That’s fair. The reason it seems to stick to the bottom is because it is the bottom of the bucket causing the change in direction. Kinda confusing right?

There is an outward force, as the bottom of the bucket pushes the water to have it change direction, the water does push on the bucket in the opposite direction (3rd law). But, this is not a “centrifugal force” which describes a force pushing the water outward. To reword, the water is making a force against the bucket in response to the bucket’s force on the water, but that force is soley generated by and in response to that interaction. Ironically, this might be easier to visualize with a satellite in orbit and gravity. Gravity is pulling the object toward Earth, that’s easy to understand. But, the object is also moving laterally around Earth, so it sorta is kinda in a state of constantly falling (centripetal force) and missing. Same with the water, but it’s the bucket pushing and not gravity pulling.

This might raise the question: Why does the bucket need walls to keep the water in?

First, to get the bucket in motion, starting from rest, you do need to increase and maintain it’s speed, and same with the water in it, that force is a different force to the centripetal force (though in this case the same source being your arm). On the gravitron the force to speed you up is friction which exists due to the normal force caused by the centripetal force itself. And in space it’d be like booster engines or smthn idk. Second, there is air in the way on Earth.

I hope that helps.

Like you said, objects in a circular motion want to be away from the center of a circle instead of towards it. Centrifugal force is the term to describe that specifically. It’s a “made up” force, because there is no force pushing an object away from the circle.

Q: How is there no force pushing an object away from the circle?

A: An object moving in a circular motion is at all times already trying to move away from the circle. If you take the bucket of water for example, and suddenly deleted the bucket, the water would keep flying in the straight line it was trying to go in. The direction it would fly would be sideways, perpendicular to a line drawn to the center of the circle and not outward away from the center.

Q: Is the water accelerating inward?

A: Yes! The bucket pushes the water keeping it from going in a straight line. Likewise, the string pulls the bucket which keeps the bucket from flying out. And you are spending the energy to cause the force that is being applied to the string. This is known as “centripetal force”. It’s the force that makes the circle going objects change direction.

Q: If there is force or acceleration inward, why doesn’t the water fly towards the center?

A: Acceleration is not a change in speed. It is a change in velocity, which is a combination of speed AND/OR direction. So the water doesn’t fly inward because centripetal force only causes a change in direction (the bottom of the bucket keeps the water from going straight). If someone punched the bottom of the bucket while it was swinging in a circle, then the water would fly inward out of the bucket because that would cause a change in speed toward the bucket.

Short summary: Nothing is pushing the water into the bucket, the bucket is pushing the water so it continues to accelerate in a circle. The water wants to go straight. That is inertia.

Classical Greece was just one of my examples. My main point is that, even if all documented groups had spirituality and religious practices (which I don’t refute), is that you have not convinced me of the cause and effect between morality and spirituality in human society.

1. I do believe people did not need a modern formal education or a ton of free time to reflect and think at a high level. If that belief is an issue, then we fundamentally disagree on that point.

2. You continue to state that all societies have documented spiritual and religious practices, and I apologize that I didn’t make it clear enough that I understood you meant all societies and that I was only using a few societies as an example, but you have not stated why that means spirituality caused morality or needed to have caused morality. Genuinely, could you explain to me how it is implausible that any moral principals found in those religions were the product of societal morals of the time and not the other way around? Even if morals are subjective, religious interpretation is also subjective. As far as meanins to humans and structure goes, neither is more objective than the other in my opinion. Or maybe morals are more objective if we assume they were developed as guided by survival of the species rather than as guided by religion.

3. If you want to ignore everything else, here’s as simple a summary of my question as possible: Why do you insist religion -> morals? Why can it not be morals -> religion?

Garry’s Mod. There is a centralized location you can all get the relevent files from, or uploaf them to (Steam). Your game could be on a publicly accessable server. But, you are able to and pretty much must host the server yourself (or you could use a hosting service, but GMod won’t do it for you).

I feel a lot of the people disagreeing here are making assumptions about your beliefs, missing the point, and then simply refuting you to refute you without providing explaination. I think this is a fair and interesting premise. I disagree with it and will ecplain why, though do note I am not invested enough to specifically look anything up so if I say something inaccurate, please evaluate if the logic falls apart or not.

I think the first part of your main justifications has been hard to refute. Most, if not all societies we have known have had religion or spirituality. However, I think your following conclusion, “those societies must have then used morality based on those religions”, is where the flaw is. I think most societies had religion as a form of a “God of the gaps” and used it to explain phenomena they couldn’t. I would say that is the main reason they did have it. However, that doesn’t yet mean they didn’t use it for morality. To see that, I’d ask you to look at Greek and Roman mythology, or as known to them, religion. Now I believe, Zeus turning into a swan and doing Zeus things doesn’t have a moral (or not a useful one, it’s mainly that Zeus is an asshole)… Likewise, Aphrodite turning Arachne into a spider didn’t really inform some Greek moral of don’t be too pretty, just showed Aphrodite is, for lack of a better word, a fucking jealous bitch. Let’s similarly look at Norse mythology. Loki makes Fenrir and tries to kill other gods and generally does shenanigans. There’s not really a moral attached to that, he kinda just does shit cus he’s a hit of a dick.

My main point here is that while these religions existed, they did so to explain phenomena or were then essentially fanfic extensions of the reasons/personifications of those phenomena, and often were not the basis for morality of a culture (but very well likely were themselves molded by a cultures morality in a reversal of causation). Because Greece, Roman, and Norse cultures were more secular, they could therefore have stories without morals that just had assholery abound. Because the time around the formation of the Christian church was more tyrannical (now I’m guessing), the bible had much more heavy handed morals (ten commandments, 7 deadly sins etc).

I hope that was a better argument for disagreement. And, I don’t think your premise was as outlandish as so many others are making it out to be, despite my disagreement.