johnydon22:
Gravity is an effect not an uncaused value as Uyil would have us believe - well let's wait for his own idea on the causality of gravity ..

Right after you tell me your idea on the causality of space. I mean if you even look at Einstein's posit it lacked imagination. It all goes back very predictably to matter. Gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time by mass. Didn't Newton say gravity was an attractive force between masses? But then again sometimes it is said the Big Bang caused space. One of the more idiotic claims I've seen.

johnydon22:

again i would suggest you both try not to turn this into something personal by using insutive words and persoanl remarks - we may all be wrong still

Insults are necessary attimes to pass one's opinions.

wiegraf:


Once again, space has properties. Gravity, or its curvature, is one of such properties.

Let me try another approach. Do you think space is material?

wiegraf:

What in the world do you mean by the bolded?

Space is infinite unlike matter.

wiegraf:

And because an object has dimensions, that means its container cannot posses dimensions?

No. Dimensions apply quite differently to space and matter. Dimensions in a material are constrained to areas. This is not the case for space.

wiegraf:

Wow. So because you can see photons, that makes them real, lol.

Certainly. This is different from illusions though.

wiegraf:

What about the other particles that can be detected via other means but are not on the visual spectrum, like that Higgs Boson that was recently observed, it doesn't exist? It didn't exist before it was detected??

You don't need to go that far. Infared waves and radio waves are photons that are invisible given the frequencies at which they move. So sure, bosons just as with some photons and other matter are invisible but exist.

wiegraf:

Kayi...

He also said was instantaneous, this has already been proven false.

It also doesn't account for various other effects, effects I am tired of listing.

Okay.

wiegraf:

Now, you've been provided with evidence after evidence after evidence, and your reply is to hand wave it away because you can't see it.

Nice going

What 'evidence after evidence'? You only presented dimensions and I showed why that doesn't prove your point. You need to present more as physical things have several physical properties.

LightningLord:


wiegraf here, the ban bot is doing its thing, so I'm going to limit the amount of links in this post.

Okay.

LightningLord:

No be today me and am don start dis talk

Sure.

LightningLord:

https://www.nairaland.com/1420738/how-prove-atheist-god-exists/14

https://www.nairaland.com/1325844/used-respect-deism....until-met-deists/1

And others...

Yeah.

LightningLord:

To save you the trouble involved in reading through all that, here's an answer to the bolded



And



To be fair, he's come a long way from claiming consciousness was imbued in us by god via telekinesis

I have not deviated from that view. Recall that I said that telekinesis doesn't even properly put it. But I was wrong to say that space is God. That's like saying a square is a circle. They are two different things. I didn't articulate myself well there. I will do so when chanced in the future.

LightningLord:

And other such highlights.

Goot times! Though methinks I've spent a little too much time here, but meh

Yeah.

All these arguments tire me.

First we have the guy who claims gravity is a hoax because the earth is flat, and then we have the other guy who claims that space is immaterial because a force permeates the universe.

It's pretty obvious that attempting to argue with any of them is equivalent to attempting to score in a fast moving goalpost. Anyway, for the sake of any impressionable minds that stumble on this thread.

1. Gravity is NOT a hoax. gravity is simply the force of attraction between objects that have mass in space. and you can verify that gravity exists by carrying a bag of cement and feeling how the earth desperately pulls the bag towards itself.

2. Space is neither material nor immaterial. Space is a unique object. The analogy used in the video describes how space behaves under the influence of gravity. space behaves quite differently in other situations. Any argument as to whether space is material or not is inconsequential because that is simply trying to fit space into already made definitions which in future, lead to errors. A way to think of space, is the grid on a graph paper. it's neither a point, nor a blank sheet. It just is.

3. Objects in space "float" because there is nothing to cause the otherwise behavior. Newton's first law states this clearly and unequivocally. "An object in space will remain stationary or move in a straight line unless a force is applied."

