From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Opening Sentence

The opening sentence is misleading. It is a FACT that gravitation occurs; the reasons for that gravitation are as yet theories. Therefore "the theory of gravity" is a misleading phrase.

Are you serious? Yes, it is a fact that gravitation occurs, but how does that contradict the first sentence? RSchlafly 22:53, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I never said it contradicted the first sentence. Are you reading closely enough? I said the first sentence was misleading, and it is, since gravity isn't a theory in the ordinary sense of the word. There are THEORIES (plural!) of gravity which attempt to explain how gravity works, i.e. the mechanisms behind it, but gravity in itself is not a theory. I don't know how much simpler I can make that. DerUebermensch 10:50, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I am curious; what about the conventional definition of gravitation and the citations for it's history in Wikipedia is considered inappropriate?

Is it the intention of Conservapedia to supplant essentially all articles in Wikipedia, or only those that are deemed to be inconsistent with the stated objective(s) of this project?

I think it's very clear - we need to set up this stub article on gravity, so we can write the TRUE version of Gravity - one that comports with the TRUE facts of JESUS!!! And how GOD makes the universe work. Gravity works because GOD makes it work, because GOD MADE IT.

If we take that stance, then why bother having an encyclopaedia at all? We could have just the one page with the words: "Because God Made It". Also, if you are going to stoop to such buffoonery, then at least have the self-belief to sign your buffoonery. dropkickmejesus 18:04, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the most disgusting edit I have ever seen in my life. I have no probs. with people refuting evolution, but GRAVITY?! Its a durn law, not a theory.--Elamdri 22:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

All, and I do mean all, science is at best a theory. Science relies on induction, not deduction, and what is supported by induction is at best probably true, not certainly true (this goes for most human reasoning in general, but it is clearly true in science--and any good scientist will tell you that). At the moment, gravity, as understood by science, is very different from gravity as understood by Newton, and 100 years from now we will likely have a very different understanding of gravity than we do today. If by "Its a durn law, not a theory." you mean that it is proven beyond a bout, then you are simply wrong, the next piece of evidence we discover could disprove all we thought we knew about gravity. --Reginod 14:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I have to support Reginod that all science relies on induction. I just have to add though that it is not mathematical induction (and that's why math is not science) but physical induction meaning that if something repeated million times produces the same result there is a good chance that repeated once more it'll produce the same result. Though it is not a sure knowledge only the faith. It may be magic, which math is good at (and that's why it is not science). If the result is different then it is the time to modify the theory behind the result (if there is any). As it happened with Newton's mathematical theory and Einstein who knew that Newton's theory must be just magic since planet Mercury didn't follow the predictions of Newton's theory. Besides, Einstein, being a non believer, didn't believe in existence of "attractive force" acting at a distance (he called it "spooky"). Newton didn't believe in existence of such force either but didn't know with what it could be repalaced. He didn't know the notion of curvature of space. So he didn't know how gravitation can be demystified and explained with physics alone. So the opening statement is misleading according to both, Newton, and Einstein ("standing on Newton's shoulders" though). JimJast 14:20, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
You haven't suggested an alternative. I think Newton did accept action at a distance.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Andy. I have suggested an alternative. It is in "demystified". It also points to Einsteinian gravitation, which proves, in language that a mathematically oriented high school students should understand, that the universe is not expanding, and so the official cosmology with its "Big Bang", is a fake. I'd appreciate if you read the article and commented. JimJast 11:50, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Is the essence of your gravitation demystified to deny action-at-a-distance, and replace it with curvature of space per Relativity? If so, does your theory reject any kind of action-at-a-distance?
I don't make any assumptions about action-at-a-distance. I've shown in gravitation demystified that gravitation may be explained with interactions only between objects in contct with each other, following their in general curved paths in space that resamble action-at-a-distance but in reality are following the paths of most probable positions of involved objcts. I don't need to reject any action-at-a-distance since it plays no role in "my" (actually, probably, Mileva Marić) theory. JimJast 12:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Current Status of Gravity

I think it's worth pointing out that gravity is still a big grey area in modern physics. Gravitons are purely theoretical, no one has actually observed the mechanism of gravity directly.

Well, the current working theory of gravity - the one actually in use today - doesn't involve gravitons at all. Gravitons are what you get when you try to quantize gravity, which I think is already covered by the need to reconcile GR and QM. Whether or not they are actually "the mechanism" of gravity is uncertain. But feel free to add something in if you like. Tsumetai 07:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the fact that we don't actually have the mechanism nailed down is pretty important to point out. It's as important to point out what we don't know as what we do. --Pacman 08:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This page is over gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the intelligent falling theory. . . comment by User:Garklieo
Yeah, right Garlieko, alias in Steph lies. Man falling off an airplane is doing that in theory, according to your logic; he's reaching speeds of 160 miles per hour, in theory, according to your logic; he's going to hit the ground with a thud, in theory, according to your logic. So if this man gets killed because he violated the "theory" of gravity, are you going to tell his family that his death is just a theory as well? Karajou 19:29, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Lieze would be pronounced like "leeze" and that argument makes no sense at all. On that note, I think that intelligent falling should recieve equal coverage, as Gravity is only a theory, and we should teach the controversy. Barikada 19:53, 17 January 2008 (EST)

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Please, don't add back the Big Bang clause, you're implying it's the only thing General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree on. Nyflah 21:47, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Under what other circumstances do those theories disagree? RSchlafly 02:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Ask and ye shall receive. Nyflah 14:34, 29 January 2008 (EST) Late, I know.

