Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gravity doesn’t make sense? … hold that thought!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At New Scientist, Michael Brooks tells us “Seven Things That Don’t Make Sense About Gravity,” including

– If gravity were a tiny bit stronger, the universe as we know it would not exist

– From plants to quail, life of all stripes seems to need gravity to work properly

Uh … so then gravity doesn’t make sense because … why, exactly? Because there wasn’t supposed to be a solution to those problems? Why not?

It reminds me a bit of this earlier kvetching about gravity.

Fine tuning is a big problem for these people.

Comments
If someone does not think the critics are speaking freely on this site, then they are in denial and need a reality check. They constantly exhibit derogatory remarks against ID and its supporters. It is amazing we are so tolerant.jerry
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
90DegreeAngel, ------"Clive, as a supporter of UD, I don’t see how unfairly using the threat of moderation will help this blog encourage an open debate." It's not used unfairly, if anything, a warning is better than a moderation or outright banning. I give folks chances, which I call a warning, which you call a threat. ------"Many of the commentators who disagree with UD’s position are kind and patient. Yet they get moderated for politely disagreeing." No they don't. Every single person I've either moderated or banned warranted it. I honestly don't know what gives you this impression. ------"Each critic that gets banned is just a signal to the naysayers that ID isn’t scientific." No it isn't. It is a signal that civility will be maintained. ------"Please for the sake of ID moderate Mapuo, and let the critics speak more freely." I have moderated Mapou. It is impossible to please everyone, I also get exhortations to stop the forum from being overrun by "the critics". Let me be clear, no one has been moderated or banned except when it was deserved. The critics do speak freely, as long as they speak civilly. Thanks for your advice.Clive Hayden
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden:
You should be. What you posit doesn’t even warrant a real response. I don’t care what your philosophy is, here you will obey the moderation policy, just like everyone else.
Well, it doesn't hurt to fantasize a little, hehe. But hey, UD admins have the right to enforce whatever moderation policy they see fit. I'll try to stay within the norms in my future comments.Mapou
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Mapou, ------"I am a Christian but I admit that I do enjoy whacking the enemy with a two-by-four every once in a while. I think it’s funny. And I think that we should be allowed to rough them up a little before you ban them. Who says that UD needs to be fair? UD has taken sides and it chose ID, not Darwinism. UD is biased on the face of it, which is the way it should be. Besides, it livens up the discussion. I admit that I am rather unorthodox in my views but that’s the way I am. Sorry." You should be. What you posit doesn't even warrant a real response. I don't care what your philosophy is, here you will obey the moderation policy, just like everyone else.Clive Hayden
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Clive, Clive Hayden:
——”You’re just a cry baby, Billy boy. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Too bad Hayden ain’t your momma, eh?” What is wrong with you? Do you think this is acceptable? I will put you on moderation too if this continues.
Clive, there are several anti-ID commenters on this forum who continually use mockery and ridicule as a form of argument. BillB is one of them. So is Nakashima (who seems to have something personal against Ms. O'Leary) and dbthomas. There are others, of course. Personally, it does not bother me that they do it, as long as they get a taste of their own medicine. I am a Christian but I admit that I do enjoy whacking the enemy with a two-by-four every once in a while. I think it's funny. And I think that we should be allowed to rough them up a little before you ban them. Who says that UD needs to be fair? UD has taken sides and it chose ID, not Darwinism. UD is biased on the face of it, which is the way it should be. Besides, it livens up the discussion. I admit that I am rather unorthodox in my views but that's the way I am. Sorry.Mapou
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
I believe the comments of Mapou are cause for being moderated, not just the threatening of moderation. Clive, as a supporter of UD, I don't see how unfairly using the threat of moderation will help this blog encourage an open debate. I left UD while Davescot was in charge of moderation because I felt he used his privileges in an inappropriate manner. When you arrived on the seen and made clear your moderation policies, I expected you to be fair. Many of the commentators who disagree with UD's position are kind and patient. Yet they get moderated for politely disagreeing. A scientific theory that cannot stand up to scrutiny is weak. Each critic that gets banned is just a signal to the naysayers that ID isn't scientific. Please for the sake of ID moderate Mapuo, and let the critics speak more freely.90DegreeAngel
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Mapou, ------"You’re just a cry baby, Billy boy. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Too bad Hayden ain’t your momma, eh?" What is wrong with you? Do you think this is acceptable? I will put you on moderation too if this continues.Clive Hayden
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
I’d give him posting privileges here before I’d justify giving you commenting privileges.
