Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

SUB-OP: More on the electromagnetic relevances for orientation:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.

They did. You propose a foolish test. You forgot about air resistance. You have now demonstrated an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Is there any wonder that no one is taking you seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.

Why? We know what would happen. It is your claim you are the one that needs to do an experiment that supports you.

By the way, any trip up 'high into the atmosphere" would still be in the atmosphere. How are you going to get up there? At any height that I can think of where one could do that by balloon or other method would still have some air in it. Less air resistance would still be air resistance. The bowling ball would fall at a higher rate a first and eventually, as the feather fell, it would fall at a slower and slower rate as the air density increased. How would this experiment help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.

So, you´re a true believer.

No, you are only describing yourself. Scientists have tested gravity properly. You can't even think up of a test. The only example you gave was so obviously flawed that it shows about a third grad understanding of science at best.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently, natural conditions isn´t something you take serious,

I take observations seriously.

For example, the fact that the bowling ball and feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum shows that their falling isn't due to air pressure. it shows that there is something making them fall even when there is no pressure at all.

And that shows you are wrong when you deny the existence of gravity.

Artificial experiments are useful for disentangling the multiple influences of a natural situation and in figuring out what is actually relevant.

Also, by comparing what happens in a vacuum and what happens with air, we can determine that things fall *slower* in air than they do in a vacuum. In other words, the air is *slowing* the objects, not accelerating them.

So what we have is air *resistance* hindering motion as opposed to air *pressure* causing it.

 

[Polymath257]

Just go outside in the free nature and make your own logical conclusions.

I do. And I include the results of observations that control for the different influences, which is why I take seriously the results in a vacuum.

Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.

So, you´re a true believer.

I never said that there was nothing but gravity. You are the one denying it even exists. There is a huge middle ground.

 

[Native]

They did. You propose a foolish test. You forgot about air resistance.

So natural tests are folish now? I didn´t forget the "air resistance" and the pressure weight of the air above and on the Earth.

You have now demonstrated an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Is there any wonder that no one is taking you seriously?

As modern cosmology are having huge troubles explaining gravity causally and dynamically, and have no Theory of Everything, I personally would be more careful than you with personal descriptions of other debaters take on things.

Native said: ↑
Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.
So, you´re a true believer.

No, you are only describing yourself. Scientists have tested gravity properly. You can't even think up of a test. The only example you gave was so obviously flawed that it shows about a third grad understanding of science at best.

WHAT? "Describing myself"!? Aren´t you taking this scientific disscussion a bit too emotionally and personally?

If I shal take you seriously in this case, come up with a scientific causally and dynamic explanation of "a gravity force".

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Apparently, natural conditions isn´t something you take serious,

I do. And I include the results of observations that control for the different influences, which is why I take seriously the results in a vacuum.

So you´re focusing on one aspect in an artificial vacuum chamber at the same time you´re excluding another natural part of nature.

How can this have any scientific validity?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Just go outside in the free nature and make your own logical conclusions.

I do. And I include the results of observations that control for the different influences, which is why I take seriously the results in a vacuum.

Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So natural tests are folish now? I didn´t forget the "air resistance" and the pressure weight of the air above and on the Earth.

They can be. And you just demonstrated that you do not understand air pressure either. Are you a Flat Earther?

As modern cosmology are having huge troubles explaining gravity causally and dynamically, and have no Theory of Everything, I personally would be more careful than you with personal descriptions of other debaters take on things.

Gravity is well explained. You just do not understand it.

Native said: ↑
Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.
So, you´re a true believer.

That is a strawman argument. When t comes to various motions in the universe there is only evidence for gravity. That is not saying "there is nothing but gravity everywhere". It is a weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof...When you make a claim you take on a.burden of proof. When you cannot provide any evidence then people are right to dismiss your ideas as nonsense.

WHAT? "Describing myself"!? Aren´t you taking this scientific disscussion a bit too emotionally and personally?

If I shal take you seriously in this case, come up with a scientific causally and dynamic explanation of "a gravity force".

Not at all. You made a false claim about others. Never a good debating technique. And ironically the claims described you.

And you are unable to make demands in the sciences when you do not understand the scientific method. Rephrase your request if you.want an answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Apparently, natural conditions isn´t something you take serious,

So you´re focusing on one aspect in an artificial vacuum chamber at the same time you´re excluding another natural part of nature.

