Did Jesus Exist?
Offline (Mod edit=Title of thread has been changed.)
American Atheist, here's your chance to finally back up your claims on your own. Here's your chance to address my arguments against your thesis.
I don't agree with this maxim, but you may: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that a religion called Christianity was founded on a figure that didn't actually exist, that people somehow came to believe a nonexistent figure walked the earth for thirty years performing miracles in front of thousands of witnesses and eventually rose from the dead, and all the records we have of him were completely invented, then you're going to have to provide me with evidence.
Don't bring in anyone else. This is solely a discussion between me and you. Do you wish to accept?
My first post on this board in a month and it's someone flipping logic upside down.
NEWSFLASH: A man walking on water, performing miracles, coming back from the dead and flying into the sky IS THE extraordinary claim.
Oh, and please don't go whining about me posting here, it's my kitchen table.
All right then. They're both extraordinary claims.
To say that Jesus was merely a man and tales about him were exaggerated is not an extraordinary claim. To say that he fooled everyone by using magic tricks is also not an extraordinary claim, though it is harder to substantiate. But to say that he merely didn't exist, that [i]all[/i] the independent attestations to his existence and life are all complete lies with absolutely [i]no[/i] historical core behind it, a claim almost unanimously rejected by scholarly authority and opinion of the last several thousand years, is quite extraordinary, and therefore under the ECREE maxim must be evidenced.
This is quite easy. Can you provide any secular historians or opponents of Christianity of the day that say that Jesus didn't exist? Certainly, opponents of the religion would have jumped on the opportunity to say he never actually existed.
For future reference, I deny that ECREE is anything valuable. What is an "extraordinary claim" is completely subjective, as well as what is "extraordinary evidence."
I do not have any evidence, as it really doesn't matter much to me - either way the point is whether he preformed real miracles... I don't think so but that is my opinion
I personally think that the easiest (least extrordinary) way to believe is that Jesus did exist and was some sort of leader and teacher, but that he did not walk on water and preform miracles.
I mean, no one walks on water today... and 1/3 of people in the world believe in a Jesus... the bible (as inaccurate as it is on some things) seems to show that jesus did exist and it seems to be some solid evidence on this point
(i guess people could make it up... but who just invents a person who completely fulfills the law of moses and is the messiah? there were a lot of jews claiming to b the messiah back then... i think that there were..)
However, when he existed and what he did exactly are more in question...
[quote=P-Dunn]All right then. They're both extraordinary claims.
To say that Jesus was merely a man and tales about him were exaggerated is not an extraordinary claim. [/quote]
I don't think so. Saying that this highly improbably stuff didn't happen is not extraordinary. It is still a claim, but it is like claiming there are an infinite number of pairs of primes. It isn't proven, but I think we have a good idea.
I sorta thought that 'highly improbable' meant extraordinary...
[quote=JoshHickman][quote=P-Dunn]All right then. They're both extraordinary claims.
To say that Jesus was merely a man and tales about him were exaggerated is not an extraordinary claim. [/quote]
I don't think so. Saying that this highly improbably stuff didn't happen is not extraordinary. It is still a claim, but it is like claiming there are an infinite number of pairs of primes. It isn't proven, but I think we have a good idea. [/quote]
it is proven. Take all the prior prime numbers, multiply them together, and add 1.
[quote=P-Dunn]All right then. They're both extraordinary claims.
To say that Jesus was merely a man and tales about him were exaggerated is not an extraordinary claim. To say that he fooled everyone by using magic tricks is also not an extraordinary claim, though it is harder to substantiate. But to say that he merely didn't exist, that [i]all[/i] the independent attestations to his existence and life are all complete lies with absolutely [i]no[/i] historical core behind it, a claim almost unanimously rejected by scholarly authority and opinion of the last several thousand years, is quite extraordinary, and therefore under the ECREE maxim must be evidenced.
This is quite easy. Can you provide any secular historians or opponents of Christianity of the day that say that Jesus didn't exist? Certainly, opponents of the religion would have jumped on the opportunity to say he never actually existed.
For future reference, I deny that ECREE is anything valuable. What is an "extraordinary claim" is completely subjective, as well as what is "extraordinary evidence."[/quote]
How do you explain Augustus? He came onto the scene almost entirely unaccepted. And yes he became a deified emporer.
You're unfortunately, making a false dichotomy. Yes, to say that he never existed would require evidence, simply because of the sources that say he did. Of course, it doesn't take much evidence, as there are stories for ALL sorts of mythology, and it only takes violations of laws we know to disqualify them.
However, it is not 'Jesus was made up' or 'Jesus was God's son'
There are middle options, such as Jesus was a philosopher who amassed many followers. Some historians DO say that. However, the claim is simply not important. If we are speaking of a religion, it is not important that we figure out the existence of names/people in them, but whether the events transpired. Disproving Jesus' existence would be far more assertable evidence, but it is by no means the most important assertion.
After all, the same could be said about Buddha, Muhammed, or even some of the Greco-Roman gods. It is the extraordinary claims(the magical powers/divinity) that require such extraordinary evidence, not the ordinary claims(that a man preached philosophy and a new religion).
This can best be summarized as follows.
A few years back, 70000 people claimed to see the sun zig-zag across the sky(correct me if the story or numbers are wrong, but the basic idea is right). This is an extraordinary claim, especially as the earth's orbit was not thrown off. Especially since, if the sun HAD moved as said, we wouldn't have noticed till 14 minutes after it did. Especially since there were no tidal surges, no orbit deviations, nothing. Seems compelling, right, 70000 people? On the other hand, consider that... the entire rest of the world... Didn't see that. Which is the moe extraordinary claim? That 70000 people, united in a belief, a firm belief that they were correct in their faith, hallucinated or convinced themselves to have seen the sun zigzag. Or that the rest of the world didn't notice, and even the earth(and its physical forces) did not notice. One seems very strange, the other seems unlikely AND defies laws we know to be true.
Okay, guys. Let's just drop the ECREE nonsense. As I said, I don't believe that ECREE is a valuable standard of evidence. I was merely using it to make my point, seeing as many atheists believe it is valuable and I was hoping to use AA's system against him, if in fact it's his at all. Seeing as it's caused a big fuss, it doesn't really matter anymore. I want to discuss the topic at hand.
Can the rest of you guys leave the topic and let me and American Atheist, if he chooses to show up, have our discussion please?
But while I'm here...
[quote]How do you explain Augustus? He came onto the scene almost entirely unaccepted. And yes he became a deified emporer.[/quote]
Forgive me, but I don't understand your point. Are you talking about Caesar Augustus? Am I supposed to be questioning his historicity?
[quote]You're unfortunately, making a false dichotomy. Yes, to say that he never existed would require evidence, simply because of the sources that say he did. Of course, it doesn't take much evidence, as there are stories for ALL sorts of mythology, and it only takes violations of laws we know to disqualify them.
However, it is not 'Jesus was made up' or 'Jesus was God's son'
There are middle options, such as Jesus was a philosopher who amassed many followers. Some historians DO say that. [/quote]
I never made such a distinction, AgnosticAtheist. I'm well aware of the possibilities, and I wasn't creating a dichotomy.
[quote]However, the claim is simply not important. If we are speaking of a religion, it is not important that we figure out the existence of names/people in them, but whether the events transpired. Disproving Jesus' existence would be far more assertable evidence, but it is by no means the most important assertion.[/quote]
I both agree and disagree. I think it is more meaningful of a question to ask if Jesus performed miracles rather than if Jesus existed. One leads to intelligent discussion, the other does not. However, I think it's a more important question, theoretically, to ask if Jesus existed. Because if Jesus didn't exist, then all the things written about him, including the miraces, didn't exist either.
That said, it is only theoretically more important. The Christ-Myth hypothesis is so in the minority that hardly anyone takes it seriously anyway.
[quote]After all, the same could be said about Buddha, Muhammed, or even some of the Greco-Roman gods. It is the extraordinary claims(the magical powers/divinity) that require such extraordinary evidence, not the ordinary claims(that a man preached philosophy and a new religion).[/quote]
Well, if anything, that reveals your ignorance of religion. Buddha and Muhammed never claimed to be divine or have magical powers. Buddha simply reached enlightenment, and Muhammed claimed to have an angel talking to him.
Also, the miracles attributed to Muhammed weren't recorded until several centuries after the events occured, pointing to imbellishment. This is obviously not the case with the Gospels.
[quote]This can best be summarized as follows.