Of course, you could ask, Why do they remain stationary? why don't they move in haphazard movement? well, I could as well ask you, why should they? why would an object move without the application of a force?

In the end, the anthropic principle calms a lot of hearts. it states quite convieniently that; "Every law and principle that exists does so to allow sentient beings to observe them." in other words, Every law that exists works together to enable a universe that can generate life, which can then observe these laws.

any question beyond this is philosophy.

Teempakguy, Without gravity, what would have happen to the bag of cement?

Teempakguy:
All these arguments tire me.

Sure. Your own sef worse pass.

Teempakguy:

First we have the guy who claims gravity is a hoax because the earth is flat, and then we have the other guy who claims that space is immaterial because a force permeates the universe.

You apparently have reading problems. I never said space is immaterial because of a force. That force was brought up as a possible explanation for why the universe is suspended in space.

Teempakguy:

It's pretty obvious that attempting to argue with any of them is equivalent to attempting to score in a fast moving goalpost. Anyway, for the sake of any impressionable minds that stumble on this thread.

Trying to argue with the likes of you is akin to reasoning with a stone.

Teempakguy:

1. Gravity is NOT a hoax. gravity is simply the force of attraction between objects that have mass in space. and you can verify that gravity exists by carrying a bag of cement and feeling how the earth desperately pulls the bag towards itself.

Okay.

Teempakguy:

2. Space is neither material nor immaterial. Space is a unique object. The analogy used in the video describes how space behaves under the influence of gravity. space behaves quite differently in other situations. Any argument as to whether space is material or not is inconsequential because that is simply trying to fit space into already made definitions which in future, lead to errors. A way to think of space, is the grid on a graph paper. it's neither a point, nor a blank sheet. It just is.

The grid on a graph paper is rectangular and constituted by small squares, it is geometrical. Space is not. Your answer is asinine given the fact that substances are either material or not.

Teempakguy:

3. Objects in space "float" because there is nothing to cause the otherwise behavior. Newton's first law states this clearly and unequivocally. "An object in space will remain stationary or move in a straight line unless a force is applied."

You didn't even state Newton's first law well.Neither have you explained how objects are suspended in space.

Teempakguy:

Of course, you could ask, Why do they remain stationary? why don't they move in haphazard movement? well, I could as well ask you, why should they? why would an object move without the application of a force?

Who said they remain stationary? Of course they move, the question is how they can remain suspended in empty space with no support underneath.

Teempakguy:

In the end, the anthropic principle calms a lot of hearts. it states quite convieniently that; "Every law and principle that exists does so to allow sentient beings to observe them." in other words, Every law that exists works together to enable a universe that can generate life, which can then observe these laws.

Laws and principles are human concepts about the universe around them. These concepts may be true or false. They lack causal power and independent existence as with other abstract concepts like beauty and justice.

Teempakguy:

any question beyond this is philosophy.

I disagree.

UyiIredia:


Sure. Your own sef worse pass.



You apparently have reading problems. I never said space is immaterial because of a force. That force was brought up as a possible explanation for why the universe is suspended in space.



Trying to argue with the likes of you is akin to reasoning with a stone.



Okay.



The grid on a graph paper is rectangular and constituted by small squares, it is geometrical. Space is not. Your answer is asinine given the fact that substances are either material or not.



You didn't even state Newton's first law well.Neither have you explained how objects are suspended in space.



Who said they remain stationary? Of course they move, the question is how they can remain suspended in empty space with no support underneath.



Laws and principles are human concepts about the universe around them. These concepts may be true or false. They lack causal power and independent existence as with other abstract concepts like beauty and justice.



I disagree.

in the beginning of the year, I made a resolution to refrain from blind arguments this year and beyond. this is a blind argument. I therefore refrain. believe what you will.

