The appearance of Gravity

In fairness, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

How can you know that if you refuse to use any more precise measurement devices?

Gravimeters are designed by humans, and therefore are subject to human flaws. By contrast, my own senses have developed through natural selection as the best possible mechanism for the job. If gravimeters are telling me something which conflicts with my senses, it is more likely the gravimeter is wrong.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 15, 2010, 01:38:23 PM

How can you know that if you refuse to use any more precise measurement devices?

Gravimeters are designed by humans, and therefore are subject to human flaws. By contrast, my own senses have developed through natural selection as the best possible mechanism for the job. If gravimeters are telling me something which conflicts with my senses, it is more likely the gravimeter is wrong.

Yes, we all know that sensory illusions can't happen, right Steve? 

Yes, we all know that sensory illusions can't happen, right Steve? 

Exactly.

As soon as your body evolves enough to detect variations in gravity of .01 m/s², I look forward to your measurements.

In fairness, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Suppression of evidence is not evidence of absence either. Parsifal used to be funnyierer.

As soon as your body evolves enough to detect variations in gravity of .01 m/s², I look forward to your measurements.

3", right? Oh, did you want his other measurements.  My bad.

I am astounded by the RE "logic" in this matter. The REers are claiming that because something cannot be measured, it therefore must exist. This is analogous to claiming that because we can't see the far side of the Moon, there must be little green men running around on it.

I am astounded by the RE "logic" in this matter. The REers are claiming that because something cannot be measured, it therefore must exist. This is analogous to claiming that because we can't see the far side of the Moon, there must be little green men running around on it.

Ummm... No.  We are claiming that subtle variations in earth's gravitational field can be measured, just not by the human body.  But you already knew that, didn't you Steve?

Ummm... No.  We are claiming that subtle variations in earth's gravitational field can be measured, just not by the human body.  But you already knew that, didn't you Steve?

As I've already said, I'm disinclined to trust a measuring device which contradicts my own sensory perception.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 08:04:58 AM

Ummm... No.  We are claiming that subtle variations in earth's gravitational field can be measured, just not by the human body.  But you already knew that, didn't you Steve?

As I've already said, I'm disinclined to trust a measuring device which contradicts my own sensory perception.

Your disinclination is irrelevant to the inadequacy of using your senses for precise scientific measurement.

Your disinclination is irrelevant to the inadequacy of using your senses for precise scientific measurement.

What reason do I have to be confident that the variance being measured by a gravimeter is true variance in gravitational field strength, and not measurement error?

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 08:11:41 AM

Your disinclination is irrelevant to the inadequacy of using your senses for precise scientific measurement.

What reason do I have to be confident that the variance being measured by a gravimeter is true variance in gravitational field strength, and not measurement error?

*sigh*  There are two simple ways to measure your local gravitational field.  One is to use a high precision scale to measure the weight of a known mass.  The other way is to precisely time a falling object (preferably in a vacuum) for a known distance.  You should be clever enough to design your own equipment to make your own measurements.

The REers are claiming that because something is measured, it therefore must exist.

Fixed. Also, you should go on TV or something. I'm sure there's a Saturday night gameshow which needs people that can calculate the current strength of gravity to 5 decimal places.

*sigh*  There are two simple ways to measure your local gravitational field.  One is to use a high precision scale to measure the weight of a known mass.  The other way is to precisely time a falling object (preferably in a vacuum) for a known distance.  You should be clever enough to design your own equipment to make your own measurements.

No measuring device is perfect.

No measuring device is perfect.

No one said it was.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 08:51:23 AM

*sigh*  There are two simple ways to measure your local gravitational field.  One is to use a high precision scale to measure the weight of a known mass.  The other way is to precisely time a falling object (preferably in a vacuum) for a known distance.  You should be clever enough to design your own equipment to make your own measurements.

No measuring device is perfect.

Who said that it needs to be perfect?

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:22:31 AM

No measuring device is perfect.

No one said it was.

Just more precise and reliable than the human senses.

Who said that it needs to be perfect?

If it isn't perfect, then it is subject to error, and therefore should not be trusted absolutely. Thence, to determine which measuring technique we should rely upon, we must turn to an analysis as to how rigorously tested available techniques are. Any device designed by humans based on a 400 year old understanding of mechanics is far lesser tested than an evolutionary trait developed over hundreds of millions of years.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 10:16:40 AM

Who said that it needs to be perfect?

If it isn't perfect, then it is subject to error, and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

Your senses are not perfect either and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

Your senses are not perfect either and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

I have already treated that issue in the balance of my post.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 10:16:40 AM

Who said that it needs to be perfect?

If it isn't perfect, then it is subject to error, and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

No it's trustable to the level of measured accuracy.

Remind us how you tested your supernatural sensory measurement of g again.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 15, 2010, 01:38:23 PM

How can you know that if you refuse to use any more precise measurement devices?

Gravimeters are designed by humans, and therefore are subject to human flaws. By contrast, my own senses have developed through natural selection as the best possible mechanism for the job. If gravimeters are telling me something which conflicts with my senses, it is more likely the gravimeter is wrong.

can you be quoted that you think human senses are always better than man mad devises. And no, natural selection doesn't make the best mechanisms for the job, if that were true, we'd have wheels for legs and birds would be airfoils, and eyes that worked like machines. and you wouldn't be alive. Natural SELECTION takes what is there, and progresses the strongest. therefore there is no reason to assume man made devices are better than man, that is a ludicrous argument and you know it.

example:
atomic clocks have shown time dilation, but we don't notice a difference. does that mean that Einstein was wrong?

also, see optical illusion

Please don't feed the trolls. The more you give them, the more they want.

Parsifail is being absurd, and he knows it. its laughable at best that human senses>machines

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 10:49:27 AM

Your senses are not perfect either and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

I have already treated that issue in the balance of my post.

I'm sorry Steve, I didn't realize that your senses had evolved to be perfectly accurate.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 10:35:56 AM

If it isn't perfect, then it is subject to error, and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

No it's trustable to the level of measured accuracy.

Remind us how you tested your supernatural sensory measurement of g again.

Once again, I addressed the issue of which method should be considered more reliable in the part of my post you did not quote. Neither one is perfect, but we can compare the two and draw conclusions as to which is better tested.

example:
atomic clocks have shown time dilation, but we don't notice a difference. does that mean that Einstein was wrong?

No, it means that you can't be in two frames of reference at once and have an opportunity to observe the difference.

also, see optical illusion

There's no such thing as an optical illusion.

I'm sorry Steve, I didn't realize that your senses had evolved to be perfectly accurate.

Instead of posting a non-sequitur, why not respond to the part of my post in which I addressed this very issue, and which you removed from your quote?

Once again, I addressed the issue of which method should be considered more reliable in the part of my post you did not quote. Neither one is perfect, but we can compare the two and draw conclusions as to which is better tested.

Yes you appealed to antiquity. Somehow, magically, for some unexplained reason, because human kind has been around longer than any measuring equipment, it should be trusted more than the highly tuned equipment. I aplod you're fail.

And I'll ask again:

Remind us how you tested your supernatural sensory measurement of g again.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 05:56:56 PM

Once again, I addressed the issue of which method should be considered more reliable in the part of my post you did not quote. Neither one is perfect, but we can compare the two and draw conclusions as to which is better tested.

Yes you appealed to antiquity. Somehow, magically, for some unexplained reason, because human kind has been around longer than any measuring equipment, it should be trusted more than the highly tuned equipment. I aplod you're fail.

And I'll ask again:

Quote from: Crustinator on May 16, 2010, 03:28:43 PM

Remind us how you tested your supernatural sensory measurement of g again.

I have no supernatural sensory measurement of g, or anything else for that matter.

I have no supernatural sensory measurement of g, or anything else for that matter.

Then you've just wasted three pages of TFES. I'll ask Daniel to remove them from the server.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 06:08:56 PM

I have no supernatural sensory measurement of g, or anything else for that matter.

Then you've just wasted three pages of TFES. I'll ask Daniel to remove them from the server.

I second that. This is thread derailment for the sake of self entertainment.