Good, although I think most of his ideas are errors I'm open to being corrected and I still find some of his stuff interesting and worthy of debate, it would be nice to see them aired in a forum beyond his own blog and his theistic allusions seem to fit with some of the themes discussed here. The one problem I have is that he seem more interested in responding to critical comments with snide, patronising missives instead of engaging in a debate.BillB
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Uncommun descent is a very important blog. Thanks to O'Leary and other contributors, we are able to discover, with a critical perspective, news articles that we might not have had the opportunity to read. I think that this is really important in a world where most journalist are devoted to further the Evolutionist agenda even if it means being economical with the truth. And if you think that this is easy, please do it. The more the better.Kyrilluk
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
BillB, ------"It’s kind of like saying that a pie ought to be cold the moment it is removed from a hot oven. Perhaps they should give Mapou posting privileges here?" I'd give him posting privileges here before I'd justify giving you commenting privileges.Clive Hayden
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
dbthomas, ------"If by ‘journalist’ you mean ‘person who mostly just paraphrases articles by other people, many of whom are just paraphrasing articles by yet other persons who are in turn mostly just paraphrasing research papers and adding a side of interview’, then yes: she’s a journalist. And also, I have it on good authority, a respectable grandmother." Prove your assertion that Denyse mostly paraphrases other paraphrases, or you will be banned. I won't tolerate this vitriol. Clive Hayden
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Mr. Charrington:
What test can you do that will differentiate your idea and show it to be right and capable of explaining more then the ideas of the relativists?
I have already said more than I had planned but I have a prediction regarding the propagation of the electric charge that is at odds with relativity. Relativists claim that the electric charge propagates at c. I claim that it is a non-local phenomenon and I predict that that its effect is instantaneous. The same goes for the gravitational potential. So there you go. Come up with an experiment to measure the speed of the electric charge and get ready for a trip to Oslo. You don't even need to mention my name. Gotta go.Mapou
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Nakashima @45:
As I pointed out to Sal Cordova a while ago, Ed Fredkin has done some interesting work on a quantized universe (at the Planck scale, of course), see his Digital Physics. And Wolfram would also like you to believe that the entire Universe might be a CA, which is much the same idea.
Fredkin et al are cool. I remember reading about Fredkin a long time ago in a book called "Three scientists and their Gods". The problem with their digital physics, however, is that it assumes a deterministic universe. This is obviously nonsense since the universe is necessarily probabilistic.Mapou
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Mapou
Whose game? And what makes you think I want to be part of it?
The game of being taken seriously. And I think you very much want to be a part of it. Otherwise, why bother with the website, the posts here, the pointing and laughing at the brain dead scientists who are getting published in quality journals? Why not just say nothing and bask in the knowledge you are right, they are wrong and you'll be proven as such any day now?Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Mapou
This is not about my theory.
I'm afraid it is. Yes, those brain dead scientists might well be wrong. All those foot-in-mouth pronouncements might be wrong. Yet until something better comes along that explains more and predicts things that can be tested, then that's where we'll stay. So call names all you like, but realise you'll be on the fringes until you show not only why people are wrong but what should replace their broken idea. And if you think a debate is not already happening between competing points of view then you are sadly mislead. There are people who might share a similar view to you, should you care to investigate it. And, frankly, promises of hidden knowledge from thousands of years ago just makes you sound like any of a thousand internet cranks. Especially when you don't say where you are getting your information from. Timecube much?Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Mapou
secret powerful knowledge that will unlock these marvels was written down thousands of years ago.
Ok, I'l bite. How do you know that? And when is it happening? And if you know about it, how come it's not happened already? If you are talking about "the bible code" or similar then it's already been debunked I'm afraid.
we will have figured out how to use the lattice for powered movement.
Unless you help and share some of your secret knowledge I doubt it.... Do share.Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Mr. Charrington:
Calling names is guarenteed to lock you out of the game.
Whose game? And what makes you think I want to be part of it?
Those “relativists” are open to new evidence, however brain-dead you may think they are.
Don't make me laugh.
What prediction does your theory make and what experiment can be done to prove the case either way?
This is not about my theory. It's about how simple logic shows that a bunch of assumptions that physicists make about nature are dead wrong on the face of it. They are so wrong, in fact, that we see some of the world most prominent physicists use them to make foot-in-mouth pronouncements about ridiculous things like time travel and parallel universes. It's all a pile of Star-Trek fairy tales. Nothing to write home about. That being said, I predict that, in the not too distant future, we will have flying vehicles that move around at prodigious speeds with no visible means of propulsion because we will have figured out how to use the lattice for powered movement. We will also have technologies that tap into the energy of the lattice (it is so enormous, there are no words in any language that can do it justice). Yep, free energy, floating cities and all that beautiful jazz. But that's not all. I predict that the secret powerful knowledge that will unlock these marvels was written down thousands of years ago. I just thought I would take the opportunity to write something weird for you guys to chew on. I am always glad to be a source of entertainment. I enjoy being a crackpot. ahahaha...Mapou
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Mapou
You are convinced that human beings are just animals whereas I believe that we are gods.
