Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

[Jaded Sage]

Fall anywhere. On anything. You numbnuts.

[Impenitent]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8suub ... oaters_fun

-Imp

[Jaded Sage]

Classic.

[ken]

So again I ask, is it more natural for an object to fall or float.

Neither is more natural than the other. Absolutely everything that happens, happens naturally. There is no thing, nor is there anything, more natural than anything else. Naturally, every thing sits equally in equilibrium.

[ken]

Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

If the focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural", then why the first question?

Why not just focus on the meaning of the word "natural"?

You will probably wish you did not want me/us to focus on this but I will focus on the word "naturally", now.

The meaning of the word 'natural', to me, is it is just a word describing what is taking place or happening. It is a word for describing how nature, itself, interacts with itself. For example, evolution explains how 'all things' come together to interact and produce. This obviously happens naturally. 'Nature', is all things. Things coming together and causing, producing or creating is how nature works.

If there is no thing above, beyond, nor apart from nature, then absolutely every thing is a part of nature.
Until evidence is provided contrary, there is no thing above, beyond, nor apart from nature.
Therefore, absolutely every thing interacts together, naturally.

Even though some people may think there is a difference between what is made, created or caused by humankind and what is NOT made, created or caused by humankind, there is in fact really no difference at all. Every thing is made, created and caused naturally, human beings, humankind and everything that have and will create included. Every thing is created through evolution, causally. Humankind has evolved, into being, naturally. Even though humans like to now call themselves "an intelligent being" human beings are still stupid enough to wipe themselves out completely. Only human beings create wars and pollution. If the later happens, then naturally it is of no real importance. Nature may or may not produce another, maybe a more, or truly, intelligent being "next time". If it happens or not has to and will happen naturally.

Human beings themselves, although some do not like to admit this, are NOT above nor beyond nature. Human beings are a part of nature, and as such are governed by natures rules. Although it seems instinctively, unnatural to create products that kill ourselves and cause pollution, which will and does lead to our demise, this seemingly unnatural act happens for a natural reason. Human beings, when alive, take life for granted, so only near death is when people seriously look at life, itself.

Humankind, however, is not stupid enough to wipe themselves out completely before they stop and look at what they are actually doing. But, they are stupid enough to leave it to the very last minute before they decide to seriously look at changing. Only when humankind is close to their deathbed will they then look at changing their behaviors. It is only humans that cause the pollution and weapons that could wipe them out. A universe does not care if they do or not. There is always, and in all ways, a chance for an intelligent species to come along. In a forever, constant-NOW a truly intelligent species will evolve into being, "eventually". If humankind does want to look at themselves, and change, before they wipe themselves out, then they are showing true intelligence. If they do not, then it does not really matter to life, itself. Nature takes care of Its Self, naturally. If humankind does not survive. Life, Its Self, still carries on, naturally of course.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Fall anywhere. On anything. You numbnuts.

Or ascend?

All three are natural to the object in question.

[Hobbes' Choice]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8suub ... oaters_fun

-Imp

Wow casual sexism AND racism, and in the 21st C.
Personally I prefer Craig Charles' commentary to Takeshi.