A few years back, 70000 people claimed to see the sun zig-zag across the sky(correct me if the story or numbers are wrong, but the basic idea is right). This is an extraordinary claim, especially as the earth's orbit was not thrown off. Especially since, if the sun HAD moved as said, we wouldn't have noticed till 14 minutes after it did. Especially since there were no tidal surges, no orbit deviations, nothing. Seems compelling, right, 70000 people? On the other hand, consider that... the entire rest of the world... Didn't see that. Which is the moe extraordinary claim? That 70000 people, united in a belief, a firm belief that they were correct in their faith, hallucinated or convinced themselves to have seen the sun zigzag. Or that the rest of the world didn't notice, and even the earth(and its physical forces) did not notice. One seems very strange, the other seems unlikely AND defies laws we know to be true.[/quote]
It's an interesting example, but it's not pertaining to the topic at hand. The miracles of Jesus do not involve the entire Earth going out of its orbit, or any such problems that this one has.
I also don't see that Jesus' miracles are a violation of natural laws. This leads back to my question that I asked noor.
If you pick up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? Why or why not?
If [i]God[/i] picks up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? Why or why not?
[quote]I also don't see that Jesus' miracles are a violation of natural laws.[/quote]
Umm, then how would he break bread and exponentially increase the mass of it to feed a crowd? Raise the dead? or Walk on water? All of these defy the laws of logic and physics.
Leprosy is not healed by water... defying what we know of leprosy.
I might be misinterpreting what you meant... but isn't a miracle by its very nature a violation of natural law?
[quote=P-Dunn]
Forgive me, but I don't understand your point. Are you talking about Caesar Augustus? Am I supposed to be questioning his historicity?[/quote]
You spoke incredulously of a normal, non-deified person having such an impact, and people believing it, when in fact, deification of people is not at all uncommon in history(or at least, unique), and we know to reject others.
[quote]
I never made such a distinction, AgnosticAtheist. I'm well aware of the possibilities, and I wasn't creating a dichotomy.[/quote]
Sorry, you're right, you did speak of the middle ground
[quote]
I both agree and disagree. I think it is more meaningful of a question to ask if Jesus performed miracles rather than if Jesus existed. One leads to intelligent discussion, the other does not. However, I think it's a more important question, theoretically, to ask if Jesus existed. Because if Jesus didn't exist, then all the things written about him, including the miraces, didn't exist either.[/quote]
Fine, his existence would be an easier wayt o go about it to cut the bottom out, but it's far easier to simply attack the idea of miracles.
[quote]
Well, if anything, that reveals your ignorance of religion. Buddha and Muhammed never claimed to be divine or have magical powers. Buddha simply reached enlightenment, and Muhammed claimed to have an angel talking to him. [/quote]
I'm sorry, but since when is an angel or 'enlightenment' anything but magic/divine fairy tailes?
[quote]Also, the miracles attributed to Muhammed weren't recorded until several centuries after the events occured, pointing to imbellishment. This is obviously not the case with the Gospels.[/quote]
This is arguable
[quote]
It's an interesting example, but it's not pertaining to the topic at hand. The miracles of Jesus do not involve the entire Earth going out of its orbit, or any such problems that this one has.
I also don't see that Jesus' miracles are a violation of natural laws. This leads back to my question that I asked noor.[/quote]
Right, turning water into wine is perfectly normal, as is healing people with a wave of the hand and walking on water.
[quote]If you pick up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? Why or why not?
If [i]God[/i] picks up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? Why or why not?[/quote]
No, because I am also constrained by those laws
Yes, because 'God' isn't.
[quote]I might be misinterpreting what you meant... but isn't a miracle by its very nature a violation of natural law?[/quote]
No, see the division of the world into 'natural' and 'supernatural' is a false dichomony. God'd miricules are not so much 'viloations' of the laws of nature as it is God acting the ways hes capable of.
In fact there are some people who believe the Jesus was an alien and his 'miricules' are actually the result of super advanced alien technology. While their a little...weird, I think they are onto something here. Hypotheticaly we might very well be able to reproduce God's miricules with advanced enough technology. In fact some of them we already can(for example virgins can get pregnant through artifical insimination).
[quote]No, see the division of the world into 'natural' and 'supernatural' is a false dichomony. God'd miricules are not so much 'viloations' of the laws of nature as it is God acting the ways hes capable of.
In fact there are some people who believe the Jesus was an alien and his 'miricules' are actually the result of super advanced alien technology. While their a little...weird, I think they are onto something here. Hypotheticaly we might very well be able to reproduce God's miricules with advanced enough technology. In fact some of them we already can(for example virgins can get pregnant through artifical insimination).[/quote]
HAHAHA! WTF!? If Jesus did his miracles w/technology or things that we could stumble onto (like some sort of psychic powers (not that I think we will)) then it is NOT divine. If god is just a really advanced space alein then he does not deserve to be called god. A God has eternal divine stuff, if god is just really smart and really advanced - even if he is immortal, he is not "god"
You have totally screwed the definition of miracle. If we brought back a painkiller back to that time of jesus, it would seem like a miracle... but it would just be a painkiller. A miracle is by its nature unknowable... there is no technology driving it... because if we could reproduce it then it loses its divinity.
If god creates and destroyes stuff by technology then we can technically turn it against him (it would be possible) - then what would he be? We would be god! Haha, now I know why Satan wared against the almighty, because he could have won if he just could have gotten his hands on that super secret weapon cashe!
[quote]HAHAHA! WTF!? If Jesus did his miracles w/technology or things that we could stumble onto (like some sort of psychic powers (not that I think we will)) then it is NOT divine. If god is just a really advanced space alein then he does not deserve to be called god. A God has eternal divine stuff, if god is just really smart and really advanced - even if he is immortal, he is not "god"
You have totally screwed the definition of miracle. If we brought back a painkiller back to that time of jesus, it would seem like a miracle... but it would just be a painkiller. A miracle is by its nature unknowable... there is no technology driving it... because if we could reproduce it then it loses its divinity.
If god creates and destroyes stuff by technology then we can technically turn it against him (it would be possible) - then what would he be? We would be god! Haha, now I know why Satan wared against the almighty, because he could have won if he just could have gotten his hands on that super secret weapon cashe![/quote]
You miss my point. I never said God performed miricles through technology(although there are people who believe that). What I said was that miricles are not 'violations' of the laws of nature, but simply God behaveing as God can.
In fact several of Jesus's miricles we know dont violate the laws of nature. For example water to wine, happens all the time, thats what fermentation is. Even people living before Jesus knew how to do that. A virgin birth can happen via artifical insimination.
Now this doesnt take away from the divinity of such actions since most of them occured before the technolgy to reproduce it existed(unless you believe Jesus was an alien or time traveler) as well as the fact that God can make them happen much faster(fermentation normally takes weeks to produce wine) or otherwise efficently than we can. It simply demonstrates that God's miricles can hardly be considered 'viloations' of the laws of nature, unless we also 'violate' the law of gravity when we pick up a box.
BTW Sorry P-Dunn for stealing the topic from you. But it doesnt look like American Athiest was going to show up anyway.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote]HAHAHA! WTF!? If Jesus did his miracles w/technology or things that we could stumble onto (like some sort of psychic powers (not that I think we will)) then it is NOT divine. If god is just a really advanced space alein then he does not deserve to be called god. A God has eternal divine stuff, if god is just really smart and really advanced - even if he is immortal, he is not "god"
You have totally screwed the definition of miracle. If we brought back a painkiller back to that time of jesus, it would seem like a miracle... but it would just be a painkiller. A miracle is by its nature unknowable... there is no technology driving it... because if we could reproduce it then it loses its divinity.
If god creates and destroyes stuff by technology then we can technically turn it against him (it would be possible) - then what would he be? We would be god! Haha, now I know why Satan wared against the almighty, because he could have won if he just could have gotten his hands on that super secret weapon cashe![/quote]
You miss my point. I never said God performed miricles through technology(although there are people who believe that). What I said was that miricles are not 'violations' of the laws of nature, but simply God behaveing as God can.
In fact several of Jesus's miricles we know dont violate the laws of nature. For example water to wine, happens all the time, thats what fermentation is. Even people living before Jesus knew how to do that. A virgin birth can happen via artifical insimination.
Now this doesnt take away from the divinity of such actions since most of them occured before the technolgy to reproduce it existed(unless you believe Jesus was an alien or time traveler) as well as the fact that God can make them happen much faster(fermentation normally takes weeks to produce wine) or otherwise efficently than we can. It simply demonstrates that God's miricles can hardly be considered 'viloations' of the laws of nature, unless we also 'violate' the law of gravity when we pick up a box.
BTW Sorry P-Dunn for stealing the topic from you. But it doesnt look like American Athiest was going to show up anyway. [/quote]
wtf? water does not turn into wine. You require other materials to make wine. Secondly, those are then not MIRACLES. If something is ahead of its time, that does no make it a miracle. It requires a breaking of the normal laws. It would be a very advanced action, or genius, but not a miracle if Jesus had simply figured out some universal laws, or invented the water equivalent of snowshoes. And artificial insemination requires semen. Are you implying God has semen?
