Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[antagon]

Oh and there's also 'heavier objects fall faster' that one was disproven a long time ago

So inertia increases at the same rate as G as the mass of the object increases?

inertial mass increases at the rate of acceleration for any constant force, gravity or not. if F = ma, then m = F/a.

 

[JBeukema]

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth.

Not necessarily.

Can you name an inheritable disease that causes either?

I don't have to. The same freak birth defect could happen twice.

And you're upset at me because you error an I pointed it out?

Theories are changed all the time to better explain the available evidence. Consider the 8(?) different string theories that were developed before being unified into M-Theory

 

[JBeukema]

Oh and there's also 'heavier objects fall faster' that one was disproven a long time ago

So inertia increases at the same rate as G as the mass of the object increases?

inertial mass increases at the rate of acceleration for any constant force, gravity or not. if F = ma, then m = F/a.

I'mma be honest here: I'm horrible at math.

I see the formulas but I don't quite see how it all goes together.

Should greater mass increase gravitational force between the object and any other given object, compared to a third, less massive, object and the second object. Shouldn't, then, a more massive object 'fall' at a greater rate? Isn't this increased gravitational force from a more massive object the very reason we 'fall' on the moon more quickly than on earth?

Therefore, wouldn't it be false to say that more massive objects don't fall more quickly? Wouldn't it actually be the case that more massive objects do 'fall' more quickly (accelerate towards another object or draw the other object to themselves) more 'faster' (greater acceleration), but that the rate at which this effect increases is such that it makes no practical difference in everyday applications?

Else we shouldn't take so long to fall on Luna compared on Earth, right?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't have to. The same freak birth defect could happen twice.

And you're upset at me because you error an I pointed it out?

Theories are changed all the time to better explain the available evidence. Consider the 8(?) different string theories that were developed before being unified into M-Theory

Freak birth defects happen twice? So you're saying that you're basing the conclusion that a child to a legless woman will most likely also be legless because of a de novo mutation? First off, this still doesn't address the gene that would need to be mutated to cause it. Secondly, it's just inane! We have this saying in medicine: "common things are common". The most likely outcome of a pregnancy from a legless woman is a normal child. The most common form of gross limb deformity would be due to thalidomide intoxication during the pregnancy, and even that doesn't affect the legs nearly as much as the arms. Please don't make up ridiculously improbable scenarios and claim they are the expected norm.

Regarding theories, you still appear to miss the point. The claim was that something can be PROMOTED past theory, as if it got an upgrade. Such a thing does not exist in scientific reasoning. No one is denying that information changes based on new information. I'm stating that the idea of evolution being more than scientific theory is wrong.

 

[antagon]

So inertia increases at the same rate as G as the mass of the object increases?

inertial mass increases at the rate of acceleration for any constant force, gravity or not. if F = ma, then m = F/a.

I'mma be honest here: I'm horrible at math.

I see the formulas but I don't quite see how it all goes together.

physics is a son of a bitch. thanks for the headache. it could be explained holistically, i hope...

Should greater mass increase gravitational force between the object and any other given object, compared to a third, less massive, object and the second object.

G (capital g) is representative of a constant, so the masses of the objects express that constant on eachother. remember, not only a rock falling, but newton's third has it that the earth is rising toward the rock. not only does the earth hold the moon in orbit, but the moon pulls the tides higher, representative of the reciprocal force.

Shouldn't, then, a more massive object 'fall' at a greater rate? Isn't this increased gravitational force from a more massive object the very reason we 'fall' on the moon more quickly than on earth?

the third law is the equal and opposite axiom, so you can appreciate that gravity hasn't escaped the greater implications of conservation. you were pointed in the right direction with inertia. given conservation, could energy be expressed both in velocity by way of acceleration, and mass by way of inertia? rather, the effective mass of a 5 pound brick is > 5lbs when dropped from height. in a vacuum, it will drop at the same rate as a feather.

as to the moon, our 5lb brick registers lighter on a scale on the moon. now, knowing that gravitation is constant, and that the mass of the brick is the same, plus the idea that there is equal and opposite force expressed between the brick and the planet it is on, the indication is that it's the moon's mass that's responsible for the change in the brick's weight. the difference between the equations on each planet is conserved in inertia, and this propensity for the brick to stay put, afloat is indicated by its slower attraction to moon's surface.

