Why can`t one sense god?

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, we feel acceleration, and we feel difference in acceleration, including the difference between zero and not-zero acceleration.

Yes. The only point of difference is that free-falling is not acceleration. That's why you can't feel it. That's there at the start of special relativity. As soon as you start to free-fall, you stop feeling the effect of gravity  as you like to put it. 

When you step off a cliff, you ARE accelerating, in the frame of reference in which the cliff is stationary. But your're not accelerating in your inertial reference frame.  So you feel no force.    

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is that a sense we have in common, like a sense of humour?

No, that would be non-sense. 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

No, that would be non-sense. 

Indeed, I doubt you'd stand for that...

[MigL]

Sorry Genady, a body in free fall experiences no acceleration.
If I put you in that box, and drop you from a plane, you can take a coin out of your pocket and 'drop it', but the coin will not fall to the bottom of the box; it will remain 'suspended' at the height you let go of it.
And if you were standing on a scale inside that box, the scale would read zero  kg.

If the radial distance to the gravitating mass was small enough, you may detect tidal forces, but you would need delicate instruments to make such a detection on the Earth's surface; the human body doesn't have that capability.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Yes. The only point of difference is that free-falling is not acceleration. That's why you can't feel it. That's there at the start of special relativity. As soon as you start to free-fall, you stop feeling the effect of gravity  as you like to put it. 

When you step off a cliff, you ARE accelerating, in the frame of reference in which the cliff is stationary. But your're not accelerating in your inertial reference frame.  So you feel no force. 

 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry Genady, a body in free fall experiences no acceleration.
If I put you in that box, and drop you from a plane, you can take a coin out of your pocket and 'drop it', but the coin will not fall to the bottom of the box; it will remain 'suspended' at the height you let go of it.
And if you were standing on a scale inside that box, the scale would read zero  kg.

If the radial distance to the gravitating mass was small enough, you may detect tidal forces, but you would need delicate instruments to make such a detection on the Earth's surface; the human body doesn't have that capability.

You guys just repeat what I say. I know all this, and I was talking about when we FEEL gravity, we FEEL acceleration. When we free fall, we don't feel gravity and we don't feel acceleration. We FEEL zero acceleration then, which is different from non-zero acceleration that we feel when we don't free fall.

I guess, you simply misread what I said.

For example, you said,

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the radial distance to the gravitating mass was small enough, you may detect tidal forces, but you would need delicate instruments to make such a detection on the Earth's surface; the human body doesn't have that capability.

and I said earlier,

Quote

Of course, technically speaking we are too small to ever sense gravity as it manifests itself in tidal forces.

The same.

Is my English so bad? Was not it clear that in "we" I mean "human body"?

[mistermack]

 

35 minutes ago, Genady said:

I guess, you simply misread what I said.

I don't think so :

3 hours ago, Genady said:

When we free fall we sense acceleration.

36 minutes ago, Genady said:

When we free fall, we don't feel gravity and we don't feel acceleration.

It's changed. But that's fair enough. That's the point of discussing stuff. 

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 

I don't think so :

It's changed. But that's fair enough. That's the point of discussing stuff. 

You're right, the first one was a bad statement. But I've fixed it just a couple of posts later,

Quote

Isn't a change from not free-falling to free-falling an acceleration?

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Is my English so bad?

No, your English is very good, as is your grasp of Physics.

The point you originally made, however, is that we can sense when we are in a gravitational field.
To which, I replied, if I put you in a box and drop you out of an airplane, you are still in a gravitational field, but you have no way of knowing, or 'sensing', that because there is no acceleration.

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, your English is very good, as is your grasp of Physics.

The point you originally made, however, is that we can sense when we are in a gravitational field.
To which, I replied, if I put you in a box and drop you out of an airplane, you are still in a gravitational field, but you have no way of knowing, or 'sensing', that because there is no acceleration.

Thank you.

I'll work on being more precise in writing.

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Balance.

...you don't use it often in your answers..

 

[TheVat]

Interesting to hear of this study which suggests some people may be able to sense a rotation of an earth-strength magnetic field, around 50 microtesla, experiencing a shift in alpha rhythms...

https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-other-animals-may-sense-earth-s-magnetic-field#:~:text=A study published today offers,can sense Earth's magnetic field.

https://www.eneuro.org/content/6/2/ENEURO.0483-18.2019

Definitely needs followup study.

[Michael_123_]

23 hours ago, Genady said:

I think there are four. Taste and smell are variations of the same sense.

OTOH, some animals sense Earth magnetic field. Some animals sense electric field. These are two other senses.

