That about exhausts my higher physics knowledge…

I have another friend that did an M in theoretical physics. I could also dig him up and see if he has something to contribute, if there’s enough “urgent” interest?

Or we could “write or call these in for some science show” some day.

Geez, I’m not sure I can really answer your questions. They don’t really teach undergrads General Relativity, much less quantum gravity.

But I can echo Hugo here. When I say that General Relativity treats gravity not as a force, but as a distortion in the space-time geometry, I’m talking pre-quantum physics. From a quantum field theory standpoint, I think you still need to explain where the space-time distortion comes from. Hypothetically, it comes from a massless particle called the graviton.

Accelerating expansion may point towards a fifth force, but it may not. I have no idea.

And the other thing is: I’m talking pre-quantum physics, I think. When you look at it in the context of quantum physics, things get much stranger. I mean, take a look at the hypothetical Graviton… I’d wager quantum physics makes absolutely no sense, except for the fact that it matches up so perfectly with the empirical evidence…

Einstein’s General Relativity is a much better model, and describes gravity as the bending of space-time.

I wonder about that…if gravity is not a force, why are physicists trying to come up with a theory that unifies the four forces? Doesn’t the problem go away if you no longer consider gravity a force? Does the accelerating expansion of the universe imply that there must be a fifth (or fourth, if gravity doesn’t count) force?

One of these days, I’ll write or call these in for some science show.

If anyone finds a source, let us know, I’ll provide it some publicity. And pass it onto Freethinking Maties if they don’t know already. In fact, I’ll contact them tomorrow, maybe someone there can find a source or make a plan.

Einstein’s General Relativity is a much better model, and describes gravity as the bending of space-time. Mathematically, this reduces to the Newtonian “force” in cases of (I think) low velocity and low mass/density.

A cultural understanding of the “force” of gravity…?

(OK, sorry, that’s a lame, sentimental contribution. Hmm…)

Is it not implied that “freethinkers are atheists” if the above described stance is taken towards topics concerning God? Is freethinking a non-possibility when it comes to God? Even the concept of God? hmmm. The name starts to feel a bit pretentious to me. The whole idea of ignorance concerning certains controversial areas seems to subvert such a title and expectation.

Anyways.

Furthermore I want to know what makes the belief of Gravity so much more logical than belief in God? Gravity itself is in no way empirically perceivable. We conclude it’s existence from it’s effects. Truth has consistent effects. So if I conclude God’s existence out of (roughly, granted) a consistent effect in the lives of those who claim his existence and in my own…hmm.

Might we also say that gravity is a culturally assumed and learned concept?

I’m just musing. Humour me. Im no scientist. Pease no sentimental responses. I want a cold, hard, locigal refutation for this one.

Ridicule. He gives the impression of seething contempt that he just cannot hide. Not the best public front for any society, for PR purposes… unless, … *snip*. I’m not repeating myself yet again.

Respect would go a long way. I just struggle to respect a lack of respect. I struggle to respect seething contempt.

I think both sides are then hypercritical on this matter. The atheist for ridiculing belief and the theist,deists etc who ridicule the atheist for there sense of logic. The reason why atheist act so dogmatic is because they are always confronted with fundamentalism from theists. Everybody is missing a key concept in there opinions/ridicule or whatever you want to call it. Respect!.

Its a very arrogant way of thinking, and that’s where (to me, anyway) the hypocrisy resides – in proclaiming the uncertainty of certain certainties with extreme certainty.

Right, can we call this matter settled? I think so. We understand each other’s positions, now we can move on. Hopefully to constructive discussions in the future.

“Spewing hypocrisy” is probably too strong a word choice. As I mentioned, I think it is mostly with reference to, and in response to, ridicule and intolerance from atheists towards religious people.

Saying “you are stupid to have unexamined beliefs” is hypocritical when the person saying it also has unexamined beliefs. That is the kind of scenario that Johan dislikes. See my next post, where I respond to his post, and he left a nice comment.

I am very keen for constructive discussions. This is why I wrote the next post as well, and Johan conceded that he was a bit harsh.

Ridicule does that. It makes people harsh. Ridicule pre-empts constructive discussion.

Please explain why you say they spew hypocrisy?

from the way johan talked about it on his blog it seems that your far from constructive debating the subject.

Note, we don’t want to debate religion, we just want a nice free thinking group that doesn’t spew vitriol and hypocrisy. That is all.

And if the chairperson of the freethinking group wants to make statements as to the incompatibility of “religion” (nice umbrella term there) and “evolution”, then he’s inviting disagreement, isn’t he?