Thanks. Don't worry, my hopes are very much down. Still, worth a shot, I suppose. I find these 'discussion' with Iacchus often help to solidify my own understanding of a topic.
Thanks. Don't worry, my hopes are very much down. Still, worth a shot, I suppose. I find these 'discussion' with Iacchus often help to solidify my own understanding of a topic.
You have it wrong, Iacchus. The law of gravity does not describe a law of gravity, it describes the way bodies behave.
Indeed. In this case, the word "law", and the laws themselves, are descriptions not of actual laws, but of the behaviour of the universe.
Ever try jumping off the edge of a twenty story building? Please folks, don't go trying this at home.
Ever try jumping off the edge of a twenty story building? Please folks, don't go trying this at home.
The law of gravity does not exist, except as our description of gravity.
A rose by any other name? Please ... Either there is a genuine phenomenon that we ascribe the word gravity to or there isn't.
Last edited:
There is. It is described by what we call "laws". Without circular reasoning, we cannot say it is governed by laws.
Circular reasoning has never once stopped Iacchus. But people who actually use their brains might like to do so at this point.
Iacchus...does gravity cause things to fall? Or is it merely a label for the process?
Gravity is a process which describes the nature of falling. And, along with this process, are all these little rules/laws that go with it. Which, ultimately we call the law(s) of gravity. So yes, the process inherent with the law(s) of gravity is what causes things to fall.
The law of gravity gives no mechanisms for why things fall. It does not give any process at all. All the law of gravity is is a description of how objects behave when they fall.
So, if I experienced a sense of weightlessness (with no gravity) would I be prone to fall?
Last edited:
I have no idea what you are asking. Could you rephrase this?
So, what's for dinner? Just kidding!
The law of gravity describes how bodies behave. It does not describe why they behave that way.
It had more to do with Mercutio asking if gravity caused things to fall ...
Obviously if I didn't experience the sense of gravity I wouldn't be capable of falling now would I?
His point is, gravity is just the name given to the process of things falling. When we say "gravity caused X to fall", we mean "X fell in accordance to the theory of gravity". We don't actually know what gravity is, just how it appears to work.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nope. Gravity is not "a process which describes the nature of falling". You're still confusing the phenomenon with our description of it. Gravity it is a force which attracts massive bodies towards other massive bodies (as by far the most massive body in our immediate vicinity is the Earth, we generally experience this as "falling" towards the Earth). There is no "process inherent with the law(s) of gravity"; the "law(s) of gravity" are just our description of how things fall.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That's the real problem here: all of your arguments come down to something that you just believe, but you are completely unable to provide any rational basis for your belief.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nothing is "maintained", things just appear to behave in a predictable manner. Once again, you're using words which appear to imply that there is some intelligence behind something, without any justification, and then trying to base an argument on your own usage of words.