Does gravity have mass?

[inocente]

Form statements like this from the same post: " Fine but that hypothesizes that there is an underlying reality which makes a thing to be what it is and which makes it to exist. Which isn’t testable, so it’s unscientific. You can believe it if you like, you can debate round the campfire long into the night, but it’s metaphysics, not science. "

So according to your view there is no objective truth unless it has passed the gauntlet of scientific verification. Is that not empiricism, which would exclude all philosophical and Divine truth? It is a view I do not share.

No, I said you are making a specific claim about what reality is. It may or may not be true. But you cannot determine the truth of the claim within science in the absence of empirical evidence. For starters, try to design an experiment to show the existence of divine truth. If you can’t, and you can’t, then it’s not science.

You just stubbed your toe. You are affirming the very thing you just denied.

I didn’t understand that, please explain.

No, it is philosophy. And it points to the importance of philosophy.

I disagree but won’t argue the point, as we’re agreed it’s not science.

But you can’t test God, so that’s not science, it’s theology.
Linusthe2nd;12141625:

So belief in God is not credible?

If you go around insisting that nothing is credible unless it’s rubber stamped by science, you’ll get yourself accused of scientism.

But science takes it for granted, it is assumed. And of course it implies the existence of a Being who creates each nature or essence, which is " designed " to carry out the tasks of its creator.

It’s not an assumption that there is order in some things. It’s a hypothesis which is tested billions of times every day by everyone on the planet going about their lives, and has never been disproved.

Your second sentence is unscientific. Which doesn’t make it false, it just means you cannot test God.

Again, you are expressing an attitude of scientism which you have just deined above.

I’ve been saying that all truths are not scientific, which is the dead opposite to scientism.

Scientism is the claim that if it’s not science, it’s not true.

You’re the one who has implied that if it’s not scientific it’s not credible. You have some explaining to do bro.

 

[inocente]

Again you are pleading scientism. You faith is at risk if that is true.

You seem to have your own private definition of the word.

How could that be, billions of people have agreed with me ?

You had said “man has lived for billions of years on my view of things”. It’s very specific. Not eternally, not trillions, not millions, not YEC, but specifically billions of years. I know of no one else who believes that. Do tell.

 

[inocente]

All one has to do is look at the external world around him/her to know that substances and natures or essences are real. A substance in its primary meaning is an individual existing thing. Now it is obvious to our sense experience that there are individual existing things in the world. It is also obvious to our sense experience that these substances are of a certain kind or nature such as human beings, dogs, trees, gold or what have you. The form answers the question what is it? The matter is what makes a thing be this dog Lassie, for example, and not some other dog and of course, the matter is the material constituent of the dog.

In my view, to know that a particular substance is a dog, for example, has more explanatory value then to say that it is a conglomeration of protons, neutrons, electrons and quarks, etc. which hardly explains the dog.

Does the air currently in your lungs count as part of you? When, precisely, does the sweat on your brow cease being part of you? Where exactly is the border of a cloud?

Our brain is very good at slicing up the world into things, but it takes lots of shortcuts. Whether the divisions it makes are objectively real is a philosophical question. If they are not then purported natures can’t be objectively real either. Science can’t be founded on such fuzzy notions.

*Is a photon matter? Well, according to the Wikipedia article, it is an elementary particle so maybe it is made out of matter, though supposedly, it possesses wave and particle like properties. I don’t think light is a substance though, rather it is a qualitative accident of a substance such as the sun or of substances such as helium or hydrogen and their fission or fusion. It is caused by a light source. A photon’s form is photon.

If we speak of neutrons as particles of elementary atoms, then neutrons are accidental forms composed of matter for they exist in the substantial forms of the elements such as carbon. If neutrons can be further divided into quarks, then these quarks are also accidental forms of the substantial forms of the elements.*

You made my point for me - it tells us nothing at all, just complicates unnecessarily.

The explanatory value of a philosophical system such as St Thomas Aquinas, who drew much from Aristotle and some from Plato and other philosphers as well, is that we can arrive at an ultimate explanation and cause of the universe which of course is God. The natural sciences have no such system or explanatory value nor can they because they study only some part or aspect of reality, not the totality of reality.

That’s a religious statement, and other religions would disagree profoundly. Even as another Christian I disagree that two pagan philosophers can tell me anything whatsoever about the God of Christ.

Whereas all faiths can agree with relativity. It is the very fact that science doesn’t try to answer all questions, but limits itself, which makes it so powerful and universal.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Whoa! That book you have must not be much good at all.

We can’t picture four dimensions, so the standard teaching aid is a big rubber sheet stretched out like a table, with weights placed on it representing planets or stars. They distort the sheet forming “gravity wells”. It’s interesting how many things it can demonstrate.

Here’s a teacher showing other teachers what students can learn from this: youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

Jim - this is a really good demo.

But it is a rubber sheet, it isn’t space.

Again, show me a bit of space, show me a bit of time.

We live in a three dimensional world, not a four dimensional world.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You seem to have your own private definition of the word.

When you accept nothing as true except what can be demonstrated by science, that is scientism. By that criteria, faith in Divine Revelation can be nothing but a myth.

You had said “man has lived for billions of years on my view of things”. It’s very specific. Not eternally, not trillions, not millions, not YEC, but specifically billions of years. I know of no one else who believes that. Do tell.

O.K., millions of years then, what’s the difference. Most people have always assumed we live in a three dimensional world, a natural world.

Linus2md

 

[Petaro]

BUT you could argue that the existence of gravity, and everything else in the universe, glorifies God, who made it. Not Catholic, but maybe theist. In a way. Not really…but it is more theist than atheist

Oh give us a break! Even a man as simple as I can recognise a nice play on words when I see it. Gravity from its very name is a grave matter, now all we need is full knowledge and consent and it will be a sin!
Higgs Boson particles are supposed to give mass, does that make them clerics?

 

[inocente]

But it is a rubber sheet, it isn’t space.

Again, show me a bit of space, show me a bit of time.

That video has had over 4 million hits, which is good for an amateur science video, and if you listen, the teacher says his high school students pick up relativity in one day by playing with that aid.

I was trying to help. You can take a Linus to water but you can’t make him drink.

We live in a three dimensional world, not a four dimensional world.

Navigators and New Yorkers would disagree. If you want to meet someone in a New York building, you have to agree the (1) east-west street and (2) north-south street of the block, the (3) floor of the building, and the (4) time to meet. That’s four dimensions.

 

[inocente]

When you accept nothing as true except what can be demonstrated by science, that is scientism. By that criteria, faith in Divine Revelation can be nothing but a myth.

Nowhere have I said that or even implied it. I think you’re deliberately misreading me to try to have an argument.

O.K., millions of years then, what’s the difference.

The difference is a factor of one thousand from your original billions. Even now it’s wrong (the Homo genus is a few million years old, but Homo sapiens, i.e. man, has only been around for 200 000 years).

Your textbooks seem to be a fact-free zone.

 

[inocente]

Oh give us a break! Even a man as simple as I can recognise a nice play on words when I see it. Gravity from its very name is a grave matter, now all we need is full knowledge and consent and it will be a sin!
Higgs Boson particles are supposed to give mass, does that make them clerics?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nowhere have I said that or even implied it. I think you’re deliberately misreading me to try to have an argument.

I’m not trying to get your goat, nor have I misread you. What other conclusion do I make from the following: " Fine but that hypothesizes that there is an underlying reality which makes a thing to be what it is and which makes it to exist. Which isn’t testable, so it’s unscientific. You can believe it if you like, you can debate round the campfire long into the night, but it’s metaphysics, not science. ( post 149 ) " The contents of philosophy and Divine Revelation are not testable either. So, by your account, there is no reliable truth from these sources. And if every logical conclusion must submit to the " falsifiable " criteria of science, that amounts to scientism.

The difference is a factor of one thousand from your original billions. Even now it’s wrong (the Homo genus is a few million years old, but Homo sapiens, i.e. man, has only been around for 200 000 years).

You certainly are picky. Sorry i’m not up on the age of man. I could have, maybe should have, said, " as long as man has been around. " Does that satisfy you? Good grief .

Your textbooks seem to be a fact-free zone.

What a delight you are .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I’m not trying to get your goat, nor have I misread you. What other conclusion do I make from the following: " Fine but that hypothesizes that there is an underlying reality which makes a thing to be what it is and which makes it to exist. Which isn’t testable, so it’s unscientific. You can believe it if you like, you can debate round the campfire long into the night, but it’s metaphysics, not science. ( post 149 ) " The contents of philosophy and Divine Revelation are not testable either. So, by your account, there is no reliable truth from these sources. And if every logical conclusion must submit to the " falsifiable " criteria of science, that amounts to scientism.

Please read what I said again. And once more. And the third time’s the charm.

I said that unless your claim can be tested then it’s not science, it’s metaphysics. That’s what I said. Not what you thought I said. Hopefully you see that now, and to bed it can be put.

*You certainly are picky. Sorry i’m not up on the age of man. I could have, maybe should have, said, " as long as man has been around. " Does that satisfy you? Good grief . *

Cop: You were driving at 600 000 miles an hour. The limit is 60.
Linus: You cops certainly are picky.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please read what I said again. And once more. And the third time’s the charm.

I said that unless your claim can be tested then it’s not science, it’s metaphysics. That’s what I said. Not what you thought I said. Hopefully you see that now, and to bed it can be put.

The implication is that only science reveals the truth. Ergo…what I said is ture, metaphysics and religion are not reliable sources of truth. I don’ t see how you can read it any other way. .

Cop: You were driving at 600 000 miles an hour. The limit is 60.
Linus: You cops certainly are picky.

I give up. I once had a friend who drove me nuts, he would constantly correct you if you misspoke, even in jest, or just because you didn’t feel like thinking at the moment… He was what is known as an habitual nit picker. It is a very bad habit.

Very quiet today. Guess the folks wore themselves out last night. It was a lively fourth in my neighborhood. Big boomers until 11 P.M. Looks like rain again today - but none in Spain I bet .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The implication is that only science reveals the truth. Ergo…what I said is ture, metaphysics and religion are not reliable sources of truth. I don’ t see how you can read it any other way.

I can’t be responsible for your reading things which are not there.

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” - Isaac Asimov

I give up. I once had a friend who drove me nuts, he would constantly correct you if you misspoke, even in jest, or just because you didn’t feel like thinking at the moment… He was what is known as an habitual nit picker. It is a very bad habit.

Linus: There are 30 000 persons in the Trinity.
Priest: No, there are 3.
Linus: You priests are such nit pickers.

Very quiet today. Guess the folks wore themselves out last night. It was a lively fourth in my neighborhood. Big boomers until 11 P.M. Looks like rain again today - but none in Spain I bet .

Don’t know about the plains. Up here in the mountains it’s wall to wall blue sky but the wind is up, so I’ve been inside most of the day. Happy yesterday.

 

[Richca]

Does the air currently in your lungs count as part of you? When, precisely, does the sweat on your brow cease being part of you? Where exactly is the border of a cloud?

Our brain is very good at slicing up the world into things, but it takes lots of shortcuts. Whether the divisions it makes are objectively real is a philosophical question. If they are not then purported natures can’t be objectively real either. Science can’t be founded on such fuzzy notions.

 

[inocente]

This simply does not make common sense which is a problem with some scientists nowadays

This isn’t a rational argument, it’s your opinion.

It appears your view of science and scientific knowledge is very limited.

This isn’t a rational argument, it’s an ad hominem fallacy.

I’m skipping the other places where you made personal comments. If they were wrapped around valid arguments, please make the arguments again without the condescension.

You might want to ascertain exactly what is scientific knowledge and how we come to acquire it. Did you know that botany and zoology are sciences and that they study the nature and essences of plants and animals and their accidents and thus are able to classify them?

I’ve read lots of peer reviewed research papers from all branches of science and never yet seen one which proposes a hypothesis using the words essences and accidents as you mean them here.

Science is about evidence so please cite me ten such papers. But I don’t think you can, I think those concepts were discredited by modern science and are not used.

Again, you seem to equate science with physics or something like it. Physics is not the only scientific knowledge known to mankind.

I’m using the word science as most people use it, for example in the way it is used by university science departments - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

The science of first philosophy, or metaphysics, is the most universal knowledge that can be attained by the natural light of reason because it is the science of not just any truth or being, but of that Truth and Being which is the origin of all truth and being and the first principle of all things that are, namely, God.

This is your religious opinion and there are many philosophers who disagree with you.

Professional philosophers have an online community to share research. In a poll in which 3200 philosophers took part, 85% don’t even “lean towards theism” and 75% “accept or lean towards scientific realism”.

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This isn’t a rational argument, it’s your opinion.

This isn’t a rational argument, it’s an ad hominem fallacy.

I’m skipping the other places where you made personal comments. If they were wrapped around valid arguments, please make the arguments again without the condescension.

I’ve read lots of peer reviewed research papers from all branches of science and never yet seen one which proposes a hypothesis using the words essences and accidents as you mean them here.

Science is about evidence so please cite me ten such papers. But I don’t think you can, I think those concepts were discredited by modern science and are not used.

I’m using the word science as most people use it, for example in the way it is used by university science departments - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

This is your religious opinion and there are many philosophers who disagree with you.

Professional philosophers have an online community to share research. In a poll in which 3200 philosophers took part, 85% don’t even “lean towards theism” and 75% “accept or lean towards scientific realism”.

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Don’t the residents of Spain ever sleep?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Don’t the residents of Spain ever sleep?

It’s 11:55 a.m. here. I know you teenagers sleep the clock round on Sundays.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s 11:55 a.m. here. I know you teenagers sleep the clock round on Sundays.

I guess they are giving California time, CA is located in San Diago.

I wouldn’t want to be a teen again, I’ll settle for being 50 again ( if I could still be retired! ) .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I wouldn’t want to be a teen again, I’ll settle for being 50 again ( if I could still be retired! ) .

You can be any age you like - see on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

On another thread today you recommended Anthony Rizzi. I looked up his most famous paper. Turns out it’s on ripples in space-time, using math. Good to know you’ve finally seen the light.

“ABSTRACT: Although considerable progress has been made in generalizing the concept of angular momentum to general relativity, until now no satisfactory definition that allows for the exchange of angular momentum has been given. I here give the first such definition. It is a definition at null infinity, the place and time where gravity waves reach in the limit far from all masses. The definition applies to any isolated system of masses including those that change their angular momentum L by emitting gravity waves. L̇ is given solely in terms of parameters in principle measurable directly by Michelson interferometer gravitational wave detectors such as LIGO or LISA.” - journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1150

 

[hecd2]

On another thread today you recommended Anthony Rizzi. I looked up his most famous paper. Turns out it’s on ripples in space-time, using math. Good to know you’ve finally seen the light.

As an aside, in post #105 of this thread Linus promoted Rizzi to a Nobel prize. I forgot to mention it at the time. He’s not a Nobel laureate - not even close.