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]wtf? water does not turn into wine. You require other materials to make wine. [/quote]
True.
[quote]Secondly, those are then not MIRACLES. If something is ahead of its time, that does no make it a miracle. It requires a breaking of the normal laws. [/quote]
I disagree, I dont think miricles require a breaking of natrual laws at all, it only requires the action of God.
Although perhaps we should start using another term that doesnt have that connotation. 'Acts of God' maybe?
[quote]And Artifical insimnation requires semen. Are you implying God has semen?[/quote]
I'm sure a God who created the entire universe could create one sperm. In fact why bother creating a sperm, all you really need is 23 chromosones(since sperm is just a delievery mechinism for chromosones).
[quote]You spoke incredulously of a normal, non-deified person having such an impact, and people believing it, when in fact, deification of people is not at all uncommon in history(or at least, unique), and we know to reject others.[/quote]
I don't ever remember saying that a normal, non-deified person can't have an impact on anything. Please point me to where I did
[quote]Fine, his existence would be an easier wayt o go about it to cut the bottom out, but it's far easier to simply attack the idea of miracles.[/quote]
It is, and it leads to much more intelligent discussion.
[quote]I'm sorry, but since when is an angel or 'enlightenment' anything but magic/divine fairy tailes?[/quote]
It's only magic/divine fairy tales if you assume atheism in advance rather than thinking about each situation rationally.
[quote]Right, turning water into wine is perfectly normal, as is healing people with a wave of the hand and walking on water.[/quote]
I never said they were completely normal. That's in complete contrast, in fact, to the definition of a miracle, which is an [i]abnormal[/i] and rare event.
I just don't see them as violations of natural laws. Natural laws don't tell us what will happen, but are merely a description of what is regularly happening.
[quote]No, because I am also constrained by those laws
Yes, because 'God' isn't.[/quote]
That certainly is the typical atheist cop-out answer.
Ah, my bad, I read this quote wrongly 'To say that Jesus was merely a man and tales about him were exaggerated is not an extraordinary claim. To say that he fooled everyone by using magic tricks is also not an extraordinary claim, though it is harder to substantiate.'
The logical assumption is that any given assertation of miracles needs to be verified.
"I also don't see that Jesus' miracles are a violation of natural laws". Natural laws do tell us what will happen, exactly what will, if we are given enough information.
really? I've never heard that question before...
[quote]The logical assumption is that any given assertation of miracles needs to be verified.[/quote]
I completely agree. And I think that we have enough evidence to believe that the miracles of Jesus are not legendary embellishments, but can be verified. There's simply not enough time for legendary development between the crucifixion of Jesus and the creeds that developed, the letters of Paul, and the Gospels.
[quote]"I also don't see that Jesus' miracles are a violation of natural laws". Natural laws do tell us what will happen, exactly what will, if we are given enough information.[/quote]
Not really. What evidence do you have that natural laws are immutable?
[quote]really? I've never heard that question before...[/quote]
Well, I don't believe I've asked you before. ;-)
Laws of nature are immutable if they are laws. Otherwise they are suggestions. But I would be interested to see an example of something breaking them. Cause there is evidence for the laws... I would like evidence to the contrary.
[i]law[/i]- 15. (in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
[i]invariable[/i]- 1. not variable; not changing or capable of being changed; static or constant.
There ya go.
[quote=JoshHickman]Laws of nature are immutable if they are laws.[/quote]
Who said that? Morden physics sure doesn't seem to agree...
[quote]Otherwise they are suggestions.[/quote]
No, because forces can be counted by other forces. For example an airplane overcomes gravity because lift is stronger, thus in essence you are just broken gravity. However; if the lift becomes less than the pull of gravity, you fall out of the sky.
[quote]But I would be interested to see an example of something breaking them. [/quote]
Aircraft breaks gravity by overcoming it with a stronger force (lift). We overcome gravity every time we stand up.
[quote]Cause there is evidence for the laws... I would like evidence to the contrary. [/quote]
Than look hard enough, there is evidence of them being overcome by stronger forces all the time. Sorry, Newton physics died long ago...
Terror
[quote]law- 15. (in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
invariable- 1. not variable; not changing or capable of being changed; static or constant.
There ya go.[/quote]
First of all, read what lilangelofterror said.
Second of all, did you not notice that it says "under the same conditions" in the definition of law? If the conditions were to change, the laws would change, and therefore they're not immutable.
[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=JoshHickman]Laws of nature are immutable if they are laws.[/quote]
Who said that? Morden physics sure doesn't seem to agree...
[/quote]
You are on crack. The laws could be wrong, but Laws of nature are immutable BY DEFINITION.
[quote]Otherwise they are suggestions.[/quote]
[quote=lilangelofterror]No, because forces can be counted by other forces. For example an airplane overcomes gravity because lift is stronger, thus in essence you are just broken gravity. However; if the lift becomes less than the pull of gravity, you fall out of the sky.
[quote]But I would be interested to see an example of something breaking them. [/quote]
Aircraft breaks gravity by overcoming it with a stronger force (lift). We overcome gravity every time we stand up. [/quote]
That is not an example of breaking the laws of nature because all laws work in harmony. You are not breaking every rule just because you think we should apply one.
[quote=lilangelofterror][quote]Cause there is evidence for the laws... I would like evidence to the contrary. [/quote]
Than look hard enough, there is evidence of them being overcome by stronger forces all the time. Sorry, Newton physics died long ago...
Terror[/quote]
I am not claiming Newton was right. He wasn't. But Newton does not define current understanding of physical law. And stronger forces overcoming weaker ones just shows they BOTH work. If they didn't, it would show only one of them did.
[quote]First of all, read what lilangelofterror said.[/quote]
Yes sir Mr. P-Dunn, sir.
[quote]Second of all, did you not notice that it says "under the same conditions" in the definition of law? If the conditions were to change, the laws would change, and therefore they're not immutable.[/quote]
No, I noticed it. But you asked what evidence there was that natural laws were immutable, and I gave you evidence. It's in the definition.
Although some laws are only immutable by default, (like gravity, the example lilangelofterror used) some are unchanging no matter what the "conditions" (the first law of thermodynamics).
Anyway, I'm just saying that it's hardly likely that Jesus was the "condition" there needed to be to defy the laws of nature and create miracles. That's really no different than a fictional superhero with superpowers.
[quote=JoshHickman]
You are on crack. The laws could be wrong, but Laws of nature are immutable BY DEFINITION. [/quote]
Than how do airplanes fly if they are immutable? Shouldn't they fall out of the sky?
[quote]That is not an example of breaking the laws of nature because all laws work in harmony. You are not breaking every rule just because you think we should apply one. [/quote]
Yes it is an example, you are over comming one force by using a more powerful force, thus the laws are not immutable.
[quote]I am not claiming Newton was right. He wasn't.[/quote]
Yes he was, the 3 laws of motion are still valid today. Newton physics is the name given to early physics, they are the ones that first said the laws of nature were immutable. Modern physics doesn't.
[quote]But Newton does not define current understanding of physical law. And stronger forces overcoming weaker ones just shows they BOTH work. If they didn't, it would show only one of them did. [/quote]
You said they laws are immutable, if one force can overcome it, how is it immutable?
Terror
[quote=lilangelofterror]
Than how do airplanes fly if they are immutable? Shouldn't they fall out of the sky? [/quote]
No
[quote]
Yes it is an example, you are over comming one force by using a more powerful force, thus the laws are not immutable. [/quote]
BOTH forces are acting, one is just stronger. If I pull on a rope, and you pull on a rope, your force still EXISTS, and has not been changed, it just wasn't as strong as my force.
[quote]Yes he was, the 3 laws of motion are still valid today. Newton physics is the name given to early physics, they are the ones that first said the laws of nature were immutable. Modern physics doesn't. [/quote]
Newtonian physics still is used because it works for all basic physics, and the equatiosn still work very well for our models. However, Einsteinian physics have falsified Newton's physics. The reason we don't use Einstein's is because they're slightly more complicated, and Newton's still work for basic stuff. All higher level physics use Einstein's ideas.
[quote]You said they laws are immutable, if one force can overcome it, how is it immutable? [/quote]
This is just a stupid question. Immutable means that the forces are unchanged. For example, mathematics is immutable. But -3+5=2. Just because 5 'overcomes' -3 doesn't mean the two are unchangable. It's not like when one forces overcomes the other, the original one stopped working. That would be like saying 5-3=5 because 5 overcame 3 completely. The two work against each other, but they both still WORK
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]No[/quote]
Why not? Gravity is overcome by a strong force, so does that mean gravity is immutable or not? Also, gravity can be changed. Thus how is it immutable if it can be overcome and changed?