 

[Father Time]

I don't know the physics involved but, I remember reading from a textbook that Galeilo dropped two balls off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, one weighing significantly more than the other and they hit the ground at the same time.

In fact when a feather and hammer are dropped in a vacuum (where wind resistance doesn't factor in) they hit the ground at the same time.

MythBusters: Lunar Lunacy : Video : Discovery Channel

 

[antagon]

rumor is a wooden ball and a cannon ball at pisa.

 

[JBeukema]

Freak birth defects happen twice?

They can.

You said that a child born to legless, toothless parents would [necessarily] have legs and teeth.

I merely pointed out that your assertion was not accurate, as it's possible for the child to also be legless and toothless.

It need not even be an actual mutation- in theory, at least, it could be caused by environmental or epigenetic factors.

So you're saying that you're basing the conclusion that a child to a legless woman will most likely also be legless because of a de novo mutation?

I never said that.

To say either that the child would necessarily be legless and toothless or that it necessarily would not is a fool's statement.

Without further information regarding the parents' condition, we can only say that the child might or might not be legless and toothless.

Why can't you just admit that you made an inaccurate assertion and move on?

 

[JBeukema]

inertial mass increases at the rate of acceleration for any constant force, gravity or not. if F = ma, then m = F/a.

I'mma be honest here: I'm horrible at math.

I see the formulas but I don't quite see how it all goes together.

physics is a son of a bitch. thanks for the headache. it could be explained holistically, i hope...

Should greater mass increase gravitational force between the object and any other given object, compared to a third, less massive, object and the second object.

G (capital g) is representative of a constant, so the masses of the objects express that constant on eachother. remember, not only a rock falling, but newton's third has it that the earth is rising toward the rock. not only does the earth hold the moon in orbit, but the moon pulls the tides higher, representative of the reciprocal force.

Shouldn't, then, a more massive object 'fall' at a greater rate? Isn't this increased gravitational force from a more massive object the very reason we 'fall' on the moon more quickly than on earth?

the third law is the equal and opposite axiom, so you can appreciate that gravity hasn't escaped the greater implications of conservation. you were pointed in the right direction with inertia. given conservation, could energy be expressed both in velocity by way of acceleration, and mass by way of inertia? rather, the effective mass of a 5 pound brick is > 5lbs when dropped from height. in a vacuum, it will drop at the same rate as a feather.
as to the moon, our 5lb brick registers lighter on a scale on the moon. now, knowing that gravitation is constant, and that the mass of the brick is the same, plus the idea that there is equal and opposite force expressed between the brick and the planet it is on, the indication is that it's the moon's mass that's responsible for the change in the brick's weight. the difference between the equations on each planet is conserved in inertia, and this propensity for the brick to stay put, afloat is indicated by its slower attraction to moon's surface.

true story:

We fall faster on earth than the moon... I've seen the video of the astronauts.... they jumped like kangaroos...

I would have sworn they said it was 'cuz Luna has less mass...


It's slower attraction, you said - yet its mass remained constant (weight being the product (?) of mass and G). Therfore, it fell more slowly because Luna fell towards it more slowly (experienced less acceleration) because it was less massive than Earth, Earth falling towards it more quickly to do Earths greater mass.

No?

Maybe I need to drag out my old textbooks...

I hate math, I really fucking do

 

[JBeukema]

I don't know the physics involved but, I remember reading from a textbook that Galeilo dropped two balls off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, one weighing significantly more than the other and they hit the ground at the same time.

In fact when a feather and hammer are dropped in a vacuum (where wind resistance doesn't factor in) they hit the ground at the same time.
l

Did they?