Would your godlyness care to explain to this mere mortal how your idea can be tested? What test can you do that will differentiate your idea and show it to be right and capable of explaining more then the ideas of the relativists?Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
"Fine tuning is a big problem for these people." Indeed - in much the same way that mud puddle dimensions being optimum for the amount of muddy water held inside it is a big problem for those who cannot understand the analogy.derwood
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
As I pointed out to Sal Cordova a while ago, Ed Fredkin has done some interesting work on a quantized universe (at the Planck scale, of course), see his Digital Physics. And Wolfram would also like you to believe that the entire Universe might be a CA, which is much the same idea.Nakashima
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
BillB:
I see no necessity, just some assertions on your part,
If you cannot understand that an infinite regress is irrational, what's the point of even having this debate? The notion that calculus somehow solved the old Eleatic objection to motion is as brain dead as it gets. I refuse to go there because I am tired of arguing against the same silliness over and over.
and this does not address my point about why, even in a universe where entities can only occupy discrete locations, the motion of an object should stop at each location and require a cause to move to the next.
Wow. A cause in physics is a violation of some conservation principle. The cause of movement is an interaction between two particles. If they have equal positions, they must interact due to an exclusion principle which is itself a consequence of a conservation principle. An interaction lasts as long as the two particles violate the principle. As soon as they move away from each other, they are no longer in violation and there is no reason that the movement of either particle should persist. If it does, it is because they are continually interacting with other particles. Consequently, we are swimming in a highly regular ocean of particles. [As an aside, for the Biblical minded, The books of Ezekiel and Revelation compare it to a sea of glass (transparent), like crystal (lattice)]. It is all very simple really, so simple in fact, that children will have no trouble grasping it. However, I am afraid that, after centuries of wearing blinders, physicists have become so accustomed to wearing them that they will feel very unconfortable if they are forced to take them off.
I have a strong suspicion that most of us are incapable of understanding lots of things about the universe simply because our cognitive architecture is incapable of adequately resolving some relationships.
I suppose you include yourself in this group. And yet, in spite of the admitted inadequacy of your understanding, you know that continuous structures are a fact of reality? I, on the other hand, maintain that there is nothing that human mind cannot understand given enough time. That is the difference between you and me. You are convinced that human beings are just animals whereas I believe that we are gods.Mapou
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Mapou
Nature is necessarily discrete. Why? Because continuity leads to an infinite regress. Why? Because ‘continuous’ means infinitely divisible.
And therefore, because of that fact, the following will be seen which would not be seen if Nature were continuous: ?Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Mapou
My point is that there is no greater detriment to rationality than an obssessive desire to belong to one group or another.
I have no particular stake in the game either way.
a bunch of brain-dead relativists
Calling names is guarenteed to lock you out of the game. Those "relativists" are open to new evidence, however brain-dead you may think they are. What prediction does your theory make and what experiment can be done to prove the case either way?Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Mapou,
Nature is necessarily discrete. Why? Because continuity leads to an infinite regress. Why? Because ‘continuous’ means infinitely divisible. It’s that simple.
I see no necessity, just some assertions on your part, and this does not address my point about why, even in a universe where entities can only occupy discrete locations, the motion of an object should stop at each location and require a cause to move to the next. Even if the fine structure of the universe is as discrete as you suggest it does not follow that an object in motion requires a hidden mechanism to remain in motion. Continuity may lead to infinite regress as far as our conceptual ability to divide things in half goes but this does not necessarily mean that there is no continuity. I would suggest that it is your conception of a continuous structure that finds this regress an impossibility, there is no law that says it is an impossibility in fact, it might just be hard to imagine. I have a strong suspicion that most of us are incapable of understanding lots of things about the universe simply because our cognitive architecture is incapable of adequately resolving some relationships. Now, Imagine a nine dimensional sphere... I would say that for almost everyone in the world such a feat is impossible because our minds are evolved/designed to operate in three dimensions (or four if you are classifying time as one). My basic point is that some properties of the universe may be so incomprehensibly paradoxical that we are inclined to reject them as false because we just can't process them as concepts and our attempts to understand them as metaphors just lead to error, but his does not mean that they do not exist.BillB
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
BillB @20:
It’s kind of like saying that a pie ought to be cold the moment it is removed from a hot oven. Perhaps they should give Mapou posting privileges here?
Dude, you ain't even close to being as smart as you think you are. Nature is necessarily discrete. Why? Because continuity leads to an infinite regress. Why? Because 'continuous' means infinitely divisible. It's that simple. The only reason that physicists are still talking about things like spacetime continuum is that a bunch of brain-dead relativists still hold a lot of sway in the physics community. Even Einstein, the self-appointed king of continuous structures, wrote to his friend Michelangelo Besso, one year before his death, that
I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field principle, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included..."