[quote]BOTH forces are acting, one is just stronger. If I pull on a rope, and you pull on a rope, your force still EXISTS, and has not been changed, it just wasn't as strong as my force.[/quote]
In other words you can overcome one force by a stronger force correct? Thus, miracles are possible, why? Because the laws of nature are not being contradicted, they are being overcome by a stronger force.
[quote]Newtonian physics still is used because it works for all basic physics, and the equatiosn still work very well for our models. However, Einsteinian physics have falsified Newton's physics. The reason we don't use Einstein's is because they're slightly more complicated, and Newton's still work for basic stuff. All higher level physics use Einstein's ideas.[/quote]
Yep, but we are not talking about Newtonian physics are we? No, we are referring to physical laws of the universe in general (thus both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics). You can in fact, overcome one force with a stronger force. Thus I don't not see the laws of the universe as immutable, after all... is gravity never changing?
[quote]This is just a stupid question. Immutable means that the forces are unchanged.[/quote]
Ummm... forces do change. Gravity changes according to the mass of objects. Lift changes according to the wing and airspeed. How do they not change if they can be overcome by a stronger force or change according to conditions?
[quote]
For example, mathematics is immutable. But -3+5=2. Just because 5 'overcomes' -3 doesn't mean the two are unchangable.[/quote]
We are not talking about math are we? We are talking about the physical world around us. Gravity does change according to the mass of objects. Gravity can be overcome by a stronger force, so how can gravity be unchangeable if it can be effected?
[quote]It's not like when one forces overcomes the other, the original one stopped working.[/quote]
Did I say otherwise? No, I said they can be overcome and can be effected by several factors (for lift airspeed effects it, thus it changes). How can a law be unchanged if it can be effected or changed?
[quote]That would be like saying 5-3=5 because 5 overcame 3 completely. The two work against each other, but they both still WORK[/quote]
Again, we are not talking about math, are we? No, we are talking about the physical world around us. How can a law be unchangeable if it can be overcome or changed by some other factor?
Terror
[quote]How can a law be unchangeable if it can be overcome or changed by some other factor?[/quote]
If we didn't have immutable natural laws, things would happen spontaneously without reason, and we wouldn't be able to define how or why it happened. The laws can be affected by other means, yes, but that doesn't mean the law isn't immutable. Just because an airplane can fly doesn't constitute that the law of gravity is no longer legitimate. Gravity is still [i]there,[/i] holding us down. So, it's [i]immutable.[/i]
[quote=lilangelofterror]Why not? Gravity is overcome by a strong force, so does that mean gravity is immutable or not? Also, gravity can be changed. Thus how is it immutable if it can be overcome and changed?[/quote]
Ok. I'm going to take this step by step. To say gravity is immutable is to say that it's unchangable, ergo, to say that regardless of what else happens, gravity will do the same thing. I'll use a simple example. Gravity is pulling down on me right now at the rounded rate of G(the gravity constant) times my mass, times the earth's mass, divided by the square of the distance between myself and the earth, aka (G x m1 x m2)/(d^2). If I jump up in the air, gravity will STILL be pulling on me at that same rate. Let's say I had super hops, and I jump all the way to the moon. As I wasn't smart enough to bring food, I lose mass. The distance between myself and the earth will have increased significantly, and my mass will have decreased. The FORCE of gravity on me will have lessened, because d will have increased massively, and my mass will have decreased. But G, gravity, is immutable, and will not have changed. THe law of gravity will have remained unchanged. My distance would not.
[quote]In other words you can overcome one force by a stronger force correct? Thus, miracles are possible, why? Because the laws of nature are not being contradicted, they are being overcome by a stronger force.[/quote]
How is turning water into wine a 'force'? How is it anything more than fairy-tale magic?
[quote]Yep, but we are not talking about Newtonian physics are we? No, we are referring to physical laws of the universe in general (thus both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics). You can in fact, overcome one force with a stronger force. Thus I don't not see the laws of the universe as immutable, after all... is gravity never changing?[/quote]
No, gravity IS never changing. What changes are the variables, such as mass. THe force is being overcome, not in the sense that is being beaten and is giving up, but in the sense that it's just enacting resistance. It is not being changed in any way.
[quote]Ummm... forces do change. Gravity changes according to the mass of objects. Lift changes according to the wing and airspeed. How do they not change if they can be overcome by a stronger force or change according to conditions?[/quote]
That's where your wrong. The force of gravity changes, but G, gravity, remains the same. The law of gravity never changed, only the variable inputs. Lift is not an individual force, lift is a sum of different forces, which are affected by wing angles and airspeed etc. But the physical laws are not changing, only the variables you put into the equation. For example, say there's a law of loans. I pay back the amount of money to the ^1.03t power. As t, time, increases, you owe me more, but the law never changed, only the variable inputs.
[quote]We are not talking about math are we? We are talking about the physical world around us. Gravity does change according to the mass of objects. Gravity can be overcome by a stronger force, so how can gravity be unchangeable if it can be effected?[/quote]
Most scientific laws are simply mathematical constructs explaining observations of the world. Gravity is not being 'affected' in the least. Gravity is pulling the object with accelleration 10 m/s, and I'm pushing it up with the same accelleration. Neither force affects the other one, both affect the object in my hand.
[quote]Did I say otherwise? No, I said they can be overcome and can be effected by several factors (for lift airspeed effects it, thus it changes). How can a law be unchanged if it can be effected or changed?[/quote]
First off, affected. Secondly, it CAN'T be changed, only the variable inputs can. For example, the harder you push on the gas, the faster you accellerate. The law of combustion is still holding the same, you are just allowing more combustion to happen(or at a higher rate)
[quote]Again, we are not talking about math, are we? No, we are talking about the physical world around us. How can a law be unchangeable if it can be overcome or changed by some other factor?[/quote]
Well, yes, we are. Are you telling me gravity has nothing to do with math? This is idiotic. A law, even when overcome, remains unchanged. It's not like when gravity and air resistance act opposingly, they have a little tekken style battle, and the winner does a victory dance and goes on to do its force. Both do their forces, constantly. WIthout change. If the situation changes, the force they effect(this is one of those times it's OK to use effect as a verb) upon objects, changes accordingly, but their laws remain constant.
[quote=Toxicat]If we didn't have immutable natural laws, things would happen spontaneously without reason, and we wouldn't be able to define how or why it happened.[/quote]
That's not the definition of immutable... Immutable means unchanging. Gravity changes and came be overcome, thus it's not immutable.
[quote]The laws can be affected by other means, yes, but that doesn't mean the law isn't immutable. [/quote]
Not according to the dictionary... Something must be unchangeable, to be immutable.
[quote]Just because an airplane can fly doesn't constitute that the law of gravity is no longer legitimate. Gravity is still there, holding us down. So, it's immutable.[/quote]
Ummm no and here's why:
1. Gravity is overcome by a stronger force (lift) no where did I state it makes gravity stop existing.
2. Gravity is effected by other forces. For gravity to be immutable, it must not be able to be changed.
Therefore, how can gravity be immutable?
Terror
[quote]Ok. I'm going to take this step by step. To say gravity is immutable is to say that it's unchangable, ergo, to say that regardless of what else happens, gravity will do the same thing.[/quote]
Awww, there's the issue; however; that is not how I define immutable. I define immutable to mean x can not be changed, effected, or overcome. If it can be, than it's not immutable.
[quote]I'll use a simple example. Gravity is pulling down on me right now at the rounded rate of G(the gravity constant) times my mass, times the earth's mass, divided by the square of the distance between myself and the earth, aka (G x m1 x m2)/(d^2).[/quote]
So you admit it's effected by several factors? So how is it immutable?
[quote]If I jump up in the air, gravity will STILL be pulling on me at that same rate.Let's say I had super hops, and I jump all the way to the moon. As I wasn't smart enough to bring food, I lose mass. The distance between myself and the earth will have increased significantly, and my mass will have decreased. The FORCE of gravity on me will have lessened, because d will have increased massively, and my mass will have decreased.[/quote]
For starters, gravity is not effected by the mass of the object being pulled. You can drop an object that weighs 10 lbs and 100 lbs and they should hit the ground at the same time (remember all objects will fall at the same speed, assuming air resistance acts the exact same upon them). You may think this proves gravity is immutable, but it isn't. Earth's gravity is weaker than Saturn's, but stronger then Pluto's. Gravity is not effected by the mass of the object it's pulling, but by the mass of planet, star, ect itself. Again, how can something be immutable if it's effected by X?
[quote]But G, gravity, is immutable, and will not have changed. THe law of gravity will have remained unchanged. My distance would not.[/quote]
It has changed, the moon's gravity is less than the Earths. My definition of immutable is unchangeable, gravity can be changed, so it can't be immutable.