Or was the difference too mall to measure using the available techniques?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Freak birth defects happen twice?

They can.

You said that a child born to legless, toothless parents would [necessarily] have legs and teeth.

Did I say that? Interesting insertion you popped in there. I don't remember saying that at all. You see here in the world called reality, common things are common. Replace the "[necessarily]" with things like "expectantly" or "with great statistical certainty", as it is the exact same reasoning utilized by the scientific and medical communities when making statements. You are what I call a science daydreamer, ignoring the actual prevalence of things in the real world for the things you can imagine that don't contradict things you know.

You appear to be backpedaling now and playing semantics, to the point of fabricating connotation, instead of addressing the point which was and always has been: 1) lack of legs or teeth is generally not linked to an inheritable condition, and 2) neither you nor frazzled have provided a gene or even a case study of an inheritable condition that involves either. Let's call it what it is: he claimed a condition that is linked with deformation as an inherited malformation, and you were looking to prove me wrong about something nitpicky but failed. Let it go.

It's slower attraction, you said - yet its mass remained constant (weight being the product (?) of mass and G). Therfore, it fell more slowly because Luna fell towards it more slowly (experienced less acceleration) because it was less massive than Earth, Earth falling towards it more quickly to do Earths greater mass.

gravity is a force just like any other, but it is correlated to the product of the two masses involved. the larger the mass, the larger the force, the larger the acceleration. sounds like you have the idea.

and yes, feather and hammer fall at the same rate. again, you should avoid being a science daydreamer. the forces we're talking about are negligibly affected by the difference in mass between the two. yes, there is a negligible difference, and it is negligible.

 

[JBeukema]

Freak birth defects happen twice?

They can.

You said that a child born to legless, toothless parents would [necessarily] have legs and teeth.

Did I say that? Interesting insertion you popped in there. I don't remember saying that at all.

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth

My response was simply

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth.

Not necessarily.

Then you went on this whole defensive rant

You appear to be backpedaling now

Your words and mine are quoted above.

Let it go.

and yes, feather and hammer fall at the same rate.

contradicts

yes, there is a negligible difference, and it is negligible.

First you say they fall at an equal rate, then you say I am correct and they fall at slightly different rates do to their difference in mass and the resulting difference in gravitational attraction and, in turn, acceleration.

Which is it? You're making two mutually exclusive assertions while trying to insult me as a 'science daydreamer' simply because I do better with the conceptual than with the mathematical.'

In other words, you're talking out of both sides of your ass and you look like a moron.

 

[antagon]

I'mma be honest here: I'm horrible at math.

I see the formulas but I don't quite see how it all goes together.

physics is a son of a bitch. thanks for the headache. it could be explained holistically, i hope...

G (capital g) is representative of a constant, so the masses of the objects express that constant on eachother. remember, not only a rock falling, but newton's third has it that the earth is rising toward the rock. not only does the earth hold the moon in orbit, but the moon pulls the tides higher, representative of the reciprocal force.

Shouldn't, then, a more massive object 'fall' at a greater rate? Isn't this increased gravitational force from a more massive object the very reason we 'fall' on the moon more quickly than on earth?

the third law is the equal and opposite axiom, so you can appreciate that gravity hasn't escaped the greater implications of conservation. you were pointed in the right direction with inertia. given conservation, could energy be expressed both in velocity by way of acceleration, and mass by way of inertia? rather, the effective mass of a 5 pound brick is > 5lbs when dropped from height. in a vacuum, it will drop at the same rate as a feather.
as to the moon, our 5lb brick registers lighter on a scale on the moon. now, knowing that gravitation is constant, and that the mass of the brick is the same, plus the idea that there is equal and opposite force expressed between the brick and the planet it is on, the indication is that it's the moon's mass that's responsible for the change in the brick's weight. the difference between the equations on each planet is conserved in inertia, and this propensity for the brick to stay put, afloat is indicated by its slower attraction to moon's surface.

true story:

We fall faster on earth than the moon... I've seen the video of the astronauts.... they jumped like kangaroos...