How can this have any scientific validity?

Absolutely. It separates out the various aspects and isolates them so they can be studied.

Once again, you have NO explanation of why the ball and feather fall in a vacuum, let alone why they fall at the same rate. The *only* explanation for this is gravity.

Then, in a 'natural' situation (meaning one where there is air around---which is NOT natural in most of the universe), all things fall *slower* than they do in the vcum, which means that air is slowing them down, not contributing to the rate of fall.

So, your ideas about gravity have been tested. They have failed. And they failed in a much more obvious and clear situation that galactic curves. By your own logic, your ideas should be rejected.

 

[Polymath257]

So natural tests are folish now? I didn´t forget the "air resistance" and the pressure weight of the air above and on the Earth.

But, by eliminating those, we showed that they are NOT the cause of objects falling. Instead, they *hinder* objects in falling.

As modern cosmology are having huge troubles explaining gravity causally and dynamically, and have no Theory of Everything, I personally would be more careful than you with personal descriptions of other debaters take on things.

No theory of everything is required to know that some ideas are wrong and that gravity does, in fact, exist. Vey basic experiments and observations are quite enough.

And you always focus on 'explaining gravity' causally. What you seem to ignore is that gravity is the causal explanation of other phenomena.

Also, there is no more 'explanation of E&M' than there is for gravity. NEITHER have a deeper explanation. But you accept that lack of explanation in one, but not the other.

Native said: ↑
Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.
So, you´re a true believer.

And *nobody* said there is nothing but gravity. That is a straw man.

WHAT? "Describing myself"!? Aren´t you taking this scientific disscussion a bit too emotionally and personally?

If I shal take you seriously in this case, come up with a scientific causally and dynamic explanation of "a gravity force".

YOU are the one that has selected one aspect of things (E&M) and declared there is 'nothing but that'. So you are doing what you accuse others of doing.

 

[Native]

They can be. And you just demonstrated that you do not understand air pressure either. Are you a Flat Earther?

I quit answering your posts with such emotional strawman comments.

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
I do. And I include the results of observations that control for the different influences, which is why I take seriously the results in a vacuum.

Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?

Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

 

[Native]

And you always focus on 'explaining gravity' causally. What you seem to ignore is that gravity is the causal explanation of other phenomena.

So, you like to have an unexplained cosmic causal force to explain other cosmic phenomena? Otherwise, you don´t care much of meta-physics, do you?

 

[Polymath257]

So, you like to have an unexplained cosmic causal force to explain other cosmic phenomena? Otherwise, you don´t care much of meta-physics, do you?

Gravity is just as explained as is E&M.

And, no, I don't care much for how metaphysics is done. It tends to assume it has answers it doesn't and to assume things are 'obvious' when they are, in fact, false.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257 said: ↑
I do. And I include the results of observations that control for the different influences, which is why I take seriously the results in a vacuum.

Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

Well, the fact that velocities when falling from rest are always larger in a vacuum than not in one. That shows that air is a hindrance to motion, not the motivating force for the motion.

So, for example, the feather falls at the same rate as the bowling ball in a vacuum. But, with air resistance, it falls slower. That is to be expected because feathers are built to interact with the air to produce flight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you like to have an unexplained cosmic causal force to explain other cosmic phenomena? Otherwise, you don´t care much of meta-physics, do you?

I know, it is really really weird, but for some reason scientists like testable, observable unexplained "cosmic casual" forces better than woo woo. It is some drivel about knowledge having to be useful. What a load of tosh! Don't they understand the value of feeling superior when one has not done anything to earn it?

 

[Native]

Gravity is just as explained as is E&M.

Fine, then explain the dynamic force in question - and you´ll be the first one to have done so.

And, no, I don't care much for how metaphysics is done. It tends to assume it has answers it doesn't and to assume things are 'obvious' when they are, in fact, false.

Until you´ve explained the scientific dynamics of gravity, you´re in fact doing meta-physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, then explain the dynamic force in question - and you´ll be the first one to have done so.

Until you´ve explained the scientific dynamics of gravity, you´re in fact doing meta-physics.

Okay, so we can add metaphysics to the list of concepts that you do not understand.