Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 09:05 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(30-08-2012 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 07:15 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  i knew that was coming.

a prism causes the same.



No, it doesn't.

i suggest that the evidence is caused by "Mass affecting the spectrum released, between points", is what the 'evidence' is actually. I render that what 'evidence' is being captured, can have an alternate definition, that can be proven, that makes sense, and dont need people to believe is stuff, like black holes and space bending and nor that everything is expanding to an end, simply because YOU and the whole of the world, does not want to think for a moment, that perhaps there is a whole bunch of shit, (mass/energy) out there, that we cannot see (just not lit (emitting the visible)), that could be causing the observation to represent a shift in the spectra of specific elements, as captured.

I have my 2 feet on the ground and you are bending with fast moving shit, in a black hole of stupidity, just because 'they' believe it, and can render the evidence, with a 'manmade' theorem.

(all theorem is manmade, so dont be confused. Imagine the Ptolemaic model to define the 'roaming bodies', talk about cool shit)

Dont be offended, just ask yourself. Could it be?

Back then, most thought space was empty (a vacuum) but in reality, we know that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, anywhere between any two points of mass, anytime.

(30-08-2012 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 07:15 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  ie.... mass between us and what is being viewed is what is causing the observed phenomena.

kind of like the eddington experiment, the corona was 'bending' the light, just like a mirage does on a hot highway.

Not the same.

Refraction and gravitational bending of light are not the same things.

i know, you have no idea what 'gravity' is, and i do. (entanglement cause by energy shared in time)

Like i said, these words are entangling us.

keep your feet on the ground
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 09:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  His argument is the Fallacy of the False Analogy.

The hammer has been observed, and it's action in spacetime has been observed. A probability can be calculated.
Based on that, the Bayesian Probability that it will fall again approaches 1.
The probability that he will observe his god is 0, or approaches 0.

It's about the probability of prediction, in science. Not "belief". He got you to go down a "rabbit hole".

I paraphrased the above argument and he came back with this.

Quote:Your response does not avoid the problem however. Probability for a future event based on a past event can only be calculated by presupposing the system you are trying to prove. Their is no scientific reason to accept the premise that the future will resemble the past. That doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it.

Along the same lines it is not possible for science (the study of what is natural) to comment with any accuracy on the probability of something supernatural existing or acting in a certain way. Instead of admitting that it is outside of the realm of science most scientists are tempted to take the leap that because it is outside the realm of science it cannot exist.

I'm almost done arguing with this guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 10:54 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(30-08-2012 06:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 09:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF are you doing? You're giving atheism a bad name. You can't hang out no morez. Big Grin

I thought you were gonna link up some stuff about gravity - G - being proven constant... man, I don't even know if you can do that... but you come with 9.8m/s^2 which only concerns the current mass of the earth, a thing that wasn't around fourteen billion years ago... Dodgy

So you're like one of them fucks (Chas, where are you?) who think "faith" is a bad word and should not be used in any context? Or what?

'Cause it seems to me what you did wrong here is let your opponent dictate the field of battle, and like a green lieutenant, come running into the major's tent, wanting me to waste my units extracting your clumsy ass...

Xerus,
Our resident prophet, hoc, here is precisely correct. You let them lead you down a rabbit hole, and let them set the terms of the battle. As we have pointed out there are lots of ways to approach this, but, you let him establish the ground on which you would debate. Don' do that. Tongue
There are perfectly good reasons to NOT equate these two situations/things.
You really don't even have to use the whole gravity thing. It's a distraction.
1. Every single time the hammer was observed to be dropped, it fell...
2. Gods have never been observed

You let him use a word which is not correct. He says "belief" in his god is equivalent to your perfectly reasonable EXPECTATION that the hammer will drop.
They are NOT the same. You have an expectation that the hammer will fall. There is a 100% PROBABILITY that will happen. Expectation, at a "certainty" level, is not the same position, intellectually, as positing an invisible being, for which there is no evidence, and for which the PROBABILITY of being seen is 0, (zero).
It's a frequently used "debating trick, of these people, and besides being incorrect logically, also shows BAD FAITH. I throw THAT at them. Ask them "so, is this about word games, and debating tricks, (such as William L Craig is famous for), OR, is this about an honest search for truth. Is it about 'trickery', or sincerity" ? Throw THAT in his face.

You can also use an epistemological approach, and ask them, "well, first, if you are going to use what you assume to be "logical", you must establish, first, that human logic is a productive way to arrive at the truth, AND at the SAME time, establish the the universe is intuitively correct, (that what appears to human brains, .. ie logical to us), IS actually true, and reliable. There are good reasons to think that is not true. (Relativity, Heisenberg, Dirac). If the universe is NOT intuitively correct, then anything said about it, based only on intuition, and logic, is not reliable. That means the ONLY thing remaining, which IS reliable, is that for which there is evidence.
The unspoken assumption in any debate which uses logic, is that the universe is intuitively correct. We can prove it is not.

I greatly appreciate your response. I am somewhat new to this whole thing, and I definitely got what was coming to me by letting it devolve this far.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Xerus's post
30-08-2012, 02:19 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(30-08-2012 10:54 AM)Xerus Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 06:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Xerus,
Our resident prophet, hoc, here is precisely correct. You let them lead you down a rabbit hole, and let them set the terms of the battle. As we have pointed out there are lots of ways to approach this, but, you let him establish the ground on which you would debate. Don' do that. Tongue
There are perfectly good reasons to NOT equate these two situations/things.
You really don't even have to use the whole gravity thing. It's a distraction.
1. Every single time the hammer was observed to be dropped, it fell...
2. Gods have never been observed

You let him use a word which is not correct. He says "belief" in his god is equivalent to your perfectly reasonable EXPECTATION that the hammer will drop.
They are NOT the same. You have an expectation that the hammer will fall. There is a 100% PROBABILITY that will happen. Expectation, at a "certainty" level, is not the same position, intellectually, as positing an invisible being, for which there is no evidence, and for which the PROBABILITY of being seen is 0, (zero).
It's a frequently used "debating trick, of these people, and besides being incorrect logically, also shows BAD FAITH. I throw THAT at them. Ask them "so, is this about word games, and debating tricks, (such as William L Craig is famous for), OR, is this about an honest search for truth. Is it about 'trickery', or sincerity" ? Throw THAT in his face.

You can also use an epistemological approach, and ask them, "well, first, if you are going to use what you assume to be "logical", you must establish, first, that human logic is a productive way to arrive at the truth, AND at the SAME time, establish the the universe is intuitively correct, (that what appears to human brains, .. ie logical to us), IS actually true, and reliable. There are good reasons to think that is not true. (Relativity, Heisenberg, Dirac). If the universe is NOT intuitively correct, then anything said about it, based only on intuition, and logic, is not reliable. That means the ONLY thing remaining, which IS reliable, is that for which there is evidence.
The unspoken assumption in any debate which uses logic, is that the universe is intuitively correct. We can prove it is not.

I greatly appreciate your response. I am somewhat new to this whole thing, and I definitely got what was coming to me by letting it devolve this far.

No worries. We all need to learn not to follow Red Herrings.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: