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

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 18, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Bourne, I feel compelled to chime in here and agree. Personally I have enjoyed reading whatever has been posted, I've no problems with the recent direction the site has taken. The lively back and forth between the various viewpoints on this blog from the various people commenting in the threads makes fascinating reading, never mind the blog posts themselves!Mr Charrington_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Lock, 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. Mapou seems to be demanding a cause for something that I believe is just a misunderstanding on his part. As I understand things it is impossible to measure the position of a particle with an accuracy shorter than the Planck length, but this does not mean that particles are required to jump Planck lengths from one discrete position to another It has nothing to do with whether intelligent agents can cause or change motion, we know they can and we know they do, but we also know that the change in trajectory of one asteroid hitting another asteroid does not require a proximal intelligence. I agree with the idea and possibility of an intelligent cause for everything.BillB_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, I think you may want to rename this site. It seems to be O’Leary’s site rather than yours any more. Hows about Uncommon D’Oleary?
The site name does not contain Dembski's name. I really hope you people are "just kidding" on all this baloney. The site was started by Dembski AND O'leary and the former banner contained both of their photos. In case you've been too blind or just plain dumb to notice, O'leary is a writer and journalist - i.e. she writes for a living! Dembski writes but he's not a journalist, i.e. may not have time to please all your fancies posting here. This is summer, people in science and bloggers also have vacations. Maybe Denyse is filling in for others for the moment. Maybe some of the main authors here just got sick of responding to the perpetual slew of Darwinist swill and codswallop and decided not to write during vacation? I donno, but lets cut the BS over O'Leary doing her job for petes sakeBorne_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

you’re not afraid of an obscure little blog, are you
If I was I would be trying to suppress them rather than trying to engage them in debate. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to express their ideas I just don't see why I should be obliged to agree with them or to keep quiet when I think they are wrong.BillB_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

The nice thing about the Web is that people like Denyse and Mapou cannot be suppressed. Really, now, Big Science true believers, Stephen Hawking acolytes--you're not afraid of an obscure little blog, are you?allanius_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

But...but...the Multiverse! Behold, our savior the Multiverse has vanquished all our enemies!tragic mishap_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

The most precise instrument in the world is: Virgo Gravitational Wave Detector at the European Gravitational Observatory - video http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1337046 THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTOR VIRGO http://icfa-nanobeam.web.cern.ch/icfa-nanobeam/paper/Flaminio_Virgo.pdf excerpt - Best sensitivity was slightly better than 10-16 m/Hz at 1 kHz and about 10-13 m/Hz at 10 Hz. Dr. Ross states a sensitivity of 1 in 10^22 is possible for the detector; Yet All individual universal constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy comparison to the precision of the most precise man-made machine (10^22 gravity wave detector). For example, the individual cosmological constant (dark energy) is balanced to 1 part in 10^120 and the individual mass density constant is balanced to 1 part in 10^60. (The lowest known tolerance for a constant is the Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1 in 10^37 Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B0t4zSzhjg The fine tuning of the universe is irreducibly complex to staggering degree for there are at least 93 such finely tuned conditions found in the universe: http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universebornagain77_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
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. In light of the quantum, physicality or matter itself is not fully understood, let alone forces like gravity acting upon matter. We have a great deal of quantitative understanding of certain forces, but the fundamental issue is qualitative in my mind. What is the character or quality of nature as a whole, as opposed to the simple Newtonian understanding of nature most people have in their minds today? It is this philosophical question that science presumes to answer by implication when it uses certain language. I find it suspect that scientists very apply language such as, 'dark matter' to distinguish certain phenomenon. Can we presume scientifically, that the cosmos is ultimately understood quantitatively? It appears obvious to me, that intelligent agents can cause phenomenon by nothing more than the fact the choose to. It need not even be logical in the mechanistic natural sense. Science as it stands today is utterly helpless to illuminate such a cause. Much of the absurdity in nature that some mention may be caused not by complex mathematical relationships between entities, though to be sure the mathematics play out no matter how incoherent. I submit to you that it is purpose that motivates intelligent causation, and nature is simply the construct by which we battle for our purposes. Seems to me that so many of these arguments and debates avoid the real issues. They are frivolous arguments. And that is the result of both sides accepting a certain language which smuggles in a philosophy. Philosophy is inevitable, just give me a language that does not attempt to hide its true character behind the fig leaves of nature.Lock_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
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 an excellent journalist she is. Look, by far the most important qualification a science journalist must have is a passion for science, and I think we all can sense that Denyse is full of it. This is a blog, so I wouldn't expect to see a great deal of in-depth analysis of primary sources. You can always find the actual papers by following her links or by googling if all else fails.herb_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
Who ordered that?
I did, with a side of fries. In fact, I asked that the electrons have all of their properties in common, but some short-order cook named Pauli screwed it up.R0b_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Mapou (#18) wrote: "By contrast, the fine structure constant is much more interesting because it is not, as far as I know, dependent on our choice of units. Why does it have the value that it has? Materialists say it’s just chance while others say it was designed that way. I am one of the others." So are you one of the others who agree with Gonzalez and others who say that the fine structure constant and all the other physical constants (c, G, h, e - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constants ) for all the trillions of galaxies billions of light years away in all directions were fine tuned for the convenience of life on earth? Doesn't that seem a bit parochial?PaulBurnett_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Hugh Ross - Dark Energy; Halos Of Exotic Dark Matter And Earth's Extremely Privileged Position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=280Mt0AdIjobornagain77_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Mapou, your COSA idea certainly looks interesting. Have you come across LabView which uses graphical programming and facilitates parallelism (as far as I can tell). There are also some interesting developments in reconfigurable computing with graphical object based programming schemas for defining FPGA configurations - starbridge systems is a company that comes to mind.BillB_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Oops, I should have cited the source of that quote, which can be found here towards the bottom of the page.BillB_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Lock:
Intelligent agents can cause motion (or a change in motion), and science would be at a loss to explain it via purely material causation.
What Mapou is referring to about motion is this:
It is important to think of motion as a series of quantum jumps whereby the position of a particle continually changes from one discrete value to another. If the particle is set in motion from a rest position, it must make the first jump. Suppose the cause of the initial jump is immediately removed. What causes the particle to take the next jump and the ones after that? My rationale is that every jump is an effect and every effect must have a cause. This is required by the law of causality, the most corroborated law in the history of science.
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?BillB_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

