Gravity, the fairytale

P1: Gravity doesn’t exist…

P2: Huh?

P1: No, gravity doesn’t exist.

P2: What do you mean?

P1: Like I said, where is it?

P2: Well you don’t ‘see’ gravity, it’s simply there…holding the pieces together…

P1: Exactly, I’ve never seen gravity. It doesn’t exist.

P2: No no, you don’t have to see it for it to exist. It’s just a concept. Remember?

P1: Listen man, the reason you believe in gravity is probably because you’ve been told your whole life long that it’s there, but it’s just a myth. You’re going to have to give me proof that it’s real for me to believe it.

P2: The very proof that it’s real is the sheer fact that you’re standing here talking to me now, because without it, none of us would be here.

P1: Ok ok, so you’re saying there’s some kind of ‘invisible force’ that’s responsible for my very existence on planet earth? This concept you’re talking about…it sounds like something you’re clinging onto in hopes that you won’t float off the planet.

P2: That’s the thing, we’re not going to ever float off the planet, because this invisble force is safeguarding us here.

P1: You don’t know that, you’ve never seen it, and besides, what idiot gave you this idea in the first place?

P2: Sir Isaac Newton, of course.

P1: Let me guess, he claimed to be some great genius who discovered this ‘invisible force’ and got a bunch of people to believe him?

P2: Yep. And they believed him, and still do today, because evidence all around us supported his testimony.

P1: You need help, you sound psychologically impaired. Don’t you know the concept of gravity was invented as an opiate for the masses who are afraid of flying? Look at the magnificent ways we can defy this ‘gravity’! How could such a force be holding us down when we’ve reached the outskirts of time and space with rockets and satellites?

P2: Well, these objects were invented within the allowed boundaries. We’ve not excelled past any gravitational force; we’ve only found ways to maneuver within it. If we were to ignore the existence of gravity, then we would be missing a fundamental building block to flight.

P1: But what about the fuel, and the parts? Without these, there would be no rockets! Since this is what we can see, and use, then they must be all that’s needed to build aerials and fly.

P2: It may seem that way to you, but ask any scientist and even they know that gravity is real, and responsible for aiding in their ability to invent these things.

P1: Scientist, shmientist. Those people are just as whacked out as you. I’ve looked at the parts, and dissected every facet of these inventions and there’s no gravity in there!

=D>

P1: I feel heavy, smaller objects consistently seem to fall back towards larger objects. These are sensations just like any others.

P2: We call that “Gravity”.

P1: Why the semantics?

P2: Because the consistency in those sensations can be concentrated on and used as a basis upon which to predict. This is useful.

P1: So the gravity doesn’t add or subtract from simple concrete sensations, it’s just a term for when the common element in them is mentally abstracted. It doesn’t “exist”, it’s a term to describe an element of what exists.

P2: No, it exists in the world prior to your sensations, causing your sensations.

P1: But we are privy to our sensations first, and only then can we posit their cause. So our sensations were sensed first, then from this we posited gravity. And then we reversed this to say gravity was actually first, and only from this can we sense in a certain consistent way?

P2: Yes, objects are the subjects of causation of our sensations. We subjects are the objects of inherent reason.

P1: …

OK, I’m at a loss here. What’s the point? God exists because, like gravity, we can’t see it/Him but we see the effects everywhere?

It looks like the point is that people who believe in God don’t understand anything about science or its history. I’m not sure though; regardless of the point, the post is too obscure.

Pretty difficult to take this post seriously. May as well go back to the cats not believing in the internet BS. It’s even more difficult to take seriously when the theory of gravity is still only in the theory stage. No one knows what gravity is, why it’s force is so weak, so on. Something I like to bring when people start flippantly stating that evolution is “only a theory.” However, I imagine that I’m supposed to apologize or somehow feel stupid for not just believing that gravity is real and going on about my business. As if asking questions like ‘why’ and ‘how’ are such foolish things to do.

It took Man some 10,000 years just to ask why things fall down and call if “gravity”. #-o

[size=150]10,000 years.[/size]

And this is the species that you worship as an intelligent? :unamused:

James.
Yep.

I’d need to see the archeological data on that.

On a related note, the gravity of today is not the gravity of before the 1600s. People long identified terrestrial gravity and had a number of theories about why things fell to Earth and the rates and other quantities at which things fell to Earth. Isaac Newton was able to demonstrate, through measuring the different forces at work, that terrestrial gravity was the same force at work in the solar system keeping the planets in their orbits. That’s why his work is more properly called his theory of universal gravitation.

My position is often one that our species is NOT intelligent. At all. If our species is supposed to be the peak of creation, the most important thing in the universe, this is a pretty shithole universe. It’s also that lack of intelligence that has derived such answers to things falling as “God must make it happen!”

But if one accepts that he is NOT intelligent, how can that same one proclaim the absurdity of anyone else’s theory with any confidence?

The postulate of a “God” can’t even be discussed without first defining exactly what is meant by the concept, yet look at all of the people who either sternly believe or disbelieve in such an existence without ever even knowing what the word “god” means. Yet they argue and endlessly preach, “God is bullshit!!” or “God is divine!!

You guys really, seriously need to understand that you are not merely arguing with each other, you are arguing with yourselves, your own type, kind, and make. Those of the religions are exactly the same as those of the anti-religions. “Oh no… are you blind? Can’t you see that I am white on my right and he is white on his left!!” (hail to the genius of Gene Roddenberry).

