule? Or Napoleon Dynamite's favorite animal the Liger?

Quote:

For "proof" of any theory, the supporters need to satisfy exactly the same requirements as those required of those claiming paranormal powers. Proof needs to be unambiguous, and not up for reinterpretation after the event. Statistical significance, or likelihood is not a part of the equation.

Uh, huh, you take yourself way too seriously. You haven't supported your arguments at all, you are just making assertments without support or evidence.

Nuclear reactions can be modeled through statiitics and I suppose you know what 'ticlking the dragon' was and how statistics may A-bombs go BOOM!

So you depend on your private defintion to make an argument?

Quote:

So clearly, to prove that evolution can occur, there needs to be a scientifically verified, and indisputable example of evolution above the species level, something which has not occurred (and most likely will not happen, until scientists quit their squabbling over what it means to be a "species").

Um, how about that chromosone that humans have kludged together from other ape chromosones?

there are others.

Quote:

The most likely theory does not become "fact," just because a better one has not been thought of yet."
http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?t=6448

Most likely you will get better at argumentation very rapidly, I give you a D-, to improve your score try researching evolution and understanding the theory and then try to argue against the data that supports the theory.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Are you sure we are not just subjecting gravity exists? could it be something else? And if you are sure. Answer the following with a real answer.

"Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it."

"icrogravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity."

"The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links."

"Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said."

"Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs. Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it. To make matters worse, gravitationalists hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them."

"The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest Airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called."

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

If Quantum gravity was proven to be a fact then we could call gravity a fact? Or does quantum gravity not even matter?

I keep hearing all these things. I like science but I am not a scientist. Which is why I come to you guys.

Well maybe you need to read the sources before you look at the refutations?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by proxywar

You think it's gravity? So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact? Lets suppose quantum gravity is proven. You're saying that makes gravity nolonger a fact? What if it becomes quantum relativity? Would that better define gravity Like Einstein did for Newton?

can you explain macrogravity and Why the moon not falling on us?

Um, two issues here

1. Humans exist (it would appear), they have senses from which a brain manufactures perceptions.

2. Humans have thoughts, words and theories which are basically models that predict and approximate the behavior of the apparent world.

3. Foolish arguments can be made from ontology of 'first causes', this does not matter to science because all it does is approximate the behaviors of reality. First causes are irrelevant and like arguing about how many angels can fit in the bathroom at the disco.

4. Maps, theories, words and thoughts are useful as they refer to the behaviors and make predictions about the behavior of reality. They are only useful to the extent that they predict the behavior of reality.

Some people can make very foolsih statements by mistaking a map and thier understanding of the map and how it works. I call this the "finger/moon" issue, do not mistake your finger for the moon.

Now above you have someone make this statement:

"So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact?"

This is not a meaningful statement for a number of reasons i will try to translate your statement into the model i am using to describe human reality, reality and science.

"So in other words if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact?"


words=(concensus based self referential symbolic communication about behavior of reality)

>>>>>

"So in other (concensus based self referential symbolic communication about behavior of reality) if one does not have a fact supported theory they can't claim gravity is not a fact?"

Now we look at theory:

theory=(approximate model that predicts behavior of reality)

>>>>>

"So in other (concensus based self referential symbolic communication about behavior of reality) if one does not have a fact supported (approximate model that predicts behavior of reality) they can't claim gravity is not a fact?"


now we change fact:

fact=(observation about behavior of reality)


"So in other (concensus based self referential symbolic communication about behavior of reality) if one does not have a (observation about behavior of reality) supported (approximate model that predicts behavior of reality) they can't claim gravity is not a(observation about behavior of reality)?"

No they can't because it doesn't matter, if you wish to say that gravity is not a model that approximates the observed behavior of reality, then you should try to show an observed behavior that the model does not approximate and determine the level of acceptable approximation.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Why should it be accepted as gravity if it isn't gravity? Doesn't that really just make centrifugal force a fictitious force inorder to explain why the moon doesn't fall on the earth? Thus, gravity doesn't exist just like centrifugal force doesn't?

Ah , a definite finger moon moment.

None of it is exists, it is all just symbolic approximation of the behavior of reality.

Do not mistake the map for the road, or read the map while driving.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by proxywar

Why should it be accepted as gravity if it isn't gravity? Doesn't that really just make centrifugal force a fictitious force inorder to explain why the moon doesn't fall on the earth? Thus, gravity doesn't exist just like centrifugal force doesn't?

Maybe you weren't kidding after all? What are you talking about? As I said, in the inertial frame there is no centrifugal force.

Look - if you went and stopped the moon in its orbit, it would fall down and hit the earth. But because it's moving, as it falls it keeps moving to the side, and so it never hits (and instead orbits in an ellipse). It's really not that confusing.

[Megalodon]

1.Pick a heavy tome of introductory physics;

2.Lift it until it's directly over your head;

3.Release;

4.Repeat until convinced of the factual nature of gravity.

or

1.Read the damned thing...

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

1.Read the damned thing...

And this issue doesn't even require the book to be a physics book. It's a completely semantic misunderstanding that can be resolved by merely reading a dictionary.

The mistake being made by creationists is akin to: "I see there are books about sex in the library, therefore sex is a book".

Most dictionaries list something like "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." as the first definition of theory (that one was from dictionary.com). The get around to mentioning that theory can mean a "guess" around definition 7. The definitions in between won't have much to do with guessing. And then there will usually be usage notes pointing out the difference between scientific usage and common usage of the word. And some even point out that the common usage is based on a misunderstanding was recently labeled as a misuse of the word by some dictionaries.

It's truly mind boggling that this question gets any traction.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Bluefire

Whether you want to call that "fact" or "really really strong theory" is semantics.

No, it isn't simple semantics.

Massive objects attract each other. This is the observational fact of gravity. Newton's theory of universal gravity was an attempt to create a predictive model based upon this observed fact. It is a theory, and we know a number of its shortcomings. General relativity is likewise a theory of gravity. It has better predictive capabilities than the Newtonian theory of gravity. It too is based upon the observed fact of gravity. It too may have shortcomings, in particular it may not model gravity accurately at Planck length and mass scales. But the fact of gravity remains even if the theory fails, just as the fact of gravity didn't disappear when we found that the Newtonian theory of gravity was inadequate.

Evolution is a fact. Species have changed over time, and the fossil record makes this quite plain. Currently, the theory of natural selection (which is often incorrectly called "evolution") is the only viable theory we have to explain evolution, but it is not the only one which has been posited. Lamarckian evolution was an early attempt to develop a theory to explain the fact of evolution. It has been abandoned since it doesn't work (and only made sense to begin with before genetics were understood), but it's useful to consider in terms of illustrating the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory we use to understand it.