Like saying dinosaur bones are tricks planted by God or something

So if the premises are set up in a reasonable physical way science can increase or decrease confidence in those premises, but if they are unreasonable maybe not

proof of Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction: punch a table as hard as you can, does it hurt? Thats cause the table exerts a resistant force against your punch, thus equal and opposite reaction. From this we can prove the existence of a normal force and gravity since the force of gravity is what that little number is measuring when we stand on a scale and in order for us to stay on the ground and not shoot through the floor we would need to have a force opposing it, this is the normal force and as long as you are not in free fall you will have a force of gravity equal to that of the normal force. Qualifications: I live in my parent's basement mostly watching porn and contemplating my eventual demise.

What are you arguing again? @Fran

@floridaswamptrash Often times you reach conclusions about God or supernatural beings through physical observations; Science can decrease or increase confidence in those physical observations, but you can still change your argument to being purely nonphysical which makes it outside the realm of science

However the usefulness of Science is that you have empirical evidence for these physical claims and then if your argument naturally leads to evidence of God from these claims it gives you empirical evidence for the existence of God

if you are in a fully nonphysical argument for God you lose this advantage; you cant use empirical or physical evidence for the existence of God

Chance is the science's version of God

That would be like the ontological proof

Its purely a priori

you need 0 physical observations for it

The cosmological argument at least requires the physical observation that stuff exists and potentials are realized

@RoundEarther Science doesnt prove stuff. Your experiment is evidence that Newton's Law holds as a valid model in your experiment.

If you assume universality (That the laws of physics are the same everywhere or something like this) you can say you have high confidence Newton's laws will hold if you preform your experiment 100 ft to the left or 10000 ft above

Follow the instructions at the beginning of the proof

cringe

Some people prefer the "biological" God type thing

Judging from your comment i take it you didnt follow the instructions given. Newtons laws actually do hold universally, however we apply different conditions to them given the circumstances (under water, in the air, spinning around on a merry go roun)

And actually i can, i ran an experiment a while ago for a class, i can send you the data

Newtons laws dont hold in noninertail reference frames

Infact an inerital reference frame is by definition one where newtons laws do hold

They do, actually just finished doing this in class

Lemme see if i can write up the proof for it

I guess Newtons 3rd law would still apply in noninertial reference frames actuall

So only the 1st and 2nd

So imagine the your noninertial reference frame is like a camera view moving over your inertial reference frame.

They still hold as while viewpoint is changing

No they hold with the introduction of fictitious forces

Which are added ad hoc to make them work

When I launch an artillerly shell and the earth rotates under it, i see it move to the left or right in my frame on the ground

No forces are acting on it in those directions according to me, yet it moves in those directions

newtons laws dont hold

We just proved the existence of these so called "fictitious" forces, if there was something you dont understand i encourage questioning

So here we can see that the force of the earth acting on the artillery shell is so minimal that it would not dramatically affect trajectory

This is due to the mass of the earth being massively larger than that of the shell

https://i.imgur.com/i0rrTdu.png

By your definition noninertial reference frames do not exist because newtons first two laws always work

This is the section on noninertial reference frames from a classical mechanics textbook

Lemme see if i can think of a better way to explain it

I have my mechanics book in front of me right now, tho i appreciate the reference

FlatSmackers Playlists Google Drive💚RIP💚
All you could ever imagine showing the flat earth reality thousands of memes pdf's laser tests hundreds of links etc
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o-A0BjaThVvpCHyasU0hIQkMWa4bseBu