[quote]
How is turning water into wine a 'force'?[/quote]
Because God sped up the process. Water turns into wine by natural process everyday around the world. In the case of Jesus, that process was sped up.
[quote]How is it anything more than fairy-tale magic?[/quote]
So in other words, you don't want to believe it, so it's a fairy-tale. Sorry, but if man can effect natural laws, than what reason is there to assume God can't?
[quote]No, gravity IS never changing. What changes are the variables, such as mass.[/quote]
So how can gravity be immutable? It's changes according to X... and immutable means 'unchangeable', how is it immutable?
[quote]That's where your wrong. The force of gravity changes, but G, gravity, remains the same.[/quote]
No, the force that gravity is pulling down on an object changes according to the mass of the planet, star, etc...
[quote]The law of gravity never changed, only the variable inputs. Lift is not an individual force, lift is a sum of different forces, which are affected by wing angles and airspeed etc.[/quote]
That makes it changeable my friend. Immutable means unchanging... if X can effect Y, than Y is not immutable. Simple as that, so if airspeed can effect lift, how is lift immutable, for it's changing?
[quote]But the physical laws are not changing, only the variables you put into the equation.[/quote]
And that is the question, now isn't it? If you can effect X with Y, is Y really immutable?
[quote]For example, say there's a law of loans. I pay back the amount of money to the ^1.03t power. As t, time, increases, you owe me more, but the law never changed, only the variable inputs.[/quote]
But the amount of X I owe you will change. So how can my loan be immutable if we have it changing over time?
[quote]Well, yes, we are. Are you telling me gravity has nothing to do with math? This is idiotic.[/quote]
How is it idiotic? Because you don't think X effecting Y makes it immutable? I'm using the dictionary definition and it tells me that immutable means unchanging, if Y changes according to X, than X can't be immutable.
[quote]A law, even when overcome, remains unchanged. It's not like when gravity and air resistance act opposingly, they have a little tekken style battle, and the winner does a victory dance and goes on to do its force.[/quote]
Talk about a pure misunderstand and ignorance of my argument. My argument is based upon the proper definition of immutable and that is unchanging. Even if X is unchangeable, but Y and Z change the outcome of the results, it's not immutable, simple as that.
[quote]
WIthout change. If the situation changes, the force they effect(this is one of those times it's OK to use effect as a verb) upon objects, changes accordingly, but their laws remain constant.[/quote]
The law may remain constant, but the effect of the law DOESN'T! Is there something you don't understand here? If X can effect Y, Y can not be immutable, simple as that.
Terror
[quote=lilangelofterror]That's not the definition of immutable... Immutable means unchanging. Gravity changes and came be overcome, thus it's not immutable.[/quote]
Ok, the LAW, is unchangeable. The law is that the FORCE of gravity is equal to the gravitational constant, times the mass of the objects multiplied together, divided by the square of the distance. That law is 100% immutable. The law of gravity, is immutable. The distance of two objects is not immutable. The force 2 objects exert on each other is not immutable, but the law of gravity is immutable, and will always equal that equation above
[quote]Not according to the dictionary... Something must be unchangeable, to be immutable.[/quote]
Yes, and the law of gravity is a function. An immutable function. The function does not change. The variable inputs aren't immutable, they can change. But the function of gravity(aka the law of gravity, just phrasing it in another way so hopefully you'll understand) is unchangeable. You cannot put new variables into the equation and have it still work. Why? Because it's immutable.
[quote]Ummm no and here's why:
1. Gravity is overcome by a stronger force (lift) no where did I state it makes gravity stop existing.
2. Gravity is effected by other forces. For gravity to be immutable, it must not be able to be changed.
Therefore, how can gravity be immutable?[/quote]
gravity is NOT, I repeat, NOT affected (you spell affected with an A, there are times you use 'effected' as a verb, but this is not one of them) by other forces. Gravity enacts its force on OBJECTS. Other forces enact their force on OBJECTS. No forces exert forces on each other. Forces are simply abstract concepts to demonstrate the way particles act.
[quote=lilangelofterror]Awww, there's the issue; however; that is not how I define immutable. I define immutable to mean x can not be changed, effected, or overcome. If it can be, than it's not immutable.[/quote]
Ok, you're misunderstanding perhaps. The force of gravity is not the same thing as 'gravity' The force of gravity is a measure of how much gravity works between two objects(gravity is not an inherent force, it is the attraction between two objects). This attraction is changed by either mass or distance, but gravity remains unchanged. It's like a magnet. A magnet has a given pull on an object. the farther away the object is, the less pull the object receives, but the magnet is still putting out or pulling in a FIXED amount of attraction.
[quote]So you admit it's effected by several factors? So how is it immutable?[/quote]
[quote]For starters, gravity is not effected by the mass of the object being pulled. You can drop an object that weighs 10 lbs and 100 lbs and they should hit the ground at the same time (remember all objects will fall at the same speed, assuming air resistance acts the exact same upon them). You may think this proves gravity is immutable, but it isn't. Earth's gravity is weaker than Saturn's, but stronger then Pluto's. Gravity is not effected by the mass of the object it's pulling, but by the mass of planet, star, ect itself. Again, how can something be immutable if it's effected by X?[/quote]
this proves to me that you do not understand gravity. Gravity IS affected by mass. The accelleration of an object due to gravity is not, but the FORCE on the object increases. If you drop an object weighing 10 pounds, and an object weighing 100 pounds, the 100 pounds one is pulled 10 times harder. However, since Force =mass times accelleration, and the mass is 10 times greater, and the force is 10 times greater, accelleration remains the same. But the pull of gravity is 10 times stronger, it is just enacting 10 times the pull on 10 times the object, and thus creating the same accelleration.
[quote]It has changed, the moon's gravity is less than the Earths. My definition of immutable is unchangeable, gravity can be changed, so it can't be immutable.[/quote]
Again, I'm sure you don't understand gravity from reading this.
There is no such thing as the moon's gravity. Lone objects have NO gravity. Gravity is a force which must be enacted between two objects.
[quote]Because God sped up the process. Water turns into wine by natural process everyday around the world. In the case of Jesus, that process was sped up.[/quote]
Water does not turn into wine by natural process.
[quote]So in other words, you don't want to believe it, so it's a fairy-tale. Sorry, but if man can effect natural laws, than what reason is there to assume God can't?[/quote]
We can't. Just because you've never taken a physics course, and don't understand the difference between the law of gravity, and the specific force of gravity between any given two objects doesn't mean you're right.
[quote]So how can gravity be immutable? It's changes according to X... and immutable means 'unchangeable', how is it immutable?[/quote]
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE! I advise you read a physics book or something. Gravity is a constant. The force that it exerts on an object varies based on other variables, but gravity itself(which is a loose use of the word, as gravity isn't a force so to speak) is immutable
[quote]
Agnostic Atheist 1 say: That's where your wrong. The force of gravity changes, but G, gravity, remains the same.
you say: No, the force that gravity is pulling down on an object changes according to the mass of the planet, star, etc... [/quote]
That's what I SAID! I said the force of gravity changes according to the mass(and distance)
I think you're misunderstanding gravity completely. Gravity isn't JUST something which is on planets. There is a very slight gravitational pull between you and me right now. There is a slight gravitational pull between you and your computer, and me and my computer, and between ANY two objects in the universe(although at such far distances, it's small enough to be negligible.
[quote]That makes it changeable my friend. Immutable means unchanging... if X can effect Y, than Y is not immutable. Simple as that, so if airspeed can effect lift, how is lift immutable, for it's changing?[/quote]
lift is not a law. Lift is a combination of laws, all of which are immutable. The only things which change are the variables involved in such laws. But the actual mathematical constructs, the laws, are not changing
[quote]And that is the question, now isn't it? If you can effect X with Y, is Y really immutable?[/quote]
You're not effecting X. X is [b]A[/b]ffecting Z, Y is [b]A[/b]ffecting Z, where Z is an object, and X and Y are two forces. But the forces do not affect each other.
[quote]But the amount of X I owe you will change. So how can my loan be immutable if we have it changing over time? [/quote]
YOUR loan is not immutable, the LAW of loans is immutable, just as the force of gravity between you and any given object is not immutable(you can lose or gain weight or go closer or farther away) but the LAW of gravity is immutable
[quote]How is it idiotic? Because you don't think X effecting Y makes it immutable? I'm using the dictionary definition and it tells me that immutable means unchanging, if Y changes according to X, than X can't be immutable.[/quote]
And the law is unchanging, the circumstances are changing, but the law is not changing.
[quote]Talk about a pure misunderstand and ignorance of my argument. My argument is based upon the proper definition of immutable and that is unchanging. Even if X is unchangeable, but Y and Z change the outcome of the results, it's not immutable, simple as that.[/quote]
Yes, the force of any given example is changeable, but the law of gravity is immutable. Gravity=the law of gravity, and is immutable. Individual examples of gravity are indeed changeable, but the law remains immutable.