One more: sense of gravity/acceleration. Isn't it another sense?

There are about two dozen.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Michael_123_ said:

There are about two dozen.

But by what definition?

Does not this number depend on how one decides to "conceptually compartmentalize it", as @joigus has described here, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127423-why-cant-one-sense-god/?do=findComment&comment=1243802?

Is not it arbitrary?

 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Sensei said:

...you don't use it often in your answers..

 

Perhaps you're lacking a sense of... 😉

17 hours ago, MigL said:

The point you originally made, however, is that we can sense when we are in a gravitational field.
To which, I replied, if I put you in a box and drop you out of an airplane, you are still in a gravitational field, but you have no way of knowing, or 'sensing', that because there is no acceleration.

But for balance to work, we have to be in a gravitational field but not falling, it doesn't need to work when we are falling, so it's just a latent sense in that sense but still a sense, if that makes sense. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

On 7/11/2022 at 12:53 AM, Bufofrog said:

It could be that God doesn't want to be sensed, that would be easy for an omnipotent being.

It could be that God went some where else and is just not available right now.

It could be God doesn't exist.

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of God. So based on this reasoning, I would choose this (my bold) as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of God. So based on this reasoning, I would choose this (my bold) as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities.

Yet in one of Derren Brown's experiment's, he successfully made an atheist PhD student believe in god, because we're hard wired to believe in an ethereal something, and since it's hard wired in us it has to be considered as a human sense, of some description.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of God. So based on this reasoning, I would choose this (my bold) as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities.

There is credible evidence to support the existence of a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy. How do we know that it is not God?

[TheVat]

57 minutes ago, Genady said:

There is credible evidence to support the existence of a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy. How do we know that it is not God?

Perhaps God has quantum hair.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322001290#!

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

How do we know that it is not God?

Which one(s)?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which one(s)?

Any.

[Genady]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Perhaps God has quantum hair.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322001290#!

 

Super Massive Black Hole with Quantum Hair. Yep, it's God.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Genady said:

There is credible evidence to support the existence of a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy. How do we know that it is not God?

The evidence suggests that it is a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping. 

How do we know it's not an alien, or the fairy godmother, or a space giant's butt hole...?

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yet in one of Derren Brown's experiment's, he successfully made an atheist PhD student believe in god, because we're hard wired to believe in an ethereal something, and since it's hard wired in us it has to be considered as a human sense, of some description.

But this is an illusion, I "sense" many things myself, sometimes in fear of my life if I'm half asleep and think there is a monster in my bedroom. We are hard wired to be self preservative in which case our brains may invent something unnatural to provoke us to act fast - Better to run in fear than wait to see if it really is a monster.  

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The evidence suggests that it is a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping. 

How do we know it's not an alien, or the fairy godmother, or a space giant's butt hole...?

This is true. However, nothing prevents God from being "a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping".

IOW, your answer to the question, "How do we know that it is not God?" is that we don't know, and I agree with it.

My point is that for the lack of knowledge, we "choose this as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities." (My emphasis.)

I think that there is no reason for this choice, but I know why I make it. I just don't like the alternative, it stinks.

 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

This is true. However, nothing prevents God from being "a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping".

Nothing prevents God from anything, including being present outside of space & time as we experience it. Which would also unable us to "sense" God, along with the inability to observe, detect or prove God's existence.

There is no requirement to prove God's non existence and there is no credible proof of God's existence.

To make the OP's question valid, one must first undeniably prove of God's existence. Until then, one cannot sense God because one cannot prove God exists in the first place.    

Edited June 29, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Nothing prevents God from anything, including being present outside of space & time as we experience it. Which would also unable us to "sense" God, along with the inability to observe, detect or prove God's existence.

There is no requirement to prove God's non existence and there is no credible proof of God's existence.

To make the OP's question valid, one must first undeniably prove of God's existence. Until then, one cannot sense God because one cannot prove God exists in the first place.    

Agree with everything except one point. I don't see a requirement to prove God's existence. One could sense God regardless of its existence, as pointed in some comments above (by @mistermack, I think).

[Intoscience]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Agree with everything except one point. I don't see a requirement to prove God's existence. One could sense God regardless of its existence, as pointed in some comments above (by @mistermack, I think).

Possibly, but how can that "sense" be proven as real other than an intuition or illusion or some other sensory misperception. 

I think it would be better to define what do we mean by "sense" in the first place. We all have had a "sense" or feeling about something. I often get those myself which I have expressed in other threads. But the subjects within my premonitions are real people proven to exist in the first place.