• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity does not exist

I've been reading this thread with considerable amusement.

Basically, Question is playing what he thinks is the role of skeptic with something we all take for granted: gravitational force. So we are all put in the position of the woo-woos. How do we pass a "JREF test" to convince our skeptic that gravity exists?

If Question had a woo-woo agenda, I would say that it's to show how ridiculous skepticism is regarding, say, Bigfoot when there are so many "eyewitnesses" and so much "objective evidence". Basically all the scientific peer-reviewed data on gravity is being thrown into the same pot with every person who's ever paid money for a cold reading.

Another agenda would be to "prove" that the JREF criteria are impossible to pass, and even something as basic as gravity couldn't pass the test.

Are we able to explain to our gadfly the difference between these two types of evidence? Are we able to explain the difference between this extreme level of disbelief and critical reasoning? And especially, are we able to explain the difference between Question's test protocol (I'll disbelieve everything) and Randi's?
 
Alkatran said:
What if the balloon expands to the point where it comes in contact with the sides of the container, slowing it due to friction?
Click to expand...
A balloon will have to be selected that does not exhibit this behavior.

I do not consider this an insurmountable problem.
 
rppa said:
I've been reading this thread with considerable amusement.

Basically, Question is playing what he thinks is the role of skeptic with something we all take for granted: gravitational force. So we are all put in the position of the woo-woos. How do we pass a "JREF test" to convince our skeptic that gravity exists?

If Question had a woo-woo agenda, I would say that it's to show how ridiculous skepticism is regarding, say, Bigfoot when there are so many "eyewitnesses" and so much "objective evidence". Basically all the scientific peer-reviewed data on gravity is being thrown into the same pot with every person who's ever paid money for a cold reading.

Another agenda would be to "prove" that the JREF criteria are impossible to pass, and even something as basic as gravity couldn't pass the test.

Are we able to explain to our gadfly the difference between these two types of evidence? Are we able to explain the difference between this extreme level of disbelief and critical reasoning? And especially, are we able to explain the difference between Question's test protocol (I'll disbelieve everything) and Randi's?
Click to expand...

Gravity should have no trouble passing.

Interestign idea though, could a scientific 'thing' (more complicated than gravity) pass a test setup by you're everyday believer in the supernatural? :D
 
Alkatran said:
Gravity should have no trouble passing.

Interestign idea though, could a scientific 'thing' (more complicated than gravity) pass a test setup by you're everyday believer in the supernatural? :D
Click to expand...

For the answer, do a search on "Interesting Ian" or "UnderCover Elephant" posts to see problems with objective reality. There are plenty of similar posts from other JREF posters as well.
 
Beleth said:
A balloon will have to be selected that does not exhibit this behavior.

I do not consider this an insurmountable problem.
Click to expand...

I see, you have to select a ballon for which you already know the result. Can't just take any balloon eh! Silly gravitationalists.
 
Question said:
I see, you have to select a ballon for which you already know the result. Can't just take any balloon eh! Silly gravitationalists.
Click to expand...

A problem here is, that some objects cannot be tested i vacuum, as they are destoyed inside vacuum.

E.g. in case of a bottle which is only sealed with a very thin papar and has air of normal pressure(1 bar) inside, the paper will be torn apart inside a vacuum and the most of the air will move out of the bottle, so we would have a diffrent object.

So Question as not all objects can be tested inside a vacuum, would you be satisfied, that for a first test a baloon is chosen, that:
1. does rise under normal sea level earth conditions
2. is not destroyed inside a vacuum


After a succesful demonstration of gravity under this conditions, it would be of course a further duty, to either think of tests for objects, that do not survive vacuum conditions or to show logically, based on the tests made, those fragile objecs also are affected in the same way by gravity.

Carn
 
Question said:
I have found that small objects are not pulled to the center of the earth, and that some in fact fly up toward the sky. Gravitationalists will not admit this however, because there is money to be made in keeping the public deceived.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that small objects are not pulled towards the centre of the earth? I think it has alredy been pointed out that things are not pulled to the centre of the earth because, er, the earth is in the way.

What are the objects that you claim "fly up towards the sky"? Under what circumstances do they do this?
 
Question said:
I see, you have to select a ballon for which you already know the result.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I have to select a balloon which is acceptable to both of us. We have already decided that "a helium balloon" is descriptive enough to satisfy us both. I plan on using "a helium balloon" to perform this test. If you need to be more specific, you need to specify what you need.

Can't just take any balloon eh! Silly gravitationalists.
Click to expand...
Of course not. You wouldn't accept a balloon that wasn't filled with helium, so I will use a balloon that is filled with helium.

What's the matter? Don't think that your theory will stand up to the test you have agreed to?

You also still haven't answered my question about the videotape. I wasn't able to perform the test over the weekend because of that.
 
Alright I didn't read the whole thread, I just couldn't take it anymore. It's like running on a treadmill.

I like science. I find it interesting and powerful so I understand why everyone wants to explain to Question ("No Answers" would be a better name) the glut of evidence for gravity.