I would have sworn they said it was 'cuz Luna has less mass...


It's slower attraction, you said - yet its mass remained constant (weight being the product (?) of mass and G). Therfore, it fell more slowly because Luna fell towards it more slowly (experienced less acceleration) because it was less massive than Earth, Earth falling towards it more quickly to do Earths greater mass.

No?

Maybe I need to drag out my old textbooks...

I hate math, I really fucking do

inertia that keeps a brick afloat when you drop it or a hopping astronaut airborne, is greater in proportion to gravitational force on the moon than it is on earth. it overcomes it to the extent that you see the high hopping astronaut, the slower-falling brick and the lighter weighing brick.

so when something drops you see the effect of g (little g, the specific gravitational force expressed by the bodies) versus inertia in each body. as inertia piles on inertial mass to the object, it accelerates. the acceleration is the rate that the mass piles on, the mass does not effect the rate that the velocity piles on (acceleration).

if you've got to break out a physics book (which i've ritualistically burned) note that using newton's second cancels out mass altogether.

F = ma, force = mass times accelleration. says acceleration = force divided by mass, a = F/m. but with gravitation (a more complex equation) we figured out that the mass of the bodies is factored into how much F is expressed on eachother. granted that, when you figure acceleration, you cancel it out by dividing the mass of one of the objects out of the force it was multiplied into. a=F/m. it wont matter how heavy the object is granted that. gravity wont make it accelerate faster.

you could plug some simple integers like 2, 3, 4 and 5 into the variables for an inaccurate, but maybe proportional look. F for gravity is approx G (the grav constant) times the product of the masses of the objects divided by the distance between them squared. G(m1 x m2/d squared) i've not done that before, but it could help.

one of the masses in F is the same in the law of motion equations, so a = 2(3 x 5/4 x 4)/3 and a = 2(7 x 5/4 x 4)/7. yeah. that shit works. a brick with a mass of 7 accelerates at the same rate as a brick with a mass of 3. a=.625.... both times.

man i woulda been an idiot if that didnt add up talking all this shit. G is a constant, but unfortunately, G is not 2..

 

[JBeukema]

as I said before:

I hate math.

I'll have to dig up some old books and torture myself. I still don't get how we can say that increased mass doesn't increase the acceleration caused by gravitational attraction when it clearly took...


wait...

I wonder....

Anyone ever measured...

No, if the astronauts fell faster after achieving a higher jump, then should the result impact (since their mass remained unchanged you're saying the acceleration was also unchanged) have been the same as if they landed from such a height on Earth? That didn't appear to be the case from what I remember.

It doesn't make sense...


wait... has anyone timed (using something more accurate than a wristwatch) the time the objects took to fall on the moon and compared it the time they take on Earth?

 

[Father Time]

as I said before:

I hate math.

I'll have to dig up some old books and torture myself. I still don't get how we can say that increased mass doesn't increase the acceleration caused by gravitational attraction when it clearly took...


wait...

I wonder....

Anyone ever measured...

No, if the astronauts fell faster after achieving a higher jump, then should the result impact (since their mass remained unchanged you're saying the acceleration was also unchanged) have been the same as if they landed from such a height on Earth? That didn't appear to be the case from what I remember.

It doesn't make sense...


wait... has anyone timed (using something more accurate than a wristwatch) the time the objects took to fall on the moon and compared it the time they take on Earth?

I linked you a video on that earlier.

It's there in the whole feather and hammer drop.

 

[logical4u]

Please read Frazzledgear's post. He presents a clear statement of why evolution doesn't exist.
I asked you to show where in the Bible it showed the Lord did not finish His creation, but left it to 'evolve'. Mumbo jumbo over 'social evolution' is a different subject. It seems you have demonstrated where 'your faith' is stronger. Good Luck with that.