Dawdy:
Teempakguy, Without gravity, what would have happen to the bag of cement?

if there was no gravity, if you tried to lift a bag of cement, it would just go up forever unless you pulled it down. if you could get the bag to finally stop moving, it would remain suspended there forever. alternatively. you could just rotate the bag and it will rotate forever.

in fact, without gravity, there will be no up or down. the entire reason we can sense 'up' or 'down' is our senses and brain calculate our orientation in a gravitational field. without gravity, you wouldn't even know where up or down was. hence, carrying a bag of cement would be pointless for obvious reasons.

Teempakguy:


in fact, without gravity, there will be no up or down. the entire reason we can sense 'up' or 'down' is our senses and brain calculate our orientation in a gravitational field. without gravity, you wouldn't even know where up or down was. hence, carrying a bag of cement would be pointless for obvious reasons.

In space there is no up or Down left or right so are you trying to say that there is no gravity in space?

I Love the Analogy used in that video to explain how gravity affects Objects in space

FSMs:

In space there is no up or Down left or right so are you trying to say that there is no gravity in space?

gravity is an inverse square law. so it doesn't completely disappear in space. however, the effect is so small that it is basically insignificant.

Teempakguy:
gravity is an inverse square law. so it doesn't completely disappear in space. however, the effect is so small that it is basically insignificant.

The effect of gravity in space is not insignificant, Gravity tends to Attracts Object together the Earth feels a gravitational Pull from the Sun, Big object tends to pull smaller object to itself and there is another Force called centrifugal force that tends to prevent the Earth from from being eaten by the Sun. If you should switch of centrifugal FORCE i dont think you would make that statement @bolded In fact there wont be time for you to even make it.

FSMs:

The effect of gravity in space is not insignificant, Gravity tends to Attracts Object together the Earth feels a gravitational Pull from the Sun, Big object tends to pull smaller object to itself and there is another Force called centrifugal force that tends to prevent the Earth from from being eaten by the Sun. If you should switch of centrifugal FORCE i dont think you would make that statement @bolded In fact there wont be time for you to even make it.

the context in which you presented your question made me believe you were talking about interstellar space. but anyway, gravity is a variant force that depends on two bodies. if the second body is you, then in space, hardly any gravity acts on you. simply because you have small mass.

Teempakguy:
the context in which you presented your question made me believe you were talking about interstellar space.

ok

Teempakguy:
if there was no gravity, if you tried to lift a bag of cement, it would just go up forever unless you pulled it down. if you could get the bag to finally stop moving, it would remain suspended there forever. alternatively. you could just rotate the bag and it will rotate forever.

in fact, without gravity, there will be no up or down. the entire reason we can sense 'up' or 'down' is our senses and brain calculate our orientation in a gravitational field. without gravity, you wouldn't even know where up or down was. hence, carrying a bag of cement would be pointless for obvious reasons.

you said without gravity things would be floating around, what Force would be responsible for float of things? Second, is gravity a force or a curvature of space?

Dawdy:
you said without gravity things would be floating around, what Force would be responsible for float of things? Second, is gravity a force or a curvature of space?

no, I did NOT say that things will be floating around in space. I clearly added quotation marks the only time I did mention it to signify that the 'floating' was just a false interpretation of what is happening. objects in space do not float. they do only three things;

1. remain stationary
2. move in a straight line
3. accelerate in the direction of an interacting force.

*note that sometimes they rotate around a fixed point. but that's beside the point. we're speaking in terms of translatory motion.

*note also the bolded word. it is key to everything.

if any object is not displaying either 1 or 2, but instead three, then a force is involved. however, if it is doing either 1 or 2, that means there is no force. so, yo answer your question, objects "float" in space precisely because there is no force acting on them. so, your question of "which force is responsible" is absurd because the only reason they are even "floating" is because NO force is acting on them.


Secondly, forces come in different forms. forces are literally defined as "that which, when unopposed, tends to change the motion of a body in space"
so yeah, even a curvature in space qualifies as a force as long as it fits the definition. in short, gravity is a curvature of space. And it is also a force.


you're f****** welcome.

