Existence vs Awareness

[Iacchus]

So, your own ignorance makes something "impossible".

So, you say it's impossible to know what happened prior to the Big Bang? Mind you, this is not my claim! I only agree that it appears to be impossible.

Thankfully, we are not all limited by your ignorance.

Yes, you are the folks who claim that it is impossible. So, why do you insist on twisting and contorting my words around?

 

[Iacchus]

Which is it? Are you retreating from your earlier, false, statement about "experiencing a sense of gravity"? Or are you equating your earlier, false, statement with simply "affected by gravity", and making an even bigger mistake?

Words have accepted meanings, Iacchus. Using them in a new way does not help your arguing skills any.

I'm saying that a rock may not experience gravity the way we do but, that it is affected by it nonetheless. Now I hope that's not too unclear for you.

 

[Iacchus]

And herein lies the root of most of your problems. You can't conceive of things. Even when you've had things explained, you still can't conceive of them. Even when you're shown evidence for things, you still can't conceive of them. You remind me of the joke about the blond who says to the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I touch my knee, and it hurts when I touch my chin, and it hurts when I touch my side and it hurts when I touch my nose..." The doctor interrupts and says, "I think I see the problem. You have a broken finger."

Your "broken finger" is your limited capacity for conception.

Just because I may be very selective about what I "entertain with my brain," does not make me stupid. Not in the least. If you don't learn how to cancel out the noise, you won't get a clear picture and understand what you're looking at.

 

[Mercutio]

So, you say it's impossible to know what happened prior to the Big Bang? Mind you, this is not my claim! I only agree that it appears to be impossible.

Yet you say you know... so you clearly do not agree that it isimpossible.

Yes, you are the folks who claim that it is impossible. So, why do you insist on twisting and contorting my words around?

Your previous use of "impossible" was that the universe was impossible. That is clearly false. Knowing what happened "before the big bang" is indeed impossible by all current evidence, yet you claim knowledge. Please be careful when you say "you are the folks who claim..." to properly say what it is we claim. Your statement here is ambiguous.

If anyone here is twisting words, it is you.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm saying that a rock may not experience gravity the way we do but, that it is affected by it nonetheless. Now I hope that's not too unclear for you.

Thank you. Then you agree that your statement "Obviously if I didn't experience the sense of gravity I wouldn't be capable of falling now would I?" is false.

 

[Mercutio]

Just because I may be very selective about what I "entertain with my brain," does not make me stupid. Not in the least. If you don't learn how to cancel out the noise, you won't get a clear picture and understand what you're looking at.

It does not make you stupid, but it does leave you ignorant. And that is not "cancelling out noise", but "wearing a blindfold".

 

[Iacchus]

And that is not "cancelling out noise", but "wearing a blindfold".

And that's a metaphor, and incorrectly used. You see, I am quite capaple of learning, from all the wonderful nonsense coming from you.

 

[Iacchus]

Thank you. Then you agree that your statement "Obviously if I didn't experience the sense of gravity I wouldn't be capable of falling now would I?" is false.

Depends on your definition of falling. It seems you're the one who wants to change the definition around. Most people wouldn't associate free falling in space (if, in fact that's what it is) with falling off a twelve story building. Certainly if there was no gravity, you wouldn't expect to hit the ground now would you? Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Mercutio]

Depends on your definition of falling. It seems you're the one who wants to change the definition around. Most people wouldn't associate free falling in space (if, in fact that's what it is) with falling off a twelve story building. Certainly if there was no gravity, you wouldn't expect to hit the ground now would you? Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because it is wrong.

First off, you have no idea what "most people" would believe. Secondly, what "most people" think about it is irrelevant. Thirdly, your ignorance of free fall is not an argument. Go read up about it, realize your mistake, and come back.

As for your other post...I would be happy to acknowledge that you are capable of learning, the moment you demonstrate that you are.

 

[Iacchus]

Because it is wrong.

First off, you have no idea what "most people" would believe. Secondly, what "most people" think about it is irrelevant. Thirdly, your ignorance of free fall is not an argument. Go read up about it, realize your mistake, and come back.

Sure, you bet. And what exactly do they mean by zero G? When you fall off the edge of a building, mind you, nobody has to push you, you have no choice but to go down, until you make contact with the source that is drawing you down. And smack, splat, that's the end of it! When you're free falling in space, well, conceivably that could go on forever.

As for your other post...I would be happy to acknowledge that you are capable of learning, the moment you demonstrate that you are.

Nonsense begets nonsense. You see, I am quite capable of learning.

 

[Taffer]

If we weren't referring to something that was real (with real consequences), there wouldn't be much point in bringing it up would there?

But there are real consequences, even if it isn't refering to something real. The law of gravity lets us predict with great accuracy the positions of the planets at a given point, for example.

 

[Iacchus]

Because it is wrong.

So, what makes it wrong then? Because I'm not adhering to a specific rule or something? You almost make it sound like I've broken some kind of law. Hmm ...

Well, you know what they say, "You can't have your cake and eat it."

 

[Taffer]

Sure, you bet. And what exactly do they mean by zero G? When you fall off the edge of a building, mind you, nobody has to push you, you have no choice but to go down, until you make contact with the source that is drawing you down. And smack, splat, that's the end of it! When you're free falling in space, well, conceivably that could go on forever.

In space you are constantly falling. The only reason why you do not hit the ground is you are moving forward the same distance that you are dropping, so your distance above the ground does not change. Take freefall in a plane, for example. It is zero G, because it feels like there are zero G's acting upon you, but in reality there is 1 G.

 

[Taffer]

So, what makes it wrong then? Because I'm not adhering to a specific rule or something? You almost make it sound like I've broken some kind of law. Hmm ...

Well, you know what they say, "You can't have your cake and eat it."

It is wrong because you have an incorrect view of the forces acting upon you in freefall.

 

[Iacchus]

But there are real consequences, even if it isn't refering to something real. The law of gravity lets us predict with great accuracy the positions of the planets at a given point, for example.

So, what are you saying? Does gravity exist or, doesn't it exist? Is it a legitimate property that we can ascribe to the Universe? Yes or no?

 

[Iacchus]

It is wrong because you have an incorrect view of the forces acting upon you in freefall.

There are no forces, of gravity that is, except the "initial shove." Meaning you aren't being drawn towards anything.

 

[Taffer]

So, what are you saying? Does gravity exist or, doesn't it exist? Is it a legitimate property that we can ascribe to the Universe? Yes or no?

Something exists. We could call it gravity, if you like. But we have no idea how this thing works. The law of gravity does not describe this thing, but describes how things fall. That's all.

 

[Taffer]

There are no forces, of gravity that is, except the "initial shove." Meaning you aren't being drawn towards anything.

And this is why you are wrong. Gravity acts upon you always. In freefall, you are still falling at ~10m/s towards the earth. You are also traveling forwards around the earth at such a speed that the earth falls away at ~10m/s. This is how an orbit works, Iacchus.

 

[Iacchus]

Something exists. We could call it gravity, if you like. But we have no idea how this thing works. The law of gravity does not describe this thing, but describes how things fall. That's all.

Really? It seems to have a lot to do with mass in fact. No mass? No gravity, you see.

 

[Iacchus]

And this is why you are wrong. Gravity acts upon you always. In freefall, you are still falling at ~10m/s towards the earth. You are also traveling forwards around the earth at such a speed that the earth falls away at ~10m/s. This is how an orbit works, Iacchus.

I'm speaking of freefall within open space (I assumed that's what Mercutio meant?), not within the atmosphere of a big hunk of mass such as the earth.