Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
On the risk of looking like a lunatic philosopher, yes, I'd argue that gravity doesn't exist.
Even if energy is not manmade, the concept of energy is, or in other words: we invented this concept in order to more easily understand phenomena around us.
I see a lot of replies saying that "energy is in all things and is immutable", but we (at least I) can imagine a scenario where someone invents a whole new system to describe nature which might not use the concept of energy at all (or any other concept you choose, such as gravity). The nature can be the same but the way we describe it can vary wildly (more likely beyond human comprehension).
It's as I said - just because someone (or some species) doesn't recognize this pattern, doesn't mean the pattern doesn't exist.
If some other alien race found a new system of physics that we were unaware of, that does not necessarily invalidate our laws of physics, just as ours would not invalidate theirs. Say, for example, in their system of physics, some arbitrary measurement that we'll call "azupo" is equivalent to another measurement that we'll call "bamu", and this equation is called the "conservation of qugok", that does not mean that qugok does not exist.
Clearly this equation is true (and therefore qugok is a real concept), otherwise the aliens wouldn't be able to fly across the galaxy to meet with us humans. Is qugok an innate property of the universe? Most probably not, but we never claimed that qugok (or energy, for that matter) is innate. All this means is just that we never noticed the qugok pattern, and therefore we never gave a name to it. But the qugok pattern is and has always been real.
To put to bluntly: saying that something is arbitrary is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist. We arbitrarily define the color red, but I hope you won't argue that the color red doesn't exist. (Even an alien who can't see the color red would at least acknowledge that photons can have different wavelengths and that "human red" simply refers to that silly wavelength of light)
Yup, we are in agreement, though I might have missphrased my comments to imply that one shouldn't believe in energy
To that end, there is a quote from Dumbledore on one of the Harry Potter films (don't know which one) where he says: "of course this is in your head Harry, but does it make this less real?"