FG's post is a joke, bud. based on darwin's suppositions, it's already on passe footing. then the comical 10,000 year cambrian explosion, the eyes theory where you guys say theres only ever been fully formed eyes. that's not true now, nor ever has been. the gene analysis is ignorance without peer: most evolution, or course being affected by gene selection, instead of the mechanisms which he thinks he knows about. that you see any truth in that or it's conclusions betray that you might not have paid any attention in highschool bio.

i've made a case for the bible's account for evolution. you think that if it is not in the bible it is not real. the bible asks us to see what is real about the world for God's message. your pastor has failed you, no doubt with the same ignorance about the bible and biology which you reflect, buddy. here i was thinking that your competence in the Word would be better footed, but i find that lacking as well.

it fits the shoe of ignorance that fundamentalists strap on before they mislead their children.

Where did you demonstrate that the Lord did not finish His work before He created 'man'?
Where did you demonstrate that fossils or skeletons have been 'discovered' that show one species 'evolving' into another species?
Your 'case' is based on OPINIONS, not fact. Please leave how 'you feel' out of this and give chapter and verse on how the Lord left His creation 'unfinished' for it to 'evolve'. Please tell us (and give links) to where 'scientists' have documented finding fossils of species changing in the same area at the same time (that would be more than them holding up a box, and then holding up a cylinder saying: this was once that).

 

[logical4u]

Evolution represents Truth, but is insanely and categorically rejected because it dis-proves the utterly deranged christian religious nonsense.

Now, christian god addicts cannot bear these Truths, in fact their whole religion was devised for the very purpose of rejecting Truth. Therefore, it is impossible to "win" the argument with any such deeply addicted god addicts.

Please list these 'truths'.

 

[logical4u]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

Again, leave your feelings of how 'you think' it happened and show us the evidence of a group of species (plant and animal) changing (evolving) from one species to another at the same time in the same area (theoretically, there should be ALL kinds of fossils laying around to 'prove' this. Still, waiting.....

 

[logical4u]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.

i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.

this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.

'You' have been asked to back up your statements, and will not do it, aren't you 'projecting' onto people that are asking legitimate questions? Or do you feel unable to answer the questions and have to resort to 'intellectual snobbery'?
This doesn't require a high school diploma. Either there is absolute proof that 'evolution' occurred as men say it did or there isn't (in which it makes an entertaining 'story'). Do not show us 'where it could happen' and then tell us it did, show us. Leave your feeling out of it, don't go emotional on us, just present the facts.

 

[logical4u]

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth.

Not necessarily.

Here's an easy way to prove yourself correct: name the last scientific theory that has been rejected.

The geocentric model of the universe? The plum-pudding model of the atom? Newton's (mathematical) model of gravitational attraction? Newton's concept of relativistic notion? The entire concept of time as something constant? Lamarkian evolution [granted that one could claim, at a stretch that epigenetic workings are similar]? Was 'Rain Follows the Plow' ever considered an actual theory? Just about everything believed by alchemists? The Four Humours? The concept of disease as caused by bad spirits before the discovery of the germ? Maternal Impression? phylogiston?

Oh, and spontaneous generation. Almost forgot the most obvious.


And Dualism.



Now demonstrate how any of that lends any credence to Frazzled's claims.

1. How do you reconcile cross-bred organisms such as ligers, mules, or hybrid fruit if you claim offspring must always be the same species as the parents?

1. 
   
   If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.

Can they breed back into either of the parent populations?

If not, then they are members of no species, but mere freak hybrids unto themselves alone.
​

1. Can you point to a single scientific theory recognized by the scientific community that has been either rejected or promoted beyond the status of theory?

See the above.

The heliocentric model is recognized as both a theory and a fact, much like evolution[/QUOTE]

Mules, ligers, etc are rare (and for the most part sterile). Two mules cannot breed to make more 'mules'. It is the same with these other rarities. Your arguement would have more 'bite' if the animals you use in your examples weren't 'freaks', but a viable combination of two species that could reproduce more of the same. That is not the case. Why do you 'evolution' people get so emotional over facts that aren't there (falsehoods)?