3 ms·

> It ought not to be a surprise that some of those mechanisms do not work so well outside the standard uniform gravitational field we experience This is called

> It ought not to be a surprise that some of those mechanisms do not work so well outside the standard uniform gravitational field we experience This is called a dependency. So you agree with my initial proposition. > But that is not to say that there isn't another set of mechanisms that could work without the influence of gravity As I addressed in another post, this is orthogonal to the discussion because we are talking about the universe the way it is, not the way it could be; If we remove gravity from the equation, we don't even get past the big bang and forming systems from uneven matter distribution.

jcranmer 7y ago
Your original proposition is "[gravity is] required for [...] chemical reactions in our organelles." I am explicitly disagreeing that gravity is required for such reactions. Your own source doesn't back up that statement--it suggests that the microstructure (in addition to the more obvious structure of the intercellular matrix) of cells is influenced by gravity, which is itself a rather different statement. Influence is a very different thing from requirement. Furthermore, I should point out that our experience that life can survive quite well outside of the normal gravitational field is itself sufficient disproof of your proposition. After all, our mitochondria don't go "Wait! There's no gravity! How am I supposed to Krebs cycle now?"
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I said indirectly, so if you're going to quote me don't only quote the parts that feed your take on things. > I am explicitly disagreeing that gravity is required for such reactions A dependency is very different from a requirement. You can have one without the other. But a system's growth being influenced by an outside system explicitly means that the system's current structure is dependent on that outside system; in the sense that if the outside system were never present, the internal system would be structured differently if it existed at all. And that is only talking about direct influence. > Furthermore, I should point out that our experience that life can survive quite well outside of the normal gravitational field is itself sufficient disproof of your proposition You are straying sooooo far from my original post, can we reel it in a little bit?

jcranmer 7y ago

Your original proposition is "[gravity is] required for [...] chemical reactions in our organelles." I am explicitly disagreeing that gravity is required for such reactions. Your own source doesn't back up that statement--it suggests that the microstructure (in addition to the more obvious structure of the intercellular matrix) of cells is influenced by gravity, which is itself a rather different statement. Influence is a very different thing from requirement. Furthermore, I should point out that our experience that life can survive quite well outside of the normal gravitational field is itself sufficient disproof of your proposition. After all, our mitochondria don't go "Wait! There's no gravity! How am I supposed to Krebs cycle now?"

soulofmischief 7y ago
I said indirectly, so if you're going to quote me don't only quote the parts that feed your take on things. > I am explicitly disagreeing that gravity is required for such reactions A dependency is very different from a requirement. You can have one without the other. But a system's growth being influenced by an outside system explicitly means that the system's current structure is dependent on that outside system; in the sense that if the outside system were never present, the internal system would be structured differently if it existed at all. And that is only talking about direct influence. > Furthermore, I should point out that our experience that life can survive quite well outside of the normal gravitational field is itself sufficient disproof of your proposition You are straying sooooo far from my original post, can we reel it in a little bit?