Such was the point of the OP.

I second that.

However I don’t second the notion that mankind is not intelligent because we are struggling to figure out “what gravity is”, and that it took us a while to come up with the idea. It would be more appropriate to question mankind’s (un)intelligence in positing the idea at all…

We would be remissed to forget to question the relevance of the historical, geographical and sociological conditions in our identification of gravity. It’s completely unnecessary for a human, or any worldly object to come up with the concept, when we fall to/stick to the ground regardless. All life adapts to its environment, intuitively working with it whether or not conscious. The extra step of identifying the consistency that we now call “gravity” (heaviness) comes out of a desire to homogenise abstractions of phenomena for simplicity’s sake, such that we can turn such “knowledge” into use. With this under our belts we can predict better and create better tools. These are not universal values, they arise out of particular historical, geographical and sociological contexts. PhysBang has been intelligent enough to point out that we have come up with different ideas of gravity over the course of our identification of it, due to different values. They were not primitive attempts to achieve what we have now achieved. Our current values have evolved out of what has come from previous sets of values - we have not always had the same values. Have humans desired TVs since their very beginning?

We would also be remissed to so hastily call mankind unintelligent without first positing what we are unintelligent relative to. What is intelligent for us to be unintelligent relative to? The best we can do, if we are so hasty, is to come up with an empty abstract notion of what we’d be like if we had all the answers. Surely it is absurd to posit that intelligence is the result of the imagination of the unintelligent? Are we then praising our imaginations over our real selves?

It is my opinion that gravity is simply a useful mistake. Things are sensed the way they are - how we interpret them is how we divide them up (which is merely dependent on our currents senses and current values) and how we propose to link them back together. This process of abstraction is counter to the concrete starting point - it is the process of seeing the world how it is not, because in doing so we create knowledge, which is useful. And that is all.

The existence of god is almost irrelevant to me. I have no control over that scenario, and no way of knowing what any outcome brings to bear for me. So who cares? May as well worry about what time the cows are gonna get home. When I have a serious conversation about god with someone, they find out that I only disbelieve in the existence of god by way of probability. I find it unlikely that there is a god out there, however you may define god, but not an impossibility.

The point on religion is where I take a stand. “God is bullshit” is a statement of “your religion is bullshit” for most of the people I come across. And that applies to everyone, religious or not. I’ve yet to meet a religious person who believed and followed all existing religions. Endlessly arguing and preaching is to stand up against the idea that someone has authority over me and my way of life simply because they believe it to be so. There is no foundation for this authority outside of their personal claims. And this authority, the impact that it brings to the lives of people around the world, has so very little to do with god. It’s about social control, division, inequality, bias, judgement and all of the other bullshit that an intellectually inferior species would apply to its own kind.

Another great sci-quote is one I’ll pull from Aliens. “You know Burke, I don’t know which species is worse. You don’t see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage.”

So if you wanna talk about the existence of god, great. I’m all ears. Put down your bible, your quran, your tanakh, your whatever and lets talk about the existence of god and what that may or may not mean about our place in the universe.

That is a great place to begin. :handgestures-thumbupright:
God will favor such even more than the faithful.
Just don’t go jumping to conclusions about reality (presuming) just because you didn’t care.
Because God will getcha for that one. O:)

How do you know you have no way of knowing what any outcome brings to bear for you?
What have you tried as ways of gathering knowledge?
What practices, for example?

If this is an attempt to prove the existence of god by saying it is just like gravity (invisible but present) here is my reply;
Gravity has a law, as far as we can see that law is true in every occasion. An object will always move towards another object unless another force prevents the movement. Even if you are never taught the law you will still notice the affects.
God has no law and thousands of different interpretations. When you pray, you are not guaranteed any result; there is no proof your prayer was even noticed. If one doesn’t know of god, he will never imagine his influence or affects.
If you can find a definite law/description/way to commune with god that proves true in every instance, I will believe in him like I believe in gravity with 100% certainty.

Long ago (not all that long ago), the same could be said regarding gravity. One could and did often speculate that gravity (or the falling of loose objects) wasn’t necessarily governed by any law. The difference in belief came only (after 10,000 years) of someone actually measured the effect, giving it a name, and theorizing specific consistencies, “laws”.

With the issue of God, you have the exact same situation. At one time, no one believes that necessarily God’s law/consistency is this or that even though there are many theories (religions and prophets). The obvious yet STILL missing thing to do is to name, measure, and note consistencies. Or to put it succinctly;
Clarify, Verify, and Remember…

Until that is done, Man will do as he has always done… well, until he is no more.

Doesn’t matter if it was a law years ago or not, it was consistent. things ALWAYS fell back to earth eventually. It was not belief, it was observation. Even animals take note of it.
There is no evidence of any god except that manufactured or imagined by man. If you can give me one, just one, undoubt-able piece of evidence, free of any human influence, I will believe.
The rock you drop will always fall toward something, even far from earth. Even while it is in your hand you feel it’s pull.
You can see the effects of gravity, the effects of god are only present to those who already seek them and imagine them.

Come on now. You can’t claim that “it was always consistent” until you after actually measure it and look for any inconsistencies.

But such doesn’t change the argument at all. You can’t claim that God is or isn’t consistent until you measure the effect.

[size=150]You guys DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A FUCKING GOD IS YET!!![/size]

James. Please calm down.