He is just trying to prove a point to somebody that NOTHING is knowable for sure because he seems to think that:

"Well gravity can't be proven if I do enough verbal gymnastics. Those heathen atheists/agnostics must be doing the same when it comes to the subject of the big G-O-D".

Unfortunately, Question is wrong. Gravity is merely a word to describe observed events. Question knows full well that gravity is predictable and has in the past forcast all kinds of events (both celestial and here on earth). If he doesn't know this...well I am impressed he can work a computer.

Could gravity as we know it stop working right now? Maybe. I wouldn't bet on it. Everything I believe could be wrong. At least I came to the best conclusion based on the evidence. A belief in God doesn't seem to work this way.

Instead of trying to show Question what he already knows. I think he should show what PRECISELY what belief in God has predicted. Surely an all powerful being can predict the next solar eclipse. Oh wait religion NEVER did that.

Of course if an all powerful being exists I don't see why it couldn't be a deist god that watches the earth like his own personal TV.

This entire post assumes you are not a troll. I really hate trolls. If you are a troll...I hate you.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Alright I didn't read the whole thread, I just couldn't take it anymore. It's like running on a treadmill.

I like science. I find it interesting and powerful so I understand why everyone wants to explain to Question ("No Answers" would be a better name) the glut of evidence for gravity.

He is just trying to prove a point to somebody that NOTHING is knowable for sure because he seems to think that:

"Well gravity can't be proven if I do enough verbal gymnastics. Those heathen atheists/agnostics must be doing the same when it comes to the subject of the big G-O-D".

Unfortunately, Question is wrong. Gravity is merely a word to describe observed events. Question knows full well that gravity is predictable and has in the past forcast all kinds of events (both celestial and here on earth). If he doesn't know this...well I am impressed he can work a computer.

Could gravity as we know it stop working right now? Maybe. I wouldn't bet on it. Everything I believe could be wrong. At least I came to the best conclusion based on the evidence. A belief in God doesn't seem to work this way.

Instead of trying to show Question what he already knows. I think he should show what PRECISELY what belief in God has predicted. Surely an all powerful being can predict the next solar eclipse. Oh wait religion NEVER did that.

Of course if an all powerful being exists I don't see why it couldn't be a deist god that watches the earth like his own personal TV.

This entire post assumes you are not a troll. I really hate trolls. If you are a troll...I hate you.
Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that the gravitationalist argument is so weak that the poster feels the need to attempt to distract from the topic at hand by bringing up a discussion of religion and philosophy. I would suggest that if "KingMerv00" wishes to discuss religion and philosophy, he start up a new thread in the forum dedicated to that very purpose, and not harass the good, honest, moral folks who are avidly watching the gravitationalists' complete and utter inability to defend their very weak position, which these cultists nevertheless feel obliged to shove down the throat of every impressionable child within the confines of their public schools.
 
Beleth said:
Not at all. I have to select a balloon which is acceptable to both of us. We have already decided that "a helium balloon" is descriptive enough to satisfy us both. I plan on using "a helium balloon" to perform this test. If you need to be more specific, you need to specify what you need.

Of course not. You wouldn't accept a balloon that wasn't filled with helium, so I will use a balloon that is filled with helium.

What's the matter? Don't think that your theory will stand up to the test you have agreed to?

You also still haven't answered my question about the videotape. I wasn't able to perform the test over the weekend because of that.
Click to expand...

A helium balloon must be chosen that actually flies before you put it in the vacuum chamber. And there will be no taking helium out of the balloon, either, to make it not fly. No tampering with the baloon!

You ask about whether I would require you videotape your experiment for me to accept it as proof of gravity. Might I remind you that there is no way to prove a scientific theory, and, furthermore, gravity is obviously falsified by birds and balloons and clouds and all number of other things, and gravitationalists won't stop teaching their theories in public schools. So if you expect the critics of gravitation to suddenly disappear based on the results of a single experiment, you are mistaken. Your experiment, in the unlikely event that it turns out the way you expect, will only be a single sandbag against the incoming waters of Truth and Freedom. Of course, I believe you have already done your experiment, it has failed, and you are covering it up just like countless gravitationalists before you.
 
Question said:
It is interesting to note that the gravitationalist argument is so weak that the poster feels the need to attempt to distract from the topic at hand by bringing up a discussion of religion and philosophy. I would suggest that if "KingMerv00" wishes to discuss religion and philosophy, he start up a new thread in the forum dedicated to that very purpose, and not harass the good, honest, moral folks who are avidly watching the gravitationalists' complete and utter inability to defend their very weak position, which these cultists nevertheless feel obliged to shove down the throat of every impressionable child within the confines of their public schools.
Click to expand...

Wow you sure are smart...and annoying.

Seriously, you are a troll right? I mean you couldn't ACTUALLY be this dense.

I'm sure this post will be followed by another post from question about how I still haven't shown gravity to exist. Yawn.

Hey if gravity didn't exist. I would go colonize my own troll-free planet.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Wow you sure are smart...and annoying.

Seriously, you are a troll right? I mean you couldn't ACTUALLY be this dense.

I'm sure this post will be followed by another post from question about how I still haven't shown gravity to exist. Yawn.

Hey if gravity didn't exist. I would go colonize my own troll-free planet.
Click to expand...

Merv, you'll learn that in this animal park, there are some beasts that you simply walk on past.

Question is one of those chimps who sits and laughs at its own cleverness as the poo goes flying. If this post was really about the existence of gravity, it might be interesting. Instead, it's like a stroll through a zoo just to watch the monkeys fight.

I suggest you find a good debate between some people who are really out to learn something.

(BTW, this post has some merit in Beleth's patient demonstration of how to construct a valid scientific experiment. Otherwise I'd be ignoring it. It is only slightly marred by the poo-stained ape sitting in the corner of the cage).

Athon
 
Question said:
A helium balloon must be chosen that actually flies before you put it in the vacuum chamber. And there will be no taking helium out of the balloon, either, to make it not fly. No tampering with the baloon!
Click to expand...
Of course. An experiment that relies on trickery such as the acts you mention is not a valid scientific experiment, so I will not be using trickery.


You ask about whether I would require you videotape your experiment for me to accept it as proof of gravity.
Click to expand...
No, I do not.

I ask you whether a videotaped experiment would convince you of the existence of gravity.

I'm not trying to prove anything, because, as you say, scientific theories can never be truly "proven". All I'm trying to do is convince you.


Of course, I believe you have already done your experiment, it has failed, and you are covering it up just like countless gravitationalists before you.
Click to expand...
Likewise, I believe that you already know that a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber will drop to the bottom of the chamber, and that the post I am replying to is mere grandstanding.

But what you and I believe about each other is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is the answer to this question:
Will a videotape of a balloon full of helium falling to the bottom of a vacuum chamber convince you that gravity exists, or not?
 
Beleth said:
The only thing that is relevant is the answer to this question:
Will a videotape of a balloon full of helium falling to the bottom of a vacuum chamber convince you that gravity exists, or not?
Click to expand...

You don't have a videotape of a balloon full of helium, that flew in air, falling to the bottom of a vacuum chamber. Even if you did, I would first have to examine it for evidence of forgery before it would be convincing in the slightest. It might be more convincing if you didn't take so long to make the tape. Because everyone knows you're busy trying to figure out how to convincingly fake this thing.

Hell, I bet you don't have a legitimate videotape of something falling at all. And you expect the taxpayers to continue forking over their hard-earned money to the gravitationalists? No, your scam will soon come to an end.
 
athon said:
Merv, you'll learn that in this animal park, there are some beasts that you simply walk on past.

Question is one of those chimps who sits and laughs at its own cleverness as the poo goes flying. If this post was really about the existence of gravity, it might be interesting. Instead, it's like a stroll through a zoo just to watch the monkeys fight.

I suggest you find a good debate between some people who are really out to learn something.

(BTW, this post has some merit in Beleth's patient demonstration of how to construct a valid scientific experiment. Otherwise I'd be ignoring it. It is only slightly marred by the poo-stained ape sitting in the corner of the cage).

Athon
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note that "athon" thinks he is clever in, instead of addressing the gestalt of my posts, flinging potty-mouth insults and engaging in childlike name-calling.
 
Originally posted by Question
Originally posted by BelethThe only thing that is relevant is the answer to this question:
Will a videotape of a balloon full of helium falling to the bottom of a vacuum chamber convince you that gravity exists, or not?
Click to expand...
You don't have a videotape of a balloon full of helium, that flew in air, falling to the bottom of a vacuum chamber. Even if you did, I would first have to examine it for evidence of forgery before it would be convincing in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I will take that as a "no."

Congratulations! The proper answer is indeed "no." A videotape of an event should never convince a proper skeptic.

Unfortunately, this means we are back to square one, i.e. the question "what would convince you that gravity exists?"... and I have no reason to think that going down this path with you a second time will yield any better results than the first time did.

I therefore conclude that either you are lying when you say "gravity doesn't exist", or that nothing I can provide you would convince you that gravity exists. I must therefore resignedly leave you to your lies or your ignorance, whichever the case may be.


It might be more convincing if you didn't take so long to make the tape. Because everyone knows you're busy trying to figure out how to convincingly fake this thing.
Click to expand...
Since I have fully explained the reason for the delay every time a delay occurred, and the reasons have always been due to your delay in answering a question, I see no reason to dignify this preposterous accusation with anything beyond this sentence.


Hell, I bet you don't have a legitimate videotape of something falling at all.
Click to expand...
Really?
You bet me?
You're on.
I bet you $10,000 that I have a legitimate videotape of something falling.


And you expect the taxpayers to continue forking over their hard-earned money to the gravitationalists? No, your scam will soon come to an end.
Click to expand...
I'd ask you "what are you raving about?" but you know what? I don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom