xian

I was just wondering, and I ask this question seriously:

do you assume that gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy? I mean, we see stars moving and such (and moving really fast at the center), but who's to say that gravity is causing it? Secondly, what kind of scientist would think anything is causing those movements? Would any scientist be so foolish as to just blindly assume causation?

Some scientists seem to be so foolish as to demand that the movements of the stars in the center are being caused, that they propose supermassive black holes. A blackhole is nothing more than an assumed cause...is it not? Why would any credible scientist just assume something is causing those stars to move? Is it not more rational to see the stars whirling around and not assume a cause for it?

So lets hear from you: do you assume gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy?

If so, why? What evidence do you have that gravity exists there, and secondly, to any evidence you put forth, does it assume the principle of causality? If it does, then why on earth would you assume that?

Hawkingfan

It is not an assumption. As you said, we SEE gravity occuring because of the movement of stars.
A man by the name of Isaac Newton.
An intelligent one.
What does the Andromeda galaxy have anything to do with it? Do we assume gravity exists on earth?
It's the same evidence we have that gravity exists in our solar system. The evidence is as you said, the motion of bodies as well as other observations like the warping of space-time in accordance with Einstein's theories. It does not assume causality.

Autonemesis

Well it's not the hand of some fucking god, that's for sure.

xian

no we don't. we see movements of stars. we assume gravity is causing it. why do you assume that?

and even more importantly:

why do you assume anything is causing those stars to move?

since when did you start assuming causation?

Jinto

Sorry guys, xian is having a few problems with the idea of uncaused events right now: see this thread for details.

xian

lol. dodge

FALLACY: Poisoning the Well, Strawman

in that thread, i was asked several times by your peers to take the discussion to this forum.

i complied. i would have thought you would be in approval of me taking it to this forum.

And so in response to my question all you can say is "xian is having a few problems with the idea of uncaused events right now?"

What I am really having a problem with is your logical fallacies, though I suppose I expect as much.

Jinto

I wasn't attempting to poison the well, although I do see how that comment could be interpreted as such. What I was trying to do is clarify for those on this forum that were not following the other thread what this issue was about. I apoligize if that came across differently.

Oolon Colluphid

There’s a little matter of parsimony here. We are taking what we see to be caused by gravity... because what we observe there fits exactly with what we have observed closer to home, and which is gravity. It looks like gravity ought to look.

Now, it could be that angels are pushing the stars around, but in the total absence of any other evidence for object-moving angels, and in the presence of plenty of evidence for gravity, we quite rightly have no reason to think it’s anything but gravity causing it.

It could be that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto... but we have no reasons to think there is, and plenty to think there isn’t. So we ignore such lunacy.

Xian would seem to be implying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it’s actually a Pluto-orbiting teapot.

DT

Psycho Economist

Inertia.

Since whenever we can infer that a cause is necessary from observations.

Our physics can't look into the big bang and tell us what was there before... which to you might be a huge sign that Jehovah made space and time and is master of our eternal souls. But scientific thinking says, instead, since we don't have enough evidence to infer some sort of causation to the universe, we shouldn't assume it.

Secondly, we know gravity works here because of behavior we observe in our own solar system and in stars near us. Observing the same behavior elsewhere, without any reason to infer gravity is not responsible, leads us to say gravity is responsible.

If gravity didn't exist in Andromeda, first, there wouldn't be an Andromeda: it's what holds the stars together and binds galaxies. Secondly, it wouldn't be rotating: rectilinear motion reigned in by gravity is what creates rotation in stellar bodies. Third, it wouldn't be heading for us: if it had no mass, it would be pushed away from us by the never-ending expansion of the universe as everything else is... but since it has mass and is close enough, it's headed stright for us and we'll collide with them sometime after the Sun has burnt the Earth like a marshmallow that's been tossed into a bonfire.

Give me some reason to think gravity (which we can empirically detect here, whether we believe in it or not) is not at work over there.

Oolon Colluphid

Okay then Xian, what do you think is the reason the stars are doing what they're doing? Please explain why you think this.

TTFN, DT