This post is a keeper... hehe!
It's about time somebody exposed this so called "theory of Gravity"
by Gollum 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tdogg
OMFG! Thanks for the link. Air pressure keeps us adhered to the earth! Nothing like a bunch of fools who cant even get religion right trying to explain science!
-
joelbear
god makes things fall but he catches those he loves
-
Gerard
Your "article" speculates that gravity force is nothing more than an electromagnetic field. That is ridiculous. Whoever wrote this did not have even a college physisist to review it and has no basic understanding of electricity & electromagnetisim.
You can make a fast train gravitate along on electromagnetism but is only because its force can neutralize the force of gravity. They do not have the same physical origin. The forces are different. The stars do not have net positive charges atracting planets with negative charges.
At the moment Gravity can only be measured and, when explained, it will link quantum mechanics with universal mechanics. Some hypothesize that understanding the nature of gravity is the only factor left to affect and handle Time, -I don't think so.edited to add: Oh...I see it is a tongue in cheeck article....
-
M.J.
Wrong Gerard. This is not tongue in cheek. This is a genuine article printed by the Watchtower Society as absolute truth back in the 1930s. It just demonstrates how whacked God's original "appointees" of all his earthly interests were.
-
Big Dog
SNG, no, I definitely got it. I understand that it is satire in the same vein as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" where with a mastery of the english language he made the eating of our young seem very reasonable. My point was that hard science folks can be just as bad as the religious fanatics, getting up on the pulpit of science and worshiping at its altar, sneering at all those that do not worship along with them. Science has its limitations which many are loathe admit while they pontificate about this or that scientific "fact". As I said in my earlier post, the hard sciences have a pretty good track record with their own version of "new light" where theories are either reversed or trashed altogher when new data comes in. I was simply asking the science folks to go a little easier on the non-science folks with their particlular brand of "preaching." On this forum I have seen some pretty condenscending attitudes from folks in the scientific community towards others.
-
doogie
BD:
i agree with your post to an extent. especially with regards to condescending attitudes in the scientific community. but this part:
the hard sciences have a pretty good track record with their own version of "new light" where theories are either reversed or trashed altogher when new data comes in.
do you have any examples in particular of this type of fluctuation in scientific theory? i agree wholeheartedly that the sciences are in a constant state of flux, but i see that as a good thing. rather than assert the absoulte truth of today's theories, the scientific community welcomes challenges to the existing concepts and those few scientists (which in itself attests to the relative strength of current theories) that can overthrow the current "dogma" are hailed as geniuses and given nobel prizes. it is true that theories are rehashed from time to time and contested continually, but the vast majority of scientific theory changes very little. in what i've come across, i've seen very few scientific theories that have been "reversed or trashed altogether" especially within the last couple of centuries.
i'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just interested in any examples of this that you were thinking of in particular.
-
DannyBloem
Fairmind,
It is absolute! Gravity just is. Gravity doesn't trvel anywhere or at any speed (like light does) it just exists and is acted uopon by the mass of each individual thing that exists in the universe. Sounds confusing but do a Google search on the speed of gravity and you'll find that many scientist support the idea that gravity just is.
I did do a search, and indeed it is very interesting. Although there are a lot of different opinions on it. I have to rad more.
I was always tought that gravitons (the supose particle that carrier the information) traveled at the speed of light. Just as photons (the carrier also for the electromagnetic force) does.
If indeed the speed of gravity is faster the the speed of light, it has many implications.
I will look into the matter, thanks for posting this.
Danny
-
Big Dog
Doogie, now that's a nice response from a science person, I hope some others can follow your example.
First I would say that reversed/trashed might be too strong of language, but a simple example would be medical science. When my mother had children extended bed rest was the order of the day after delivery, now it is up on your feet quickly after delivery. That sort of thing I would call reversing, seems to be a lot of it in the medical sciences, breast feed, no, formula is better, no, wait now breast feeding is back in vogue.
Also I just got my new issue of Discover magazine and on the cover is "Is String Theory About to Snap?" The article says and I quote, "To be brutally honest, there is no proof whatsoever that the string theory is correct," my point? That I could just imagine someone beating the crap out of some creationist here on a thread telling them "the string theory tells us blah, blah, blah" as if that is the holy gospel as well.
But really, my point was more towards the arrogance that is often adopted by the scientific community and how it bothers me as much as the arrogance that many of us despise about the WTBS. I have witnessed some pretty intense trashing of people on this forum by the hard science folks and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am by no means anti-science, and I will only state this as it is germaine to the discussion my undergrad is in a hard science field, I just don't like arrogant people that use their scientific knowledge to hammer people anymore than the religious zealots.
-
tdogg
Science is always willing to change in light of new evidence.
"Condescendig attitudes" and "arrogance" are perceptions of the reader. Attitude has absolutly nothing to do with a logical debate. Something is either logical or not. A person's tone has nothing to do with a statement being true, false, or undeterrmened.
However, you may see "argument from intimidation" from time to time, but if you realize this with out getting butt-hurt you can easily refute such arguments. Or, you can counter with a baseless attack of your own and call people or "science" out with an ad-hominem attack on their arrogance.