[quote]The law may remain constant, but the effect of the law DOESN'T! Is there something you don't understand here? If X can effect Y, Y can not be immutable, simple as that.[/quote]
And gravity is the law, not the effect, therefore gravity remains constant thank you for proving my point.
Of COURSE the effect(another good place to use this word) changes, otherwise all action would be impossible.
The root of your misunderstanding is you seem to think that gravity is a force.
Gravity is not a force, it is a law, an immutable law.
The individual effects of that law depend on the circumstances, but the law is immutable. Thus gravity is immutable. The given force involved in the gravitational pull between any given two objects is changeable, but the law remains unchanged, and unchangeable.
[quote]The root of your misunderstanding is you seem to think that gravity is a force.[/quote]
Why isn't it?
[quote]Gravity is not a force, it is a law, an immutable law.[/quote]
Than explain definitions like this:
gravity - the [b]force of attraction[/b] by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.
Or this from [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:gravity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title]here[/url].
[quote](physics) the [b]force of attraction[/b] between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface;[/quote]
Care to try this again? It appears... gravity [b]is[/b] a force.
[quote]The individual effects of that law depend on the circumstances, but the law is immutable. Thus gravity is immutable.[/quote]
Can we say 'circular reasoning'?
[quote]The given force involved in the gravitational pull between any given two objects is changeable, but the law remains unchanged, and unchangeable.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but it can be changed by conditions, it is not immutable (not by the defination of immutable I'm finding, unless you have one the dictionary does not have listed).
Terror
[quote]That's not the definition of immutable... Immutable means unchanging. Gravity changes and came be overcome, thus it's not immutable.[/quote]
I didn't say it was the definition. I was just trying to explain that the laws have to be immutable for us to define them, or [i]mathematically[/i] calculate them using an equation that doesn't change. The speed of light is c = 3.00 x 10^8 m/s. The equation [i]itself[/i] doesn't change based on other variables. It will [i]always be the same equation used for the speed of light,[/i] just like natural laws will always be constant.
[quote]Not according to the dictionary... Something must be unchangeable, to be immutable.[/quote]
Um, yeah. The dictionary says laws of science are [b]invariable[/b] meaning [b]unchanging.[/b] They wouldn't put that in the definition if they weren't.
[quote]1. Gravity is overcome by a stronger force (lift) no where did I state it makes gravity stop existing.
2. Gravity is effected by other forces. For gravity to be immutable, it must not be able to be changed.
Therefore, how can gravity be immutable?[/quote]
I know you didn't say it stopped existing. I said: [i]Just because an airplane can fly doesn't constitute that the [b]law of gravity[/b] is no longer legitimate.[/i] I meant that when things overcome gravity, it doesn't mean that the law of gravity is void. It's still the same old law it was before the airplane took off.
Look, you obviously aren't getting the point here. Let's use another example.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can change from one form to another, (heat electricity, etc.) but it cannot be created or destroyed. Give me evidence of energy being created or destroyed to make this law changeable and I will take back all that I have said about laws being immutable.
[quote=lilangelofterror]Why isn't it?[/quote]
I'm going to let you on a little secret. Gravity isn't a force. We haven't figured out what gravity... is. Realy it's quite embarrassing. But gravity(in SCIENTIFIC terms, as we are talking about SCIENTIFIC laws) is a description of the attractive properties of any given objects. But it's not... a force, it is a mathematical model which describes a certain force..
What is gravity?
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the Universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.
[quote]Than explain definitions like this:
gravity - the [b]force of attraction[/b] by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.
Or this from [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:gravity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title]here[/url].
(physics) the [b]force of attraction[/b] between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface;[/quote]
Although I will point out that it says between ALL masses, not just to planets.
But gravity is not an inherent force. However, its results are a force. For example, as a result of gravity, I am being pulled towards the earth with a force of of about 500 Newtons. I'm pulling back on it with the same force, but since it weighs a massive amount, it doesn't move. However, gravity itself is simply the idea which expresses how those forces play out.
[quote]Can we say 'circular reasoning'? [/quote]
well no. I showed that the law was immutable(as it was fixed at that equation, and would never change from being that equation), and thus gravity was immutable
[quote]I'm sorry, but it can be changed by conditions, it is not immutable (not by the defination of immutable I'm finding, unless you have one the dictionary does not have listed). [/quote]
Again, the force exerted by the model we call gravity is changeable, but the law of gravity is immutable.
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.
(G is the gravitational constant, which has the same value throughout our universe, and thus gravity remains unchanged. The mass or distance can change, and the force exerted as a result will change, but gravity itself is immutable
[quote]I'm going to let you on a little secret. Gravity isn't a force. We haven't figured out what gravity... is.[/quote]
Awww, so the science books on physics are WRONG when they call gravity a force. Humm... who should I believe... a teen online, who is way over his head, or a scientist who has studied gravity long before either of us was born?
[quote]But gravity(in SCIENTIFIC terms, as we are talking about SCIENTIFIC laws) is a description of the attractive properties of any given objects. But it's not... a force, it is a mathematical model which describes a certain force..[/quote]
I think I'll follow the scientist who says it's a force before I'll follow you, thank you very much.
[quote]We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the Universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.[/quote]
And some scientist think Gravity is a wave. Einstein's model shows objects in space making a 'gravity well' things get caught in. Such as Earth is caught in the sun's well, and the moon is caught in Earth's. Again, just because we are not sure what causes gravity or all the details of how it works, doesn't make it stop being a force.
[quote]Although I will point out that it says between ALL masses, not just to planets.[/quote]
Ummm yes, all objects in space create a small amount of gravity. In fact one plan some scientist have come up with to divert an asteroid from hitting the Earth is to use a spacecraft's gravity to push it off course. Sorry, you're not telling me anything new.
[quote]But gravity is not an inherent force. However, its results are a force. For example, as a result of gravity, I am being pulled towards the earth with a force of of about 500 Newtons. I'm pulling back on it with the same force, but since it weighs a massive amount, it doesn't move. However, gravity itself is simply the idea which expresses how those forces play out.[/quote]
And if you were on Mars, it would be different than on Earth. In deep space, it would be different too. That is the question. For example, even if X always equals 2 and Y can equal any number, will the answer always be the same? No, likewise, just because gravity is always the same number, does not mean how it applies in the real world is always going to be the same. It isn't, and that is where my argument lies.
[quote]well no. I showed that the law was immutable(as it was fixed at that equation, and would never change from being that equation), and thus gravity was immutable.[/quote]
*bangs head into wall* Again, even if X is always 2 and Y can be any number, it does not make the answer immutable. This is what I'm talking about, how does gravity apply to the real world? Is how much gravity can pull effected by how much mass an object has? Yes it is, thus how gravity applies can't be immutable.
[quote]Again, the force exerted by the model we call gravity is changeable, but the law of gravity is immutable.[/quote]
Again, the force exerted is what we're talking about my friend. In fact, when I think of gravity (along with the scientific defination of gravity) the force is what comes to mind. That is how it applies to our universe and thus gravity is not immutable...
[quote](G is the gravitational constant, which has the same value throughout our universe, and thus gravity remains unchanged. The mass or distance can change, and the force exerted as a result will change, but gravity itself is immutable[/quote]
And the force gravity changes, which makes does not make it immutable. Remember, math is a great a wonderful tool, but must be applied to the real world. If the results of gravity change, than the scientific definition of gravity can't be immutable.
Terror
[quote=Toxicat]I didn't say it was the definition. I was just trying to explain that the laws have to be immutable for us to define them, or mathematically calculate them using an equation that doesn't change.[/quote]
The answer (or how gravity applies in our universe) changes, thus it can't be immutable. You say x never changes, that's nice but Y changes and thus the answer changes too. That is what I'm talking about, does the force of gravity and how it applies to our universe change according to the mass of the object in question?
[quote]The speed of light is c = 3.00 x 10^8 m/s. The equation itself doesn't change based on other variables. It will always be the same equation used for the speed of light, just like natural laws will always be constant.[/quote]
We are not talking about the speed of light, are we? We are talking about the effects of gravity. BTW, light can be changed into matter and matter into light, just if you didn't know that...
[quote]Um, yeah. The dictionary says laws of science are invariable meaning unchanging. They wouldn't put that in the definition if they weren't.[/quote]
Ummm, who told you that nonsense? We have learned more about the universe around us in the past 50 years and have discovered what we thought we know, was incorrect. We used to think that black holes never moved, recent discoveries are showing they do move. In fact, our scientific models change quite often. :wink: Also science tells us what happens as long as something is left to it's own devices. Light will always travel in a straight line, until it comes in contact with our atmosphere, than it will begin to bend and thus create the twinkling of stars we see in the night sky.
