Boycott Chuck Norris! (a new blog) (1 Viewer)

[Taurus]

I was taught Gravity is a predictable force and Newton's Law of Gravitation reads as below:

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

The formula is:

Mathematically, this translates into the force equation shown to the right. In this equation, the quantities are defined as:

• F_g = The force of gravity (typically in newtons)
• G = The gravitational constant, which adds the proper level of proportionality to the equation. The value of G is 6.67259 x 10^-11 N * m² / kg², although the value will change if other units are being used.
• m₁ & m₁ = The masses of the two particles (typically in kilograms)
• r = The straight-line distance between the two particles (typically in meters)

What is theoretical about gravity from a Newtonian perspective?

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

That the cause of the Moon's motion is the force known as "gravity" is a Theory. A very, very, very well-supported Theory. It is also a Theory that this effect is constant universe-wide.

As to just exactly what gravity is, that's another theory. Lowercase "t" because our empirical proofs for gravity exerting a warping effect on spacetime itself are in their infancy, being as we are in the middle of an overwhelming gravity well where it's hard to isolate a specific effect from outside influence.

So, like evolution, gravity is a fact, a Theory and a theory. (given that we agree to call "whatever invisible force it is that causes hammers to fall", gravity)

The continuing (sometimes willful) confusion about this is just another snowball on the Everest of evidence that science education in America needs to be broadened and improved, not dumbed-down.

 

[JimEverett]

So, like evolution, gravity is a fact, a Theory and a theory. (given that we agree to call "whatever invisible force it is that causes hammers to fall", gravity)

I don't think evolution or gravity is a "fact" in any way. Both "explain" facts, and we can judge their merits by their predictive and practical affects.
Also, they are not facts because they both go beyond what is factual - the invisible force will be there as long as Earth exists, for example, "therefore you can keep dropping that hammer for a million years and each time you let go of it it will fall to the ground." That obviously goes way beyond the facts.
Last point - I hesitate to get into areas where I know just enough about to make myself look foolish, it is my understanding that the alternatives to Newton's Theory - relativity and quantum theory - differ in a very small but meaningful way in that they are not committed to the idea that the hammer will drop to the ground every single time.

 

[Taurus]

I don't think evolution or gravity is a "fact" in any way. Both "explain" facts, and we can judge their merits by their predictive and practical affects.
Also, they are not facts because they both go beyond what is factual - the invisible force will be there as long as Earth exists, for example, "therefore you can keep dropping that hammer for a million years and each time you let go of it it will fall to the ground." That obviously goes way beyond the facts.
Last point - I hesitate to get into areas where I know just enough about to make myself look foolish, it is my understanding that the alternatives to Newton's Theory - relativity and quantum theory - differ in a very small but meaningful way in that they are not committed to the idea that the hammer will drop to the ground every single time.

It depends on what you mean by a "fact". Gravity is what we've agreed to call whatever it is that causes the hammer to fall. Since hammers fall and that's an observed fact, gravity is likewise an observed fact. Same with evolution in the sense that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time. We can observe this happening and we call it "evolution."

For clarity's sake, we might one day consider using different words for the observed phenomena and the two Theories we use to explain them and the different predictions they make.

Something like the Mass-induced spacetime effect, the Theory of Universal Gravitation and the predictions of Spatial Motion.

 

[StChadwick]

Gravity force or whatever one wants to call it can be seen in objects falling on earth compared to on the moon or in controlled environments. In that way I see it as more a definite than evolution, which by definition, took millions of years and is only studied in innumerable stages and cant be perceived in the same actuality as gravity can be in every instance.

 

[JimEverett]

It depends on what you mean by a "fact". Gravity is what we've agreed to call whatever it is that causes the hammer to fall. Since hammers fall and that's an observed fact, gravity is likewise an observed fact. Same with evolution in the sense that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time. We can observe this happening and we call it "evolution."

For clarity's sake, we might one day consider using different words for the observed phenomena and the two Theories we use to explain them and the different predictions they make.

Something like the Mass-induced spacetime effect, the Theory of Universal Gravitation and the predictions of Spatial Motion.

I say that gravity is not observed, what is observed is the hammer falling. We explain the hammer falling with the theory of gravity which postulates an unobserved force.

I will say that this stuff is of great debate in the philosophy and even history of science. I think it is more than just semantics. And a lot of people would probably agree more with your view.

 

[cruize]

Christy Brinkley is hot for an older gal.

 

[RANdom_Saint]

Cant speak for the other stuff he believes in, but in his defense, evolution is still officially a theory.

Christians more and more are warming to the idea of evolution, with God ordaining it that way.

