Science - The Amazing Derivitive manifesting The Creator

sytalls

My oh my, StopS, you do like to bait, don't you?

The definition of gravity has changed since Newton's time, and most people do not know that. While the mathematical laws are definitely still used (and I said so), they are outdated when it comes to how we "view" gravity since Einstein.

While I agree the speaker shouldn't address physics until he knows more about what he's talking about, I don't see how that had anything to do with methodology. He got his names and facts wrong by overreaching. As for evolution, the biologists seem to enjoy tinkering around with that. Other than a mild curiosity, it doesn't really hold much interest for me, and it's not my area of expertise.

Please note that I put "magic" in quotation marks. I do so because I'm not so sure that what was seen as magic, long ago, might not have been better scientific understanding by those deemed magicians. If a particle physicist could travel back in time and talk to Isaac Newton, the former might accuse the latter of believing in fairy tales. Given the level of technology in Newton's time, it would be impossible to recreate lab situations to support theories in quantum mechanics.

StopS

You are claiming here very clearly that he stated that humans evolved from monkeys. I call that bullshit. He said it in minute 31 as in reciting what other said. He never claimed it himself. You just proved youself that you are ignorant, biased and incapable of comprehending langustic expressions.

Well, I suggest you go and listen again to what he says. He does not "recite" anywhere. He says verbatim

"The proof of intelligence is in the DNA.
One of the proofs of intelligence is language.
See, we're intelligent beings. In fact, when they did studies on monkeys and apes, they found out how intelligent are the apes.
How did we come from them?
What's that missing link between us?"

So, no, he does not quote and say "this is what they found in a study How did we...."
No, he said it all by himself. I would challenge anyone to bring a study on how humans come from apes or monkeys. Only uneducated bigots would look into that. The same goes for a "missing link" between apes and humans". Oh boy, when will this idiocy stop?

And again you fail at providing some positive and constructive input show me something that is accurate and correct in his speech.
All you can do is criticize and whine.

Anything else you need to find that is outright wrong and idiotic in this rant of his?

StopS

My oh my, StopS, you do like to bait, don't you?

The definition of gravity has changed since Newton's time, and most people do not know that. While the mathematical laws are definitely still used (and I said so), they are outdated when it comes to how we "view" gravity since Einstein.

While I agree the speaker shouldn't address physics until he knows more about what he's talking about, I don't see how that had anything to do with methodology. He got his names and facts wrong by overreaching. As for evolution, the biologists seem to enjoy tinkering around with that. Other than a mild curiosity, it doesn't really hold much interest for me, and it's not my area of expertise.

Please note that I put "magic" in quotation marks. I do so because I'm not so sure that what was seen as magic, long ago, might not have been better scientific understanding by those deemed magicians. If a particle physicist could travel back in time and talk to Isaac Newton, the former might accuse the latter of believing in fairy tales. Given the level of technology in Newton's time, it would be impossible to recreate lab situations to support theories in quantum mechanics.

Oh dear, no, the definition of gravity has not changed. We have added information and knowledge, which is why the definition of gravity has been enhanced.

Again no! We "view" gravity the same way we did at the time of Newton. Newton explained gravity here on Earth and this is still as correct as the day he defined it.
What he could not do is define gravity on a large scale in the Universe. That is where Einstein came in. But his theories don't apply and break down when it comes to cosmogony, black holes or the very small. That's why we have Quantum level physics and we don't have anything for black holes yet.

And another very definitive and huge NO! Biologists, or rather evolutionary biologists are NOT I repeat NOT "tinkering" with evolution! Evolution happens and continues regardless of whether we are able to provide the correct explanation.

"The speaker" as you so kindly and generously call him, gets EVERYTHING wrong. There is nothing correct in the later 20 minutes of his speech. Nothing that I heard was correct. If someone provides a transcript I'm happy to go through it line by line and point out what the errors are and why they are wrong.

sytalls

The definition of gravity is not merely "enhanced," it changed with the General Theory of Relativity. Newton's law of gravity deals with a gravitational force, and it's "close enough for government work," even the governmental work of launching something into space. However, it most definitely differs from the way General Relativity describes gravity.

You don't need to tell me what quantum mechanics are used for. I've taken my steps on the Heaviside...and beyond.

StopS

The definition of gravity is not merely "enhanced," it changed with the General Theory of Relativity. Newton's law of gravity deals with a gravitational force, and it's "close enough for government work," even the governmental work of launching something into space. However, it most definitely differs from the way General Relativity describes gravity.

You don't need to tell me what quantum mechanics are used for. I've taken my steps on the Heaviside...and beyond.

Are we splitting hairs here or where is the problem?

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

Has this been shown to be wrong or valid? Has this been changed?

If you go to Wikipedia you get the formula for this

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ ,

where

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

Is this still valid here on this planet?

I agree with you that this breaks down with larger masses, distances and precise timing. So what has changed is the calculation basis when dealing with processes and objects outside of our immediate planet. That's where we need the calculations based on Einstein's general theory. So how has Einstein changed the definition of gravity here on Earth?

sytalls

We're not splitting hairs.

Newton's law does not "break down" with larger masses. You can use it all the way to the ort cloud if you want. The problem is accuracy in predicted outcomes or measurements, as well as with too much being unexplained in terms of identifying the actual force.

You don't need to quote Wikistuff to tell me a law that is part of my DNA (mixing bio and physics again). To clarify that definition a little more...the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, multiplied times G (a gravitational constant). The acceleration of any object due to the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s(2). In the fundamental equation of F=ma, you get F=mg (g is the acceleration due to gravity).

I'm telling you that to save you some time in looking things up.

These equations and the more complicated versions that take into account other forces and relative positions and all...they are still used. I've said so all along. Classical mechanics is alive and well and in use and certainly has its honored place among laws that we definitely still rely on.

But, yes, to answer your question, the way we define gravity did change with General Relativity, where gravity is an outcome or consequence of the curve of space-time and our perceptions of what we feel as a "force." Newton could not explain where this force came from. He could measure it, use it and develop a law, but he couldn't fully explain what it was the way he could with other forces--in terms of mass, momentum, energy and so on.

Those physicists seeking to continue Einstein's work and find a unified field theory (to connect relativity and quantum physics) want to find the graviton, which is a theoretical particle. And this is where string theory comes in, as part of the effort of trying to develop a theory for quantum gravity.

If you want to hang a swing from a tree, you're fine using Newton's law of gravity to determine how strong the branch and rope need to be, so that you don't fall to the ground as you swing to and fro. But if you want to give an accurate definition of gravity, then you can't stop with Newton's equation, because it is incomplete in saying what the force of gravity actually is.

And this is what I was saying before...people think that's there is some unseen force, which they call "gravity," which is keeping their feet planted on the ground. They accept it, because they perceive their world that way and somebody told them, "You are being held to the earth by the force of gravity." They accept it because it's good enough for them; it works for them. The scientific mind can't accept it, because there is something unexplained...and that just won't do.

StopS