[quote]I know you didn't say it stopped existing. I said: Just because an airplane can fly doesn't constitute that the law of gravity is no longer legitimate. I meant that when things overcome gravity, it doesn't mean that the law of gravity is void. It's still the same old law it was before the airplane took off.[/quote]
Again, no where did I state that gravity is any less than it was before. Simply another force (being lift) has overcome it. My point is that if something is really immutable, it can not be overcome or changed it any way. You say Gravity is always the same in math models, that's nice... but is how it applies to the universe always the same?
[quote]Look, you obviously aren't getting the point here. Let's use another example.[/quote]
Sorry, I got the point exactly, but I do not care about what your models say, I care about how how it reacts in reality. In math, it is possible to have a negative amount of people to do something, but does that work in reality too? Gravity not simply an X that never changes, it's real work application changes, thus it can't be immutable (which is my entire point).
[quote]The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can change from one form to another, (heat electricity, etc.) but it cannot be created or destroyed. Give me evidence of energy being created or destroyed to make this law changeable and I will take back all that I have said about laws being immutable.[/quote]
There are scientist who think they have discovered a particle that appears to come into existence at will and disappears at will. I will agree with you that the universe does need a constant variable to be possible, I simply do not believe it's the scientific laws around us. I believe the scientific laws have a cause for their existence.
BTW, if time travel, other universes, or God were proven to exist, the laws of thermodynamics would become undone, know why?
Terror
[quote]The answer (or how gravity applies in our universe) changes, thus it can't be immutable. You say x never changes, that's nice but Y changes and thus the answer changes too. That is what I'm talking about, does the force of gravity and how it applies to our universe change according to the mass of the object in question?[/quote]
You're right, the answer does change, but that doesn't mean the law that defines it is not immutable. You must have a [i]constant[/i] or [i]unchanging[/i] equation for gravity to find the answer, right? That equation that [i]defines the law[/i] [b]must be immutable to work.[/b] It can never change, otherwise the law would be void.
[quote]We are not talking about the speed of light, are we? We are talking about the effects of gravity.[/quote]
Yeah, but I used the [i]constant[/i] equation for the speed of light as an example. Is that not okay with you?
[quote]BTW, light can be changed into matter and matter into light, just if you didn't know that...[/quote]
...what does that have to do with anything? I thought you wanted to talk about gravity. ;)
[quote]Ummm, who told you that nonsense?[/quote]
dictionary.com
[quote]Again, no where did I state that gravity is any less than it was before. Simply another force (being lift) has overcome it. My point is that if something is really immutable, it can not be overcome or changed it any way. You say Gravity is always the same in math models, that's nice... but is how it applies to the universe always the same?[/quote]
Yes, you did. "Void" in terms of law means that the law is useless or ineffectual, which is what you're basically arguing when you say gravity is changing. If it changed, it would no longer be the same constant, and therefore we wouldn't be able to use it in any kind of equation. Like you said before, the [i]answer[/i] changes based on what is being calculated, but the law of gravity, or the mathematical equation for gravity, is immutable. It simply [b]does not change.[/b]
[quote]BTW, if time travel, other universes, or God were proven to exist, the laws of thermodynamics would become undone, know why?[/quote]
That's just a speculation. But don't you think if time travel existed, we would have seen people from the future popping in throughout history? :P
Also, God's existence will never be proven as fact.
[quote=lilangelofterror]
Awww, so the science books on physics are WRONG when they call gravity a force. Humm... who should I believe... a teen online, who is way over his head, or a scientist who has studied gravity long before either of us was born?[/quote]
This is the equation for gravity
F is force
m1 is the mass of the first object
m2 is the mass of the second object
G is the gravitational constant
and d is distance
F=m1xm2xG/)d^2)
the masses can change, the distance can change, and as a result, the Force exerted by gravity(whatever it is, waves, a field) can change. But Gravity itself never changes.
[quote]
I think I'll follow the scientist who says it's a force before I'll follow you, thank you very much.[/quote]
So if I give you scientists who don't, very pre-emininent ones, that would help?
Einstein said it is not a force in the way others are, but an effect of the curvature of space-time.
Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity
-Steve Carlip
It has long been believed that acceleration due to gravity is caused by an attarctive force generated by matter. There has been no explanation as to the nature of this force, only mathematical models that fit with (to a greater or lesser extent) the observations we have made of the universe. Before explaining what gravity is, it is first necessary to explain that it is not a force generated by matter.
-James Copple
If gravity is not a force, they asked, then what is it? Einstein's answer is no less than life changing! Gravity, he said, is the result of the mass of an object bending space! Bending Space! Can you imagine? I cannot!
What Einstein was saying is that objects do not fall because of an attractive force reaching out of an object and pulling it to itself, as Newton said. Rather, Einstein said, objects fall because the space they are in is, well, bent. If you place a ball on a bent, or slanted table it will fall. This is what
Anyway, I think we would do some good if we warned students that gravity s not a force, e-field is not a force, there is no "force of magnetism," etc. Try to undo the damage that the "four known forces" concept has done. Make everyone feel uncomfortable when they accidentally say that "electric force" fills the dielectric of a charged(!) capacitor, or that the "force of gravity" fills the region surrounding the earth.
Another tack: does the word "force" have more than one definition? Perhaps it also means "field", and therefor "field" and "force" can be used interchangably. I certainly hope not. When we discuss "strong nuclear force", we're really talking about a Gauge field and its associated exchange particles, and such things are not measured in terms of Newtons. We certainly should not say "force" if we mean "field."
-William J. Beaty
[quote]
And some scientist think Gravity is a wave. Einstein's model shows objects in space making a 'gravity well' things get caught in. Such as Earth is caught in the sun's well, and the moon is caught in Earth's. Again, just because we are not sure what causes gravity or all the details of how it works, doesn't make it stop being a force.[/quote] We don't know, but none of the models point to it as being a force. Perhaps a field, perhaps a bending of the universe(this is the most common theory), but not a force.
[quote]
Ummm yes, all objects in space create a small amount of gravity. In fact one plan some scientist have come up with to divert an asteroid from hitting the Earth is to use a spacecraft's gravity to push it off course. Sorry, you're not telling me anything new.[/quote] First off, that would never work. The spacecraft would have to be MASSIVE. However, you kept referring to gravity only on planets and stars, so I sought to clarify in case
[quote]
And if you were on Mars, it would be different than on Earth. In deep space, it would be different too. That is the question. For example, even if X always equals 2 and Y can equal any number, will the answer always be the same? No, likewise, just because gravity is always the same number, does not mean how it applies in the real world is always going to be the same. It isn't, and that is where my argument lies.[/quote]
Again, gravity is the gravitational constant. You're confusing gravity with the force(or the curvature of space) associated with gravity.
[quote]
*bangs head into wall* Again, even if X is always 2 and Y can be any number, it does not make the answer immutable. This is what I'm talking about, how does gravity apply to the real world? Is how much gravity can pull effected by how much mass an object has? Yes it is, thus how gravity applies can't be immutable.[/quote]
Not the answer. Gravity isn't the answer, it's the law. A law is an explanation of what will happen, and those happenenings are affected by all sorts of circumstances, so of course laws will be equations. And those equations are immutable.
[quote]
Again, the force exerted is what we're talking about my friend. In fact, when I think of gravity (along with the scientific defination of gravity) the force is what comes to mind. That is how it applies to our universe and thus gravity is not immutable...[/quote]
THat might be how it's used colloquially, but in terms of science, gravity refers to the gravitational constant. The force of gravity refers to the whole thing. If on a physics test, you are asked for gravity, you give the gravitational constant. If you're asked for the law of gravity, you give the equation. If you are asked for the force of gravity on a given example, THEN you use the equation, plugging in the values.
[quote]
And the force gravity changes, which makes does not make it immutable. Remember, math is a great a wonderful tool, but must be applied to the real world. If the results of gravity change, than the scientific definition of gravity can't be immutable.[/quote]
the force is not immutable, but the definition, the law, and gravity itself all are.
[quote=Toxicat]You're right, the answer does change, but that doesn't mean the law that defines it is not immutable. [/quote]
Why not? I'm asking how it applies to the real world and the answer is real world application.
[quote]You must have a constant or unchanging equation for gravity to find the answer, right? That equation that defines the law must be immutable to work. It can never change, otherwise the law would be void.[/quote]
*sigh* Not what I'm talking about... I'm talking about the real world application. Things may look great on paper, but don't work in the real world. That why I do see gravity as immutable, it's real world application changes according to conditions.
