For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post? :headdesks:
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.
What about it?
It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
What about objects with no mass?
:headdesks: This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...
Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.
It's four fundamental interactions.
The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context. That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces." Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?
Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.
When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall." Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion. That alone makes it better than (most) FE. Yes, gravitation is the more correct term, but only if you're wanting to split hairs. When the people you debate say the word gravity, I know they mean gravitation, you know they mean gravitation, Santa Clause knows they mean gravitation, which brings up the question of why you even brought the distinction up? Self aggrandization maybe?
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force. So what is a force? How do forces work? In fact, what is energy? How does energy work? What is space? What is time? How do they work?
A force is an influence.
What is an influence? What CAUSES influence? By what MECHANISM does influence occur?
A force causes objects to accelerate.
What is acceleration? By what mechanism do bodies accelerate? Force? But what causes forces? By what mechanism do forces opperate?
Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work.
What is work? By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?
Space is a three-dimensional quantity.
This is a horrible definition. Why should space only be three-dimensional? What IS a dimension? By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist? What distinguishes one dimension from another? How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)
Time is a measurement of events.
A measurement of events? Wow. This is even worse than your space definition.
NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity. They have no explanation. They are simply observations.
Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.
By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur? Ever read Kant? By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continuums work as well?
(some string theory models may be able to answer your jabs at RE's, however- the WHY and by what mechanisms- and one in particular seems to actually be testable- the E8 "theory of everything," although I wouldn't get my hopes up)
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.
First of all, you did no better in your definitions... however, that was kind of the point... anyway... (No matter how sure of yourself you want to appear, you eventually WILL come to simply saying something is an observation whose mechanism is unknown. The difference is most FE models will have many more, while RE models have only a few ==> RE is superior)
Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature. No one knows where it comes from, anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from. Just like positive charges attract negative charges, gravity attracts mass in Newton's model. It is simply fundemental =>
but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall. FE on the other hand (the majority of the models I have seen), must incorporate two completely different modes to explain falling objects and orbital motion.
Now, Einstein's model explains it a lot better, but I'm not discussing that model, because that was never the point of my response (something you seem to have missed).
Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you? You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume). So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic...
Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.
First of all, science does not explain WHY something works. Second, IS causality a fact? Is it something that occurs? Does one event cause another? If the answer to any of that is "yes," then by definition causality is a phenomenon and by your reasoning must be explianed in terms of "what, how, where, when, where, and why."
Third, gravity
in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses." Gravity is simply a
model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.
I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.
Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics? What's your point here? Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED-
but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions."Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed. Newton's
model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework. This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely
useful and
accurate.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r^2. Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.
Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.
This response completely (yet again) misses the entire point. OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.
Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase? If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model. INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.
Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.
Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?
You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.
You seem to not be understanding what I post. Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame. You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that
predicts both the particulars and the generals. Newton's model does this. How does FE model?
You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here. You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism). You observe something and make
PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], becaues your model precludes the possibility of seeng the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" becaues in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...). You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistantly matches your tested predictions.
So, what (mathematically described) predicitons does FE make? Newton's model makes MANY predictions and they all are correct to a high degree. But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model. Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.
Why is RE better? Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions. You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions. In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."
It's all about plausibility.
Plausibility? Please explain. This seems to be embarrasingly weak. Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing. Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home? No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model. Not very plausible at all. But correct. (please pay special attention to the fact that I use the quotation marks there...I have a feeling someone might make a misunderstanding about what I was saying and then go to ridiculous lengths to disprove something that has nothing to do with what I'm saying... like the force vs interactoin thing.)
It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles. However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models. The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions. RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Right, but not 100%.
Science can NEVER be 100% correct. I'm just not understanding the fuss here. We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives. We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
And?
If you have to ask...
It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories.
It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.
Hopefully I don't have to respond to this, as it should be apparent now what my purpose for posting this was...