Teempakguy:
no, I did NOT say that things will be floating around in space. I clearly added quotation marks the only time I did mention it to signify that the 'floating' was just a false interpretation of what is happening. objects in space do not float. they do only three things;

1. remain stationary
2. move in a straight line
3. accelerate in the direction of an interacting force.

*note that sometimes they rotate around a fixed point. but that's beside the point. we're speaking in terms of translatory motion.

*note also the bolded word. it is key to everything.

if any object is not displaying either 1 or 2, but instead three, then a force is involved. however, if it is doing either 1 or 2, that means there is no force. so, yo answer your question, objects "float" in space precisely because there is no force acting on them. so, your question of "which force is responsible" is absurd because the only reason they are even "floating" is because NO force is acting on them.


Secondly, forces come in different forms. forces are literally defined as "that which, when unopposed, tends to change the motion of a body in space"
so yeah, even a curvature in space qualifies as a force as long as it fits the definition. in short, gravity is a curvature of space. And it is also a force.


you're f****** welcome.

If I get you right, how force of gravity works is not about Mass is attracting mass over a distance. Instead, it's curving spacetime.

"hang in space with no support underneath"

Methinks uyi visualises space, the cosmos and the whole universe as a giant slab, carried and being supported under the back of a giant turtle or whatnot.... (damn Stephen king and It).

Of course the question then will be, why is that force hanging in...nothingness?? With no force underneath it


At the end of it, we get an infinite regress of turtles.....

Dawdy:

If I get you right, how force of gravity works is not about Mass is attracting mass over a distance. Instead, it's curving spacetime.

you're not getting me at all, are you? okay, let me type this is upper case for clearer empahsis. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT. the first is the result, and the second is the method. meanwhile, gravity doesn't curve spacetime, gravity IS the curvature. instead, matter curves spacetime. this curve, called gravity then causes all other mass in the vicinity to be attracted to each other. lobatan.

another example is electromagnetism. which works by transfer of protons. you can't say something like: "oh, so the way electromagnetism works is not by unlike poles being attracted, but an exchange of photons." duh,

SirWere:
"hang in space with no support underneath"

Methinks uyi visualises space, the cosmos and the whole universe as a giant slab, carried and being supported under the back of a giant turtle or whatnot.... (damn Stephen king and It).

Of course the question then will be, why is that force hanging in...nothingness?? With no force underneath it


At the end of it, we get an infinite regress of turtles.....

that is the consequence of poor spatial reasoning.

Teempakguy:
that is the consequence of poor spatial reasoning.

.

Teempakguy:
you're not getting me at all, are you? okay, let me type this is upper case for clearer empahsis. BOTH STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT. the first is the result, and the second is the method. meanwhile, gravity doesn't curve spacetime, gravity IS the curvature. instead, matter curves spacetime. this curve, called gravity then causes all other mass in the vicinity to be attracted to each other. lobatan.

another example is electromagnetism. which works by transfer of protons. you can't say something like: "oh, so the way electromagnetism works is not by unlike poles being attracted, but an exchange of photons." duh,

pleas enlighten me more. How does the presence of matter curve space? I want to know how?

Teempakguy:
that is the consequence of poor spatial reasoning.

Definitely agree to that.
It's an embarassing gaffe. He is claiming space is immaterial with no properties yet giving it geometric dimensions like orientation (upward and downward).

How can you say Space is not geometrical yet in the same breadth, ask for a force supporting it from below .

Dawdy:

pleas enlighten me more. How does the presence of matter curve space? I want to know how?

It's easy to ask this question. it's difficult to understand the answer.

the short form is that energy and spacetime geometry are intrinsically related(as in, it's a property of space. just like elasticity is a property of rubber bands. ) and a change in one affects the other.

now, since matter has mass, and mass contains energy, as in E = mc^2, the presence of matter in space affects the energy content of the local space and therefore causes curvature.