[quote]
Yeah, but I used the constant equation for the speed of light as an example. Is that not okay with you?[/quote]
Sure, but like I said... light is effected by conditions. Which is what we are trying to discover eh? BTW, want to hear a fun scientific puzzle that has to do with light?
[quote]...what does that have to do with anything? I thought you wanted to talk about gravity.[/quote]
Nothing really, just showing you they are not always the same.
[quote]dictionary.com[/quote]
Funny... same place I got my definition from too...
[quote]Yes, you did. "Void" in terms of law means that the law is useless or ineffectual, which is what you're basically arguing when you say gravity is changing.[/quote]
How does that void gravity as useless or ineffectual? Sorry, it doesn't, the force of gravity does indeed change according to the mass of the object in question and that is the definition of gravity I am using (which happens to be the same one physics uses too).
[quote]If it changed, it would no longer be the same constant, and therefore we wouldn't be able to use it in any kind of equation.[/quote]
*sigh* paying attention is not easy for you guys to do is it? The definition I am using for gravity is a force. Does the force of gravity change? If yes, than gravity is changing.... How many times do you need to see the same definition until you find it? The REAL WORLD application of gravity does indeed change, which is what the definition of gravity I'm using is.
[quote]Like you said before, the answer changes based on what is being calculated, but the law of gravity, or the mathematical equation for gravity, is immutable. It simply does not change.[/quote]
Too bad that's not the definition of gravity I'm using huh?
[quote]That's just a speculation.[/quote]
It's not speculation, the laws of thermodynamics are based upon the universe having a set amount of matter/energy. If either of those things I mentioned are true, than energy/matter is not in a set, unchangeable amount, would it?
[quote]But don't you think if time travel existed, we would have seen people from the future popping in throughout history?[/quote]
Depending on how careful they are not to get in the way of events in the past. Ever watch any of the Star Trek series shows by chance?
[quote]Also, God's existence will never be proven as fact.[/quote]
There's quite a number of things not proven to be a fact. However: I think the historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence points to the existence of God.
Terror
[quote]....the masses can change, the distance can change, and as a result, the Force exerted by gravity(whatever it is, waves, a field) can change. But Gravity itself never changes.[/quote]
The force IS gravity! How many times do you need to hear the same defination of gravity until you finally understand? Where am I confusing gravity at? The dictionary calls gravity a FORCE! So do physics books! Again, who should I listen to? The experts or you?
[quote]So if I give you scientists who don't, very pre-emininent ones, that would help?[/quote]
YEAAA, sound bites! How about some science books or websites (like I've been using)?
[quote]We don't know, but none of the models point to it as being a force. Perhaps a field, perhaps a bending of the universe(this is the most common theory), but not a force.[/quote]
Ummm... a field is indeed a force... for example, can you use a magnetic field to lift or move objects?
[quote]First off, that would never work.[/quote]
Might want to go tell the people in NASA who are working on that idea right now...
[quote]The spacecraft would have to be MASSIVE.[/quote]
Depending on the size of the astroid, it wouldn't have to be that big. I'm about 110lbs and I can push objects that are many times my size.
[quote]However, you kept referring to gravity only on planets and stars, so I sought to clarify in case[/quote]
Sorry, I know all about it. You're not going to impress me with that... science has always been one of my favorite subjects in school. However; when you think of gravity planets/stars are the things to come to mind, thus that's the description I used.
[quote]Again, gravity is the gravitational constant. You're confusing gravity with the force(or the curvature of space) associated with gravity.[/quote]
Again, I'm taking what science books/dictionaries say what gravity is, might want to write them and convince them to fix their error.
[quote]Not the answer. Gravity isn't the answer, it's the law. A law is an explanation of what will happen, and those happenenings are affected by all sorts of circumstances, so of course laws will be equations. And those equations are immutable.[/quote]
Again, real world application is what I'm referring to....
[quote]
THat might be how it's used colloquially, but in terms of science, gravity refers to the gravitational constant.[/quote]
Funny... the scientific sources I found referred to gravity as a force... how silly of them... they must be stupid than...
[quote]The force of gravity refers to the whole thing.[/quote]
What is the most common definition/term used to describe gravity?
[quote]If on a physics test, you are asked for gravity, you give the gravitational constant. [/quote]
If you say so...
[quote]
If you're asked for the law of gravity, you give the equation. If you are asked for the force of gravity on a given example, THEN you use the equation, plugging in the values.[/quote]
Thus the real world application of gravity. :wink: In the real world, is gravity a force? Yes or no?
[quote]the force is not immutable, but the definition, the law, and gravity itself all are.[/quote]
The force is the real world application, thus gravity can't be immutable in the real world.
Terror
[quote=lilangelofterror]
The force IS gravity! How many times do you need to hear the same defination of gravity until you finally understand? Where am I confusing gravity at? The dictionary calls gravity a FORCE! So do physics books! Again, who should I listen to? The experts or you?[/quote]
Again, no. You're misinterpretting the point. Gravity is simply the mathematically conception OF the force. There is no 'gravity' floating in the air.
[quote]
YEAAA, sound bites! How about some science books or websites (like I've been using)?[/quote](if you google small snippets of those quotes in quotations, with their author's names, you'll get the sites and more.
[quote]
Ummm... a field is indeed a force... for example, can you use a magnetic field to lift or move objects?[/quote] Exactly, the field EXERTS a force, but it is not a force. For example, I can push things, but I am not a force. I EXERT a force.
[quote]
Might want to go tell the people in NASA who are working on that idea right now...
[quote]
Depending on the size of the astroid, it wouldn't have to be that big. I'm about 110lbs and I can push objects that are many times my size. [/quote]
Yes, but that's when you're right next to them. Gravity exerts less force from a distance. Unless you're talking about launching the space ship INTO the asteroid(which would have nothing to do with gravity) gravitational force of any large degree requires massive objects.
[quote]
Again, I'm taking what science books/dictionaries say what gravity is, might want to write them and convince them to fix their error. [/quote]
They use those words because they're colloquially easier. Just like when you talk about an object wanting to fall but being held up by something. The object doesn't WANT to fall, it's just a way of phrasing things so they're easily to package for the masses.
[quote]
Again, real world application is what I'm referring to....[/quote]
real world application, not dumbing things down. Gravity works EXACTLY as the law states, even in the real world.
[quote]
Funny... the scientific sources I found referred to gravity as a force... how silly of them... they must be stupid than...[/quote]
Write them. Ask them exactly what gravity is. In fact, ask for a technical explanation of WHAT gravity is, and what the force of gravity is.
simply look at the equation
F=ma
F=m1xm2xG/(d^2)
Since units are of utmost important, and the right side contains force, the units on the right must combine to make Force as well. This means that G can't have Newtons(the unit for force) as its unit, as that would mean mass and distance have no units.
[quote]
What is the most common definition/term used to describe gravity?[/quote]
What is the most common religion?
Commonness does not mean correctness.
[quote]If on a physics test, you are asked for gravity, you give the gravitational constant. [/quote]
If you say so...
[quote]
Thus the real world application of gravity. :wink: In the real world, is gravity a force? Yes or no?[/quote]
No, the force of gravity is a force. It's not like there's like the concept world which exists only in our head. These concepts are real world applications requiring only numbers to be plugged in.
[quote]
The force is the real world application, thus gravity can't be immutable in the real world.[/quote]
The force may be the 'real world' application, whatever the heck that means(gravity exerts the exact force our models expect it to, and thus any delineation is pointless, but all that proves is that the FORCE is mutable, not gravity itself.
DUH the forces in the world are different, but they obey immutable laws.
Ok, whatever you want to say AgnosticAtheist1...
First, to deny the existence of Jesus is to deny the validity of Josephus' writings on him. That would in turn be defying many scholars of today, both Christian & Non-Christian. Jesus was not some idea made into a man. He was a real person. Now, since his miracles were performed in the past we cannot test them but I will say that we can see that though he was called a false prophet by the Pharisees they still did not deny his miracles or say they never happened. Even after his death they did not say anything. They even feared his ability to perform miracles themselves. That is why they had the romans post guards at the grave. They claimed it was cause they feared the disciples but they knew the truth. Even after the roman guards tried to protect the grave something happened, the guards said they were blinded & then fell asleep, & the body of Jesus disappeared. How could a few fishermen & tax collecters blind roman guards & cause them to sleep all the while the guards did not recieve a scratch. They didn't have modern technology back then. as I've said I can't prove the validity of Jesus' miracles because I cannot test the past but I can obvserve the actions of those who hated him & yet could not deny his actions. That at least says something about Jesus.
Praise God,
GWG
[quote]I can obvserve the actions of those who hated him[/quote]
No see the problem is that you cannot observe the actions of thoes people, as they were in the bible
You are using the bible to prove the bible - like showing how the Opus dei people in the da vinci code responded to the accusations of a plot... proves that there is a plot