Agreed, I attented an RCIA class for the heck of it, and they have now offically worked Evolution inot the Catholic faith. "all things evolve, but of all things that change and grow only man recived the spark, that blessing from god to make him as he is the top of the chain in all gods creatures." It went something likethat, I was rather shocked really. You don't usually see the church moving forward liek that, but even that little bit is a huge push from mother church.

For the record I am not a confirmed Catholic or anything..

 

[Taurus]

As to the OP, eh..Chuck can say what he likes and endorse whom he likes. It's a free country, but there's still one thing Chuck can't do. Sing.

 

[zmonbobbo]

While I might not agree with him, I admire this man for making such a tremendous sacrifice in the name of his beliefs by boycotting all Chuck Norris products. I can only imagine the willpower and strength of character it must take to purposefully deprive yourself of Walker: Texas Ranger dvds and the Total Gym.

Seriously, though, I can kinda respect where this person is coming from, but I find it pretty dumb to boycott someone for their political views. It's their choice to vote for/against someone or support them the same way it is for you to vote for/against or support a different candidate. Might as well boycott everybody else that doesn't support your candidate. Let the man choose who he wants to support and leave him alone for it.

 

[Pure Energy]

Seriously, though, I can kinda respect where this person is coming from, but I find it pretty dumb to boycott someone for their political views.

Here it seems more a matter of discriminating against someone for their personal views rather than their political view. We've had others on the Board also indicate they wouldn't vote for a candidate that didn't hold the same personal beliefs they hold relating to the Theory of Evolution. Although I don't agree with Huckabee or Romney with regard to their personal Religious beliefs, I'm on common footing with them from a political policy perspective.

 

[zmonbobbo]

Here it seems more a matter of discriminating against someone for their personal views rather than their political view. We've had others on the Board also indicate they wouldn't vote for a candidate that didn't hold the same personal beliefs they hold relating to the Theory of Evolution. Although I don't agree with Huckabee or Romney with regard to their personal Religious beliefs, I'm on common footing with them from a political policy perspective.

True. Still, though, why boycott Chuck Norris for voting differently than you? Boycott the candidate if you want, but all Norris is doing is supporting a candidate. He may not even be supporting all of Huckabee's beliefs. Maybe he just agrees with him more that the rest.

 

[bclemms]

[size=+1] Caution Strong Language, Parental Guidance suggested[/size]
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjnVEsXtNIU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjnVEsXtNIU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[CoolBrees1]

Well....I too have a theory...yes...a theory on Global Warming....it's a well known fact that carbon dioxide was the cause 125 million years ago...it's documented that we experienced a earlier occurance of global warming...caused by the enormous output of lava from the numerous volcanic eruptions occuring on the earth...and this created an over abundance of carbon dioxide during this time frame...now...it's come back full circle to our present time...it's a well known fact that methane gas has the same greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide...so...can you imagine...with the population being over 6 billion people on this planet...and the continuous flatuence of gas being passed by each and everyone of us...this very same gas that we pass is the cause for today's present cause of Global Warming....

As for Chuck Norris....

 

[GW93]

If I were to boycott the companies that advertise during re-runs of Walker: Texas Ranger than I would first have to watch the show in order to know what those products are.

No thanks.

 

[StChadwick]

Agreed, I attented an RCIA class for the heck of it, and they have now offically worked Evolution inot the Catholic faith. "all things evolve, but of all things that change and grow only man recived the spark, that blessing from god to make him as he is the top of the chain in all gods creatures." It went something likethat, I was rather shocked really. You don't usually see the church moving forward liek that, but even that little bit is a huge push from mother church.

Its a thing that the Church allows either creationism or evolution belief. Church recognizes the field of science isnt in their scope of infallibility so they allow either way of thinking granted God's at the helm. Like the Church also allows for one to believe the universe is 13billion years old or 33,000 like can be approximately gathered when counting the 76 generations that are listed in the bible from Jesus to Adam. The main objection the Church has always had to evolution is that the concept of God was never included. Most Catholics that I know that objected to evolution always were confused that science seems against God because he cant be seen scientifically but at the same time accepted evolution in a similar vain and accepted and changed theory as they saw fit. Like every few years we hear that the age of the earth is actually a half billion older than originally thought.

Many other Christian groups take everything in the bible literally so if Genesis says He made the world in 7 days then how could the evolving of millions of years fit in? But maybe its a situation that a day is like a thousand to God like the bible also says? The creation of beasts were listed before man in the Genesis narrative.

I do remember reading something years back on Darwin just before he died retreating from his idea we came from monkeys because of the vast difference between the dynamics of the eye between us and them? But that his followers continued on against his objections? Comes down to me that God can do whatever He wants and our salvation doesnt rest on our understanding of such things.