ab, Thanks for the vote and for your interest in COSA. I am afraid that, if I were a poster on UC, I would not have much to contribute in terms of news. At least, not for the forseeable future. Mark Frank, In my opinion, almost all physics constants (e.g., the elementary charge, the electron's mass, Newton's G, Planck's constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, etc.) have the values they have, because of our choice of units of measurements. The equations themselves do not change if the units are change. If we wanted to, we can choose our units such that Newton's gravitational constant becomes 1, for example. Indeed, to simplify certain calculations, one can set certain constants to 1 without any penalty. By setting C to 1, for example, one can change E = MC^2 to just E = M. Of course, you still need C^2 to make the units agree on both side of the equation. Some serious thinkers even think that the distinction between mass and energy should not even exist. By contrast, the fine structure constant is much more interesting because it is not, as far as I know, dependent on our choice of units. Why does it have the value that it has? Materialists say it's just chance while others say it was designed that way. I am one of the others. Why? Because the number of possible values is infinite. When you think about it, why do all electrons in the entire universe (an extremely huge number) have the exact same properties (charge, mass) when the number of possible such properties are infinite? Who ordered that?Mapou_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

A bit of an aside on the fine tuning argument. Whenever I see statements on the lines of "universal constant X has to be accurate to within 1 in a squillion parts" I wonder what it really means. Suppose a constant X has to be within a range d for life to occur. d is very small compared to X. But is this improbable? It depends on the possible values of X. If they are confined to a range similar to d then it is not improbable. If X can take any value then it is really irrelevant how small d is. All finite values are small compared to infinity. There is a further complication. A constant such as G is just a number which makes the equations come right. It does not correspond to any known entity. Another society could with equal justification declare the universal gravitational constant to be some power of G e.g. square root of G. It would make the maths more complicated (G squared would feature in the equations where G currently features) but the universe is not there to make our maths easy. However, if we create a new gravitational constant which is the root of our current gravitational constant then any known margin of error d is smaller proportion of the actual value G i.e. the 1 in a squillion figure comes down. In fact it can be made as small as you like simply by taking an appropriate power. All in all the phrase "has to be accurate to 1 part in a squillion" seems to have no significance.Mark Frank_{July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Good article. One of the reasons why physics is in such a mess is because people that are open about their biais toward materialists explanations are in greater number that people that are bias toward an ID explanation. Materialists see the world as being random and any intuition about its design must be wrong. Thats why so much energy is spent on rubbish theory such as multiverse, etc.. I mean, is not strange that the greatest physicists had all an ID biais? Even Einstein that didnt believe in a personal God that took care of it's creature did believe in an Intelligent Designer. You might told me that this is what got him wrong ultimately: isn't it the one that who say that "God don't play dice?". But this biais was actually what make him discover special and general relativity. His equations had, like the String theory, too many solutions and not enought boundaries. He use his intuition -- his ID bias -- and this is what make him hit the spot quicker. Green and Cie are so attached to materialism that among all the different solutions of their String theories, they are not able to use "intuition" to finalise their theory. A new theory of Gravitation will finaly emerge. But I bet that the person that is going to discover it will a deep intuition -- in other word a strong ID bias-- of the universe.Kyrilluk_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Mapou writes: "When we finally get our heads out of the sand and realize that motion (like all phenomena) is causal, the scales will fall off our eyes and we will be on our way to a perfect understanding of gravity." Though I suspect we would be in general agreement, I think it best not get too far ahead of ourselves on this point. Intelligent agents can cause motion (or a change in motion), and science would be at a loss to explain it via purely material causation. Lewis gave the billiard ball illustration as an example. No laws are broken, and neither can those laws explain or help us predict the phenomenon. Someone willed a change in position of the ball, and effectively overuled nature. And nature readily accepted the new instructions. This is especially the case since the origins of physical motion within the cosmos are not understood. To perfectly understand (as you put it) teh causality of gravity, one must perfectly understand origins. To be sure, the billiard ball illustration is an oversimplification, since we would expect intelligent interference in that case and would not think to explain it by purely material means. What is strange, is that intelligence, or at least interference by lifeforms of nature is part of our normal experience. Yet, for some reason we exclude that explanation from many puzzling phenomenon like gravity. It would not be logical (or scientific) to conclude that just because many phenomenon have been illuminated by material description, that all phenomenon (or any particular one) will also be illuminated in the same way. The very language of materialistic philosophy will not allow it. It's no use to even speak of causation before the big bang with materialistic language, since material (in this sense) did not yet exist. One needs a different language to even theoretically intuit it in that case. I am not saying gravity will not be understood in the future to a much greater extent in purely relative physical terms. But those terms (the language) have strict limitations and are ultimately subject to futility.Lock_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

...or Mapou. If not Mapou, please bring back DaveScot!!! fat chance... As an occasional poster and frequent reader, I have no problem with O'Leary's posts. I just have trouble finding entries not written by O'Leary. Is it possible to contain all those great posts into one super-great post? Quantity is good but quality is much better. Off-topic: Mapou, love your idea for COSA OS. Your blog posts are top-notch. Very interesting perspectives!ab_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

There is no reason to be surprised at the number of posts by this author. She is a journalist. To be a journalist is to crave publication. Posts to this blog might not be the equivalent of an op-ed in the New York Times but they are better than nothing.Seversky_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

tyke @9:
P.S. Mapou, you do realize that you sound exactly like every pseudoscientific crank out there who has a pet theory and a massive grudge against everyone else because they won’t take you seriously.
Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. It's a seemingly insurmountable barrier and I agree that I don't have the resources to break through it. Not yet, anyway. For now I'm content to leave an internet paper trail, so to speak. I am glad that I have become a source of entertainment to those of for you who consider yourselves more scientific than most. I knew you'd like my latest contribution. LOL. Have fun.Mapou_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Tyke, don't you get it? We're part of the problem. We're relativity-enablers.dbthomas_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Yes, all the brilliant scientific minds of the last 100+ years have gotten it all dead wrong, willfully sticking their heads in the sand in their refusal to examine any new ideas or study the evidence that should be obvious to them... And almost alone, Mapou knows the truth, a shining beacon amongst imbeciles like Einstein, Newton, and Hawking. If only he would deign to enlighten us poor fools with his brilliance... One day... Soon... Ever...? P.S. Mapou, you do realize that you sound exactly like every pseudoscientific crank out there who has a pet theory and a massive grudge against everyone else because they won't take you seriously.tyke_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Well, Mapou liked it. That's reassuring.dbthomas_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

Thanks for posting this, Denyse. Gravity is a beautiful thing. When we finally figure it out, the answer will reveal itself be so simple, we'll kick ourselves in the butt for a hundred years, for having been so stupid for so long. The reason that we have not already figured out gravity is that one or more of out most cherished assumptions about the way bodies move is wrong. For example, physicists believe that two bodies in relative inertial motion, remain in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. All humans are religious and superstitious to one degree or another, I know. But that's no excuse. It is the scientist's job to sort out the truth from the superstition. When we finally get our heads out of the sand and realize that motion (like all phenomena) is causal, the scales will fall off our eyes and we will be on our way to a perfect understanding of gravity. The one group that is the most to blame for our ignorance of the cause of gravity is the relativists. To this day, relativists are the greatest impediment to further progress in the field. For one, their religious mantra that only relative movement/position exists is on a par with the flat earth hypothesis, as it can be proven with simple logic that only the absolute exists physically and that the relative is 100% abstract. More Nasty Little Truths About PhysicsMapou_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

This is an ID specific post. Didn't anyone read about the fine tuning of gravity?jerry_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

I would like to see more ID specific content please.Gods iPod_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

I'll throw my hat in the ring as well! If given posting privileges, I promise to never write about global warming, or moderate comments on my threads. but would you use the loudspeaker in the ceiling, Darwinist inuit skirt chaser? -ds No, I wouldn't. haiku street theater with a pathetic level of detail, i'm not buying it.Nakashima_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

I vote for bFast to become next author, seriously! Crossing my fingers now...ab_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply