Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Yes, your weight varies due to the movement of the heavenly bodies. We’ll leave your squirt gun out of it.
Nuance is lost on you. Not that the difference between the two is particularly nuanced.
I think we know more about gravity than you realize. Gravity is used in every single civil structure design, as well as in a flight engineer's pre-flight calculations. Gravity is what makes the solar system work. Gravity is what causes the tides.
All of this stuff can be precisely calculated, with virtually 100% reliability.
All of this stuff can be precisely calculated, with virtually 100% reliability.
You mean gravity is accounted for. Use of it would mean manipulating it as in wielding fire to different temperature to cut through or join metal for construction. Unless you are trying to say that we can wield gravity to different levels.
@Fast EddieD A bit like EM Theory I’d say. The precision with which particles in LHC can be accelerated and collided from opposite directions is akin to firing golf balls from NYC and London so they collide over the mid-Atlantic. And yet, Prof Daniel Fleisch describes the underlying mechanism for EMR as ‘deeply philosophical’. We don’t know, but can describe the behavior of EM radiation and it’s effects on particles with exquisite precision. Just like gravity (although there are numerous explanations, none universally agreed upon).
Francis Bacon said, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
He didn't say it had to be fully understood, and that applies to any intelligent life (and more broadly, to all life).
I personally would say "full understanding" isn't even a goal of science. But the philosophers can keep trying.
He didn't say it had to be fully understood, and that applies to any intelligent life (and more broadly, to all life).
I personally would say "full understanding" isn't even a goal of science. But the philosophers can keep trying.
How about narrowing things down to more specifics (i.e. wielding fire to different temperature to cut through or join metal for construction)?
Every orbiting satellite wields gravity to maintain its trajectory.
It's not really something you can gather and keep in a toolbox.
It's not really something you can gather and keep in a toolbox.
It wields its propellant to move to or remain at certain location. If it can wield gravity, it won't need the propellant.
How about gravity assist acceleration of satellites? These wield the curvature of space-time due to gravity to facilitate kinetic acceleration.
Examples: Voyager I, Voyager II and the Parker probe - the first two to gain energy, the last to remove it.
Yes. Without knowing what it actually is. Which is my point. What’s your point? Are you trying to equate an understanding of the inner workings of something with understanding its interaction with the physical world? These two things are not the same. I can lie outside on a sunny day and get a tan with 100% predictability without having any understanding of how the sun works. Why do you repeatedly use this false equivalent? It’s not the same thing.
Taking advantage of the known properties of a phenomenon is not the same as understanding its inner workings. The “we understand gravity” people seem to disagree with this statement, and this makes no sense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.