When do we feel gravity

[D H]

I'm going to have to disagree I'm afraid. While accelleration causes the same effect it is not the same thing as gravity. Gravity is a force caused by the distortion of space time generated by mass, accelleration is a ficticious force

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

Since you described gravitation as being caused by the distortion of space time, you are speaking of gravity in a general relativistic sense. In general relativity, gravitation is a fictitious force. You can't feel any fictitious force, so you can't feel gravitation.

 

As far as "acceleration is a fictitious force" goes, that makes no sense.

[anotherfilthyape]

Elf you are funny with such nonsensical constructs like "useful theoretical implications" or "meaningless philosophical questions"... "Useful theoretical implication" is meaningless... Theory is useless if it does not applies to reality... On the other hand there is no such thing as a philosophical question that is trully philosophical and yet meaningless...

[StringJunky]

Elf you are funny with such nonsensical constructs like "useful theoretical implications" or "meaningless philosophical questions"... "Useful theoretical implication" is meaningless... Theory is useless if it does not applies to reality... On the other hand there is no such thing as a philosophical question that is trully philosophical and yet meaningless...

 

Useful theoretical implications = Theoretically, something may be useful.

 

'What is the ultimate purpose of Evolution?' is an example of a meaningless philosophical question because it implies that it is being premeditatively guided,..which is cobblers. I use meaningless in the sense that a question is lacking in validity or utility.

 

Hint: Ask the author what he means before you ridicule him.

Edited December 14, 2012 by StringJunky

[elfmotat]

Elf you are funny with such nonsensical constructs like "useful theoretical implications" or "meaningless philosophical questions"... "Useful theoretical implication" is meaningless... Theory is useless if it does not applies to reality... On the other hand there is no such thing as a philosophical question that is trully philosophical and yet meaningless...

 

"Useful theoretical implications" simply means it's a useful concept that could assist in the development of a theory. The equivalence principle certainly has useful theoretical implications, considering Einstein used it when developing General Relativity.

 

A "meaningless philosophical question" is a question that cannot be answered by science, yet people attempt to answer anyway. It's a question where even if someone had the right answer, they could never know for sure. It's a question that's pointless to attempt to answer. An example would be, "what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?" Interpretations are just that: interpretations. There's no test or experiment that could be performed that could answer this question.

[anotherfilthyape]

 

Useful theoretical implications = Theoretically, something may be useful.

 

'What is the ultimate purpose of Evolution?' is an example of a meaningless philosophical question because it implies that it is being premeditatively guided,..which is cobblers. I use meaningless in the sense that a question is lacking in validity or utility.

 

Hint: Ask the author what he means before you ridicule him.

 

You weren't the author so why are you answering on his name? "useful theoretically implication" is not the same thing as "theoretically useful implications" just like "4 elevated to the power of 9" is not the same as "9 elevated to the power of 4"

 

"what is the ultimate purpose of evolution" is not a philosophical question; Loaded questions are never philosophical questions and this is a loaded question... Learn what is philosophy before leaving yourself in ridicule...

 

 

"Useful theoretical implications" simply means it's a useful concept that could assist in the development of a theory. The equivalence principle certainly has useful theoretical implications, considering Einstein used it when developing General Relativity.

 

A "meaningless philosophical question" is a question that cannot be answered by science, yet people attempt to answer anyway. It's a question where even if someone had the right answer, they could never know for sure. It's a question that's pointless to attempt to answer. An example would be, "what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?" Interpretations are just that: interpretations. There's no test or experiment that could be performed that could answer this question.

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. This does not applies to what you criticized Zapatos for. Likewise "theoretical" refers to "predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect" which are never useful as they are just predictions that have not been used...

However let's assume that your wording is valid, that "useful theoretical implications" does mean "a useful concept that could assist in the development of a theory"... How can there be any such concept if scientific theories must be based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed threough observation? Concepts are not observations, they are abstract fantasy... Remember that the map is not the territory and when you draw the map before going to the territory what you are actually doing is putting the carriage before the horse, that is what astrophysicists and theoreticaly physicists have been doing in the last century resulting in the creation of quantum mysticism and the Schrödinger cat fallacy or the "time was created at the big bang fallacy" (I am not saying the big bang didn't happen, I am just saying that saying that the big bang created time is imposing physics on metaphysics). this brings me to your next statement

A "meaningless philosophical question" is a question that cannot be answered by science, yet people attempt to answer anyway. It's a question where even if someone had the right answer, they could never know for sure. It's a question that's pointless to attempt to answer.

The demarcation problem is a question that cannot be answered by science yet it is the foundation for science, you cannot accept science without having an answer for the demarcation problem... There are other such problems... Are they meaningless philosophical questions?

On the other hand "what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?" is a scientific question as it could be falsified if a method of falsification for it were deviced.