Teempakguy:
It's easy to ask this question. it's difficult to understand the answer.

the short form is that energy and spacetime geometry are intrinsically related(as in, it's a property of space. just like elasticity is a property of rubber bands. ) and a change in one affects the other.

now, since matter has mass, and mass contains energy, as in E = mc^2, the presence of matter in space affects the energy content of the local space and therefore causes curvature.

when all is said and done, gravity remains unproven theory. No fact attached to it.

Dawdy:

when all is said and done, gravity remains unproven theory. No fact attached to it.

;DAfter all the explaination given, you still say this nonsense.

Ha! Talk about wasted effort!!

SirWere:
;DAfter all the explaination given, you still say this nonsense.

Ha! Talk about wasted effort!!

Are you saying anyone has proven gravity? Who? Where? When? And how? It is mere theory. That is the fact.

Dawdy:
Are you saying anyone has proven gravity? Who? Where? When? And how? It is mere theory. That is the fact.

For god's sake, how many times will people mistake the meaning of theory in science??

For Bleep sake, what other "proof" do you want

Dawdy:

when all is said and done, gravity remains unproven theory. No fact attached to it.

okay, alright. mind telling us what actually happens when things that go up fall down?

SirWere:
;DAfter all the explaination given, you still say this nonsense.

Ha! Talk about wasted effort!!

I know, right?

I just tire.

Teempakguy:
okay, alright. mind telling us what actually happens when things that go up fall down?

The first thing you must understand, is that our air is fluid, just like water "Fact" not a theory.

There is the force of Buoyancy. It goes in 2 directions. Up and Down. People think that buoyancy only lifts things, but it’s the same force pushes things down as well

Density is the value that determines how much force an object should push away from other objects. air and water are fluids with 2 different densities, so they desire to be separate.

If you put helium into a balloon, why does it rise? If our air is fluid, then science says that it is bouyant force. It will rise until it reaches a level where the air is of equal density. then it will stop rising.

But. what if you breathe air into a balloon and place it under water. it will rise until it reaches the surface. There it will stop rising. Was it anti gravitational for a moment? No.. because the air inside the balloon and the air above the water are the same density.

Fill that balloon with water and it will force itself below the surface, because the density value says it must. Fill it with sand it will sink even further and faster.

We are dense compared to the air around us, so we are forced down just like a cement balloon under water. The ground stops us from going further.

Dawdy:

The first thing you must understand, is that our air is fluid, just like water "Fact" not a theory.

There is the force of Buoyancy. It goes in 2 directions. Up and Down. People think that buoyancy only lifts things, but it’s the same force pushes things down as well

Density is the value that determines how much force an object should push away from other objects. air and water are fluids with 2 different densities, so they desire to be separate.

If you put helium into a balloon, why does it rise? If our air is fluid, then science says that it is bouyant force. It will rise until it reaches a level where the air is of equal density. then it will stop rising.

But. what if you breathe air into a balloon and place it under water. it will rise until it reaches the surface. There it will stop rising. Was it anti gravitational for a moment? No.. because the air inside the balloon and the air above the water are the same density.

Fill that balloon with water and it will force itself below the surface, because the density value says it must. Fill it with sand it will sink even further and faster.

We are dense compared to the air around us, so we are forced down just like a cement balloon under water. The ground stops us from going further.

Right, so the density of objects determines how much "force of bouyancy" they experience. alright, then naturally the following statements would be correct.

1. A ball of tungsten, which is dense, falls at a faster rate than a ball of aluminum.

2. in a near vacuum, objects fall significantly faster than they do in normal atmosphere.

3, a piece of flat paper and crumbled paper fall to the ground at the same speed because they have the same density.

4. if you remove all the air in a tube, any object placed in this tube will float around because there is no air to apply "force of bouyancy" in either direction.

5. potential energy can be defined as a function of BOTH height, density of the material, and density of the air around it. therefore, in high space, objects have less potential energy because the less dense atmosphere.



Mr, dawdy, is this the case in reality?