Your references say: "The experimental domain in which such combinations could be tested is unreachable with existing and foreseeable technology." "One can scarcely imagine two great theories that have less to say to one another than quantum mechanics and general relativity!" "there are no experiments in quantum gravity, and little in the way of observations that might qualify as direct or indirect data or evidence." In other words, there is no known scientific incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. RSchlafly 16:23, 29 January 2008 (EST)

"There is a deep seated fundamental conflict between Quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Subtle difficulties become insurmountable problems when gravity is added." Paul Renteln, "Quantum Gravity", American Scientist, 79, 508-527 (1991). [1]
In fact, there are numerous sources on the internet that address, and agree, that there is "conflict" between "quantum mechanics" and relativity. For example, relativity denies any action-at-a-distance, while quantum mechanics depends on it.--Aschlafly 21:41, 29 January 2008 (EST)
There are some conceptual differences between the theories, but the theories do not disagree on anything observable. RSchlafly 23:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well, if we limit this to what is observable, then there are few if any observable differences between relativity and variations on classical theories. Limiting relativity to what is observable eliminates many of its popular claims, such as gravitons, black holes, four-dimensional space, etc.--Aschlafly 23:25, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Physics is about what is observable. Yes the theories have some philosophical differences. Everyone agrees to that. RSchlafly 00:58, 30 January 2008 (EST)

(Nearly) Complete Rewrite

This article was in a pretty disappointing state. It confused the phenomenon of gravitation with scientific theories of gravitation, it had some misleading turns of phrase in it, the mention of the Big Bang wasn't a fair representation of the intersection of Einsteinian gravity and quantum mechanics, and the parting shot toward string theory was pretty unjustifiable.

So I have rewritten the article with the high-school-age audience in mind. There's a lot left to do here, particularly going through and citing everything. I hope to come back to it as soon as possible.

(Whoops, forgot to sign my name. Sorry.)--KSorenson 16:39, 11 November 2009 (EST)

You did good work on this. But just to clarify, we don't dumb things down here. We have visitors who hear about string theory who want to sift fact from fiction. Some high school students using this site can understand complex theories ... if they are worth spending time on!
Also, a question: why so much prominence for Galileo, with no reference to Kepler? Wasn't Kepler way ahead of Galileo?--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Thank you for the feedback about dumbing things down. I'm glad you made the point, because I think there's a difference between dumbing things down and presenting the whole story in an accessible way. That's what I intended to do, but of course I'm not perfect!
It's a fair question about Kepler. I left him out because, as I remember, he really didn't have much to say about gravitation, but rather about planetary motion. Of course we know that those are two sides of the same coin, so that might be a distinction without a difference. Kepler's third law described orbital periods as a function of radius, and so it was Kepler's third law that allowed Newton and others to reject the constant-gravitational-acceleration model of Galileo, but Kepler's third law itself has nothing to say about gravitation. That's why I left him out. That's just an explanation, though, not a defense. By all means, anyone should of course feel free to add content.--KSorenson 17:25, 11 November 2009 (EST)
We like Galileo, because he thumbed his nose at the establishment, and because nearly everything he claimed as a discovery turned out correct (all but tides, of course). He was the first scientist to use a telescope to explore the heavens. He proved that not everything in the sky revolves around the earth, because the Jovian satellites (moons) clearly revolved around Jupiter. He's an underdog who kept pushing it until the powers that be told him to shut up and go home.
Kepler was more obscure, didn't really discover anything, rocked no boats, and more of a mystic than a practical man of science. He also didn't write very well, compared to Galileo. Sorry but his discovery that the paths of planets around the sun are elliptical rather than circular was just not very interesting - unless you are a student of physics and calculus. --Ed Poor Talk 19:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Proposed modification of opening sentence

I propose to replace the opening sentence, which is false from the point of vew of possibility of gravitation not being able of attracting anything by "Gravitation is the tendency of every object with mass to look like attracting every other object with mass, (which might be just an illusion as suggested by Gravitation demystified)". In general my intention is to get rid of "attraction" since we don't really see any masses that attract each other but we see particles taking their most probable position in the so far flat spacetime. So it is not even the "curvature of spacetime" (don't multiply entities beyond necessity).

So if nobody protests in this section for a month I go ahead and remove "attraction" from "Gravitation". Even if gravitation works in some other way it surely doesn't work through "attraction" so in any case we'll be closer to truth, which should be our purpose. Not to fool people who come here for reliable information, while we know that "attraction" isn't reliable, just hundreds year tradition. Science is what's left after removing what's false. Since "attraction" is false it should be removed and left only as a model approximating the truth. JimJast 14:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools