Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

Without getting into too much detail, a "debate" (aka slanging match) has developed in the Philosophy arena on the nature of freewill. The old genuine vs illusion debate.

Someone (I'll keep names out of it to protect the innocent) posted the following, and I would greatly appreciate a second opinion - and yes, they did give their permission to use it wherever one wished:

The quote:

"Self animation, self determination and life for humans is intrinsically related.
I have chosen the laws Gravity and their effects to be a field of relevance
It is only when a human is dead that he is compelled to comply with the said laws of gravity.

If I prove that humans can defy the laws of gravity by simply standing up [ demonstrating self will, life etc] then I have accomplished the task.
and as human life, self animation and self determination are intrinsically related the reality of freewill is the most likely outcome as it is as real as life, as already agreed to be, is.

The claim that nothing can defy the laws of physics [as currently known] is thus proven to be invalid, because living humans, by free choice, do it or not do it, every day of their lives."​

By way of guide, a few questions:
1. Is it possible to defy the laws of gravity by standing up?
2. Does a living person adhere to the laws of gravity in the same way that a dead person does?
3. Does the act of standing up invalidate the notion that nothing can defy the laws of physics [as currently known]?

Now, for the last, I am aware that scientific laws [as currently known] can be proven false... so I guess it is more a matter of has anything ever yet been shown to defy those laws?

I have a very good idea of the answers, only my opinion does not seem to hold water on the matter.
Hence I am opening it up for a wider audience.

Enjoy.


Edit: There have been concerns that this may quickly be moved to pseudo-science (or worse) so I am not trying to espouse any theories, but just seeking opinion on the matters highlighted.
Please be as brief or as verbose as you desire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The issue is not that the laws are false but are not relevant to that which is self animated, self determined and self willed [humans] with in the limitations their physcal form place upon them. To suggest that the laws are false is unnecessarily conflating the issue and adding more controversy than necessary.
Defiance does not equate with or to fallacy.
Specifically IMO, defying the laws of gravity by standing up does not invalidate the laws of gravity.
Life does not invalidate the laws of gravity either..even though as humans we may be able to defy it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you're still subject to gravitational forces and stresses just like when you're lying down.

Yup.

What would defy gravity is if you could avoid having it exert any sort of force or pressure on you and not feeling resistance to it from the ground beneath your feet, while also avoiding being pulled down to the center or the Earth at the same time. Neurons pulsing in the brain leading to emission of electrical synapses to stimulate chemical reactions in your muscle fibres causing them to contract and make you stand... that's submission both to gravity and electrochemistry. It's no more an act defying the laws of physics than a volcano spewing ashes into the sky.

I think it's obvious that our existing physical understanding has some gaps and limitations. In terms of things like solar orbits and objects falling to Earth, nothing's ever been documented and verified to give us any reason to doubt Einstein, nor even much reason to doubt Newton aside from very miniscule issues of accuracy. If things like flying carpets were well-documented phenomena, scientists would be spending more time studying them right now than all the other branches of physics combined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Sarkus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just a quick observation. I think before the discussion goes any further, you and QQ should agree on the important difference between the idea of 'opposing/defying' gravity and of 'negating/balancing' gravity.

When someone stands up, they are 'opposing' gravity insofar as they are using the muscles (via electromagnetic force) to 'defy' gravity keeping them prone/flat.

Even when you are flat out, the Earth ITSELF is 'defying' (via it's material's E-M forces) gravity to stop you falling further to the centre of the Earth!

Only if someone finds an 'anti-gravity' force per se to NEGATE/Balance existing force of gravity, then you would be not only opposing gravity but negating/balancing it as well.

That was rushed thoughts for your thread, guys! Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A valid point, and my initial thought as well. So the distinction has been put on the table numerous times, with plenty of opportunity to clarify the language.
However, even accepting that there may be a difference of language, his argument (see above) only seems to be coherent if he means it as he says it: humans display the ability to defy the law of gravity every time they stand up.
If he is talking merely about overcoming the force of gravity then the conclusions of his argument are simply a non sequitur, and the argument would be irrelevant to the actual debate in question.

But we're still adhering to the laws of gravity. There just happens to be an equal force opposing such that we do not appear to move relative to the earth. But I understand the possibility of this other meaning, as mentioned above.

Indeed. Eugene Podkletnov is the current leading researcher, I believe, on gravity shielding It seems to be plausible through certain quantum gravity theories, but it seems to be much like cold fusion: sounds great but initial observations seem to be unverified.
But this is a far cry from demonstrating defiance of the known laws by standing up.

Always with the rushing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just a simple, accurate note in passing: So far, we've discovered *nothing* that defies gravity. Even a rocket that leaves the Earth does not defy gravity - it just works against it at great expense of chemical fuel. Period.

 

a way to help explain the distinctions that may be over looked could be expressed this way:
What exactly is a rocket?
A rocket in this context, is the production of an idea [labeled rocket] generated by humans to artificially conspire to defy gravitational attraction. The rocket is not a typically natural phenomena but a man made artificial gravity defying machine.
The laws of physics are predominately about describing natural phenomena. A rocket is not a natural phenomena and is not a natural and logical outcome of natural forces that physics describes. Under those terms a rocket would never exist by mere natural forces alone and exists in defiance of those natural forces, one of which is gravity.
In this context a humans ability to stand up against the forces of nature, is the same as saying he is capable of defying the attraction of gravity.

 

I understand the context you are applying and true this is correct and I agree...man has the capacity to work with gravity and defy it's attraction by standing up against the natural tenancy to lie down. if it were not for the will of man to self animate we would be mere organic "mash mellow" blobs on the ground. Similarly if it were not from the phenomena of gravitational attraction our physical form would have evolved vastly different to what we know today if existent at all.

There fore one could extend the human life exists in defiance of the laws of gravitational attraction. How life evolved to this state is a big question when you consider that all forces would be considered to be conspiring against such evolution.

 

Rubbish. Forces are acting against gravity all the time, in the case of humans and other animals it is the force of muscles powered by chemical energy. This whole thread is utter nonsense and should be deleted, at least from this sub-forum, and transferred to the garbage forum, if there is one. Where are the mods?

 

Do you think plants have free will? How is it that a tree can stand tall if, as you suggest, it is only one's will that enables it to "defy" gravity. What of other plants? Of clouds that float in the sky?

Why? Is there not an evolutionary advantage to being able to move? And to move more quickly?
But of course how life evolved is a big question. It just doesn't really have anything to do with defying the laws of the universe, but rather working within those laws in a way that is advantageous such that it can survive where others do not.

 

You know, take two river pebbles Grasshopper and place them side by side over there..OK.. Now that you have done that let us see if they, those two river pebbles evolve the ability to stack on top of each other all by them selves.

Why the smile on your face Grasshopper?
Am I suggesting the impossible according to the laws of physics?

 

Absolutely!!

 

What's the big fuss all about? Why call the mods in? The discussion is going so well, we've already seen it established that two-legged robots have free will. Who knows what else we'll learn?

 

absolutely!!

 

It's not nonsense, as the thread is posed as a question of whether the proposed notions are correct or not.
If you think the notions utter nonsense (and I would think most of us do) then just say so, but the thread itself I think is okay. It's not pushing any theories as true, but just to garner a more impartial view that QQ might accept, as he clearly doesn't accept mine on the matter.

Imagine a schoolchild had asked whether we defy the laws of gravity every time we stand up, what would you tell them in a way that they might understand? Would you consign that thread to the garbage? Should this place not reach out to such people and provide a means of education?

(Although now he's responding to his own posts :shrug

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

this will be interesting...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some one please indicate how life evolved in accordance with the laws of physics as currently known?

Sarkus has implied he already knows this answer but is reluctant to post I guess. So to has Sorcerer, Read_only and CptBork... well we shall see... eh?
So what's the answer guys...How does the life evolve with out defying the laws of physics as we know them?
My guess is that you would win a Nobel with it.. so give it your best shot.

yes.. please my 7 year old grandson and his younger bro would love to know what you have to say...
"How come we can stand up and a rock can't?"

and I do not for a minute think that because you may not be able to answer the question you should feel humiliated by being asked it...

 

The answer is quite simple, actually. Because we are alive and a rock is not.

All life, including us, fish and trees, are involved in a constant struggle against gravity from birth until death. It is simply a *struggle* - not an attempt to DEFY it. The tree struggles against it in order to get more sunshine, the fish is trying to get food and we are engaged in doing all the things that humans do in order to survive and provide for our children.

There is NO mystery here and neither is there an attempt to DEFY gravity nor any other physical laws - just a struggle of life that is somewhat limited by gravity and all those physical laws.

To reiterate, to your 7 year-old grandson and his younger brother, I would simply answer, "Because we are alive and the rock is not."

 

ha.. I wish that was so easy... but alas you have not met my 7 year old grandson...

question:

answer:

Nope he definitely would have a problem with that as there is no mention of how life evolved against the constant attraction of gravity, included in the answer...

yeah I know, I have muddled the context... but I think you can see my point...

 

Hi QQ. Have a bad cold . Can't stay and chat. But a brief observation...


Consider that a fish/bacteria, plant in the ocean does not actually have the problem of 'standing up'. In some cases its a question of trying to 'stay put' and not float away! And as the fossil record shows, the earliest diversity in evolution originated in the oceans! So evolution does not depend directly on 'defying gravity' (in the sense as you mean/use it) until the first forays of the amphibian diversity. And then the gravity merely provided the necessary environmental 'natural selection pressure' (natural mutations that did not 'work' in that context died off) that gave rise to further diversity which not only resulted in homo erectus (standing up) but also the BIRDS and 'air-floating/riding seeds/spores/spider hatchlings etc which used the air and were freed of the gravity effects directly on their bodies/structures for the time they fly/floated aloft.


Anyhow, just a passing observation to help your discussion along if it's any use to anyone. G'night!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

actually even though probably unintended you have mentioned something that is food for thought regarding gravity and the evolution of life in the oceans. However it fails to deal with the question that really transcends just the issue of gravitational attraction only.

Possibly if particles spent billions of years in free fall [ no gravitational effects ] and were able to combine in a complex way life could evolve I guess...with out defying gravitational attraction to do so. However I wonder at the probability of such occurring. You have however opened some windows of thought... Thanks.

The question has evolved so to speak to better stated as:

How does the life evolve with out defying the laws of physics as we know them?

Oceanic creatures may indeed have to contend with the illusion of low gravity but of course this doesn't explain how oceanic creatures evolved the ability to self animate with out defying the laws that would prevent one particle of matter from defying gravitational attraction to combine with other particles in a way that produced self animation or simply organic status instead of inorganic status.


Please also remember I didn't create this thread, Sarkus did, and I am surprised to be honest that it still is published in Physics and Math fora when it probably would be better served in the philosophy section as Physics is not to kind in dealing with the question of life and organic evolution.