Source: A Very Beautiful Day My point is that there is no greater detriment to rationality than an obssessive desire to belong to one group or another.Mapou
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Correction: I said, "Perhpas He only uses the natural world as a metaphor for the higher and lasting reality." It would be better to say, "Perhaps He often uses the natural world as a metaphor..." The point is, that we focus too much on the natural and material. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. ( De 8:3)Lock
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Lock
That would not be suprising considering my high school diploma and current career as a truck driver.
I think that is what is great about the information age and all this blog stuff. You, the truck driver, me the bric-a-brack shop owner, can still participate in potentially world changing events.Mr Charrington
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Borne writes: "All this quantum bull crap about events with no causes is just so … well, GIGO (garbage in garbage out). Not only does event without cause constitute a logical absurdity but the theories that claim there are such are themselves absurd materialist nonsense. Just because one can’t pinpoint a cause doesn’t mean there is none. The entire universe works on cause and effect laws and if it did not nothing would work at all." I absolutely agree...! It is funny how one can watch a Discovery Channel program called, 'Are We Alone', and the scientists make it plain that life may take such a different form on other planets that we would not even recognize it. Well... why can't they apply that same [reasonable] chain of reasoning to causation or the appearence of Christ in history. Perhaps the other life out there is so unlike ours that it is not even physical but pure spirit. And perhaps He can, if He so chooses, manifest himself materially in time and space. And perhaps that life can make contact with us, if we accept His provision for our sins and confess our blind ambition and futile understanding of possibility and reality. Perhaps, just perhaps mind you... He can explain many mysteries to us by leaving materialistic language behind. Perhpas He only uses the natural world as a metaphor for the higher and lasting reality. Since, by definition, the causation before the big bang (or at less than Planck time or length) is not itself subject to physical descriptions (since it was only then that time, space, and such descriptability arose), there must be another kind of Word (or language) in order to intuit it. That is why the naturalist is inevitably reduced to philosophizing. And he does so like the best of them. Too bad his own word is self refuting. Such language should at least be internally consistent. What a coincidence that John declared in the beginning of his gospel account that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men." I absolutely love a striking coincidence! :) And I do not suppose that any of that will mean a damn thing to the materialists. But I do pray... if God's Word could change me, it can change anyone. It has power. If only I could wield it effectively and with His blessing. btw, regarding all of this (and to help anyone struggling to understand it) I am reminded of a quote by Robert Jastrow which I am sure many of you are familliar with: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." He also said: Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions". Only because they are using the wrong language Robert, not the reasoning itself.Lock
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
BillB writes: "I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at either. I was responding to your apparent reference to Mapou’s ideas about motion requiring a constant cause, something which I regard as a misunderstanding on his part regarding the Planck length. The assertion is (if I understand correctly) that according to physics the moment you remove the cause of motion (a force acting on a body) that body ought to come to an immediate halt because motion is actually particles jumping from one position to the next and that this ’start stop’ motion requires a cause of each successive start (but apparently not for each stop). The fact that bodies don’t come to a stop the moment you stop pushing them means that something ‘else’ must keep pushing them after you stop." Perhaps my knowledge of cutting edge physics and understanding of the quantum is inadequate. That would not be suprising considering my high school diploma and current career as a truck driver. My guess would be that momentum comes into play as regards your explanation. Causation is a necessity regarding the physical universe. It is the 'unphysical universe' (if you will allow me to put it that way); the immaterial forces and quantum realities that are the mystery. The relative physical terminology that science historically uses to describe the cosmos does not even apply at less than Planck length. All I was trying to say, is that this assumption of a material chain of causation is a philosophical issue and not one of scientific fact. I believe Mapou is making an error in accepting the premise that comes naturally with the language. The scientific revolution of centuries ago, changed the language and the conceptual terms even though it did not itself escape the metaphysical foundation upon which it rests. I am desperately attempting to remind everyone of this, because I see the error go unrecognized time and time again. I hope that helps...Lock
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Hey BillB, not quite sure what you were getting at there. I have no problem with causality. But I do not think it is reasonable, logical, or scientific to absolutely suppose a material or physical cause for all phenomenon.
All this quantum bull crap about events with no causes is just so ... well, GIGO (garbage in garbage out). Not only does event without cause constitute a logical absurdity but the theories that claim there are such are themselves absurd materialist nonsense. Just because one can't pinpoint a cause doesn't mean there is none. The entire universe works on cause and effect laws and if it did not nothing would work at all. Maybe take a look at : Jean-Pierre Vigier and the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsBorne
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply