First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.
Really? It explains why I am typing right now.
No it does not, because science cannot describe causality, because no one can. Science can make observations that follow from other observations and then infer that one caused the other, but science cannot know. If we make the assumption that even a caused even b, then in that model science can explain that be occurred because a occurred. But even so, eventually you will reach an infinite regression of causes, something science cannot address.
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."
Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.
Occurrence: an occurrence requires a point in space and time. Gravity in Newton's model is simply that which causes certain types of acceleration. It is made up, therefore it does not exist in space or time and so it is not an occurrence.
Circumstance (an incident or occurrence [discussed above], a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc): Gravity in Newton's model is just something that causes a particular kind of acceleration- it is defined as a force because it causes acceleration, but as shown earlier (by you), a force is not something that can easily be defined either. A force is not a circumstance. A force occurs, but it is not an occurrence.
Fact that is perceptible by the sense: Gravity has no shape, color, sound, smell, texture, etc in Newtons model.
Gravity is NOT a phenomenon in Newton's model.
Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.
A model of what?
A model of a particular kind of motion. A particular kind of motion is observed and then described mathematically. This mathematical model is then applied to similar types of motion and is found to be very accurate.
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics? What's your point here?
My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.
Not that many, just several assumption he had to make (for example his failure to define time in some adequate way). As far as it's explanatory power however, how could Newton know of them before certain inconsistent observations were made later on?
Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.
Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.
Relativity also has a very interesting fundamental flaw- it cannot be unified with quantum mechanics (at this point).
Every model has fundamental flaws- because all are ultimately based on what we can observe in some way.
"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.
Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?
Certainly by this point I've made it clear what I believe gravity is in Newton's model- nothing but a mathematical construct that happens to describe certain types of occurrences.
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.
I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.
You've done it! You've hit upon the point I've been trying to make this whole time! Every scientific model does something like that. This is the point I am trying to make. EVERY model pulls something out of thin air. It just so happens that some match observation better than others.
My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!
A force in Newton's model is described as that which causes an acceleration. So within Newton's model that would be correct.
Interestingly, you've hit my point again. Every model does something similar. It hypothesizes something that cannot be verified to exist, but which if allowed to exist within the model matches what we observe.
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.
Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...
Read the two bold parts above. The reason I used it is because every model pulls things out of thin air. That is exactly what theoretical physics does- it pulls shit out of thin air that happen to predict what is observed.
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).
Who says I believe in a flat Earth?
It doesn't matter if you do or not, but presumably you would have some FE model we could use?
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.
Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.
Newton's laws can be derived from Einstein's and act as a specific limiting circumstance in Einstein's model.
Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...
The word "great" is relative there. You can use Newton's laws and the other non-relativity classical understandings of nature in engineering (statics, for example), and other things like that. When something involves very high velocities and more extreme circumstances (like rocket launches) you must use Einstein's model)
Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.
What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?
When everything that is being examined is under relatively the same conditions. When the accelerations of objects are very close enough to where the effects of relativity are negligible. It was not meant to be used as a technical term.
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?
According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.
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).
When did I say science starts with a conclusion?
Unfortunately for Tom, standing on a large enough sphere, a tangent plane is indistinguishable from standing on a flat plane. This reminds me of the derivative concept in calculus. If you draw a tangent line onto a curve in cartesian coordinates, and then "zoom in" closer and closer, the closer you get, the closer the tangent line approaches the actual curve itself. If you go small enough, the straight tangent line and the curve become indistinguishable.
So, to put it more succinctly, Tom cannot know that the world is flat just by standing on it and looking. Therefore, "using science to explain why the world is flat" is starting from a conclusion.
With the explanation above the following should make sense now.
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], because your model precludes the possibility of seeing the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" because 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 consistently matches your tested predictions.
Internets just couldn't get any weirder...
Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.
Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.
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.
What about it?
Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.
Plausibility? Please explain. This seems to be embarrasingly weak. Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.
If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.
Science is about "bsing" to a rigorous degree of accuracy (however, certain rules are followed in this bsing). If you want
truth, study philosophy.
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.
Speed of light is science fiction?
It would sound that way to someone not in the know. So... by what mechanism does light always travel at c in a vacuum?
Not very plausible at all. But correct.
Speed of light is plausible and correct.
If it was plausible then the consequences of relativity would be intuitive. They are not, unless you are educated in the theory itself.
Science can NEVER be 100% correct. I'm just not understanding the fuss here.
Yes, and?
Again, hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.
We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.
General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?
That was never the point. But hell, general relativity is not perfect. It has issues with the very very small, so we need yet another model. See?
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.
I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?
No, that was not what I was saying. I was using the term very loosely, in the "those who use the scientific method" sense, but being a student studying towards a science degree... well, does holding a science degree make you a scientist? Then next summer I'll have one (although a pissant associates).
Want to try to actually respond to the point there? I've gone back and emboldened it for you:
"(scientists) do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- (they) 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.
...Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.
I don't use Newton's, that wasn't my point (although Newton's can be used as a subset of Einstein's under the right conditions to make the math easier- again, they can be derived from Einstein's)