So objects are supposed to have this mutual attraction between eachother, but how do we know that this "theory" is not simply based on weak evidence and poor assumptions?
So objects are supposed to have this mutual attraction between eachother, but how do we know that this "theory" is not simply based on weak evidence and poor assumptions?
I know this is a weak troll attempt, but it's the LAW of gravity, not the theory of gravity. It's a HUGE scientific step for something to move from hypothesis to theory to law.
Actually it's a good parody. Well done.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory.
Read it here:
I think not:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
It's called "gravitational theory" for a reason -- you can't prove it; so why is it being taught as fact?
Gravity is just one of those things that you have to believe for it to exist. Remember when we all had to believe in Tinkerbell so she wouldn't die? Same shit.
Don't stop believing!
As a follower of the POSE Method of running I most certainly do.
If molecular forces of attraction were found not to be the cause of gravity one day I wouldn't be completely shocked.
Whether it is a law or a theory, it's pretty solid. Less gravity on the smaller moon.
However, theories and laws are challenged every day by new discoveries. New pictures of Saturn's rings have raised tons of questions. We know so little.
The theory of gravity is simply a mathematical relationship that is confirmed under certain conditions by observation, but falls short once objects approach the speed of light. Note that it has only been observed in our part of the universe, not in other parts, and not precisely before Newton, and hasn't yet been proven to be true in the future.
Actually, the discovery of dark matter suggests that our understanding of gravity is possibly incomplete.
You DID realize that you're quoting a parody, right? So... either you did not know and you are a real tool, or you did and you are real troll. Take your pick, ladies and gentleman!
Flagpole Willy wrote:
We know so little.
IRONY OF THE CENTURY! The man who claims to know sooooo much about soooo many things says "we know so little." Flag, why don't you re-state that to say: ' all of you know so little, I know so much." That would be more accurate, right?
(just bustin' your chops flag, you know I can't resist. If you been paying attention, I've actually been agreeing with you on some threads of late!)
Dr. Smith wrote:
I know this is a weak troll attempt, but it's the LAW of gravity, not the theory of gravity. It's a HUGE scientific step for something to move from hypothesis to theory to law.
Not really. Newton called it his Law of Universal Gravitation, but the current model is the Theory of General Relativity. Things don't graduate from theory to law after validation or testing (hypothesis is something different). I think that part of the difference is fashion (17th-19th century discoveries tended to be called laws, 20th century discoveries tended to be called theories) and part of it might be that laws tend to be simple mathematical statements and theories are more of a collection of laws and a discussion of how they interact - a whole body of work.
To get back to the original troll, scientific theories can be tested (in theory. In practice it might be impossible for an individual to do so) so you don't need blind faith. It is in general impossible to prove a scientific theory correct, but it is perfectly possible to verify it to such a degree that accepting it is the only rational course (it is possible that gravity will stop working tomorrow. I can't prove it won't. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it, however).
mobile9 wrote:
So objects are supposed to have this mutual attraction between eachother, but how do we know that this "theory" is not simply based on weak evidence and poor assumptions?
Jump off a building and witness gravity at work.
Did any of you take a science course in any school?
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Trolls or Morons, neither are good things.
mobile9 wrote:
I think not:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htmIt's called "gravitational theory" for a reason -- you can't prove it; so why is it being taught as fact?
If it's taught as "gravitational theory" it is being taught as theory, not fact.
math dude wrote:
The theory of gravity is simply a mathematical relationship that is confirmed under certain conditions by observation, but falls short once objects approach the speed of light.
Falls short near lightspeed? Not really. Einstein's Theory of Gravity is confirmed even when objects approach the speed of light. Newton's approximation may be off, but our current understanding is better than Newton's.
[quote]math dude wrote:
Note that it has only been observed in our part of the universe, not in other parts, and not precisely before Newton, and hasn't yet been proven to be true in the future.
It's been observed in other parts of the universe as well. We see objects everywhere in the visible universe moving according to our predictions.
These academics refer to gravity as theory:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v56/i6/p3548_1
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...193....1G
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v38/i14/p739_1
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802162
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JGR....9920
It is a Theory, then, correct?
I hope you can tell that article is written as a satire...
Gravity is about as well supported a theory as any theory, ever, after Einstein's Solar-Eclipse starlight gravitational redirection experiment.
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before