|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sete Clifton
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
81
   |
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
Booby Tuesdays wrote:-9.8 N/s^2 FTW
I don't mean sound like a ****, but would just like to point out it should be m/s^2 (or N/kg) |
Sete Clifton
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 21:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Grezkev wrote:Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote:Kamiya Musume wrote:Gravity is a myth; planets suck. Practically speaking gravity is still a theory, so i guess you are 100% correct. It's all in our heads  Gravity is not a theory...lolz. It's a "natural phenomenon" and a property of mass.
It being a natural phenomenon does not mean it isn't a theory. We don't currently fully understand gravity and what exactly makes it work. A scientific theory is just a hypothesis that has some (not all) experiential data to support it. Therefore, gravity is indeed still a theory.
|
Sete Clifton
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 22:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Laheon wrote:Sete Clifton wrote:It being a natural phenomenon does not mean it isn't a theory. We don't currently fully understand gravity and what exactly makes it work. A scientific theory is just a hypothesis that has some (not all) experiential data to support it. Therefore, gravity is indeed still a theory.
Being anal about it, a theory is a hypothesis with evidence backing it up, and no evidence against it. As soon as a single piece of evidence is proven to go against a theory, the theory is thrown out. Or reworked. Gravity is a theory since it fits ALL the data we have. It is not a hypothesis. Also, it's real. So there.
Sorry, I should have been more clear and been more careful the way I worded that. What I meant when I said "(not all)" is that a theory still has unanswered questions/missing information as to how it works, not that there is contradicting experimental data.
So yeah, we're saying the same thing, it's just that the structure of my sentence was a little poor. |
Sete Clifton
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 22:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Laheon wrote:Sete Clifton wrote:Sorry, I should have been more clear and been more careful the way I worded that. What I meant when I said "(not all)" is that a theory still has unanswered questions/missing information as to how it works, not that there is contradicting experimental data.
So yeah, we're saying the same thing, it's just that the structure of my sentence was a little poor. Ahhh, I just love precise wording. Sorry, I also love being a **** about things like that.  Anyway. Back to OP's question. Yes, probably, you will be able to jump three times higher. Seeing as we can jump three times higher on the moon without any effort at all. Edit: Not OP's question. SGT Garrison's question. Oops.
No problem, I would have probably done the same. It's good that you pointed it out anyway, because coming from a scientific background, accidentally spreading misinformation about physics/science would be a sin for me. |
Sete Clifton
PSU GHOST SYNDICATE
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 22:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
edit: double post. |
|
|
| |
|