Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gravity is real you dumb fuckers

2456

Posts

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Your question is still wrong.

    The energy didn't move. The universe did. The universe was tiny and filled with energy at t=0. The universe got bigger and energy became less dense as t->now.

    There is no time t at which the universe was not expanding.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.

    Spoiler:
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.
    On the Planck scale time doesn't exist.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.
    On the Planck scale time doesn't exist.


    Yeah, and some theories say there was no first moment of time, but time didn't exist before the big bang.

    I figure once we die it makes sense.

    Spoiler:
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.
    On the Planck scale time doesn't exist.


    Yeah, and some theories say there was no first moment of time, but time didn't exist before the big bang.

    I figure once we die it makes sense.
    Yeah, when we die there is no perception of time, so time won't exist or not-exist exist.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.
    On the Planck scale time doesn't exist.


    Yeah, and some theories say there was no first moment of time, but time didn't exist before the big bang.

    I figure once we die it makes sense.
    Yeah, when we die there is no perception of time, so time won't exist or not-exist exist.

    Hey, you don't know if time exists in its current form or some other form in the afterlife. Shit, you don't know if string/M-Theory or other such quantum physicists have it right or God was just playing a game of cosmic pool with Buddha when his 7 ball exploded, causing the universe we live in now.

    Some people freak out about the mysteries of the universe. Me?

    I say fuck it and have a beer.

    Spoiler:
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    These people will eat you alive.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What people, the people here?

    I don't see how a lot of people debating what is essentially a subject based almost entirely on assumptions can eat someone else alive. There's so many issues with science and physics as a whole explaining how things are (Hello, S Matrix? Event Horizon? Oh fuck all our theories!) that someone possibly having the upper hand in what is pure speculation is silly.

    I find it fun to read about the different theories presented, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking one has it closer than the other. To be honest I don't think any of them have it right. But the debate and discussion, its got soul.

    Spoiler:
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.


    Well, relative to the discussion of gravity, they are. When you don't have verifiable proof what the fuck gravity is other than a "force", you would have to speculate as to what causes that force, correct? Maybe conjecture is a better way to describe it.

    Spoiler:
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.


    Well, relative to the discussion of gravity, they are. When you don't have verifiable proof what the fuck gravity is other than a "force", you would have to speculate as to what causes that force, correct? Maybe conjecture is a better way to describe it.

    But it's not "a force". We know it's the curvature of spacetime as described by relativity. The question is what the curvature of spacetime is relative to the quantum mechanical model of the universe, summed up in many ways as "why is gravity so piss-weak to start with?"

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.


    Well, relative to the discussion of gravity, they are. When you don't have verifiable proof what the fuck gravity is other than a "force", you would have to speculate as to what causes that force, correct? Maybe conjecture is a better way to describe it.

    But it's not "a force". We know it's the curvature of spacetime as described by relativity. The question is what the curvature of spacetime is relative to the quantum mechanical model of the universe, summed up in many ways as "why is gravity so piss-weak to start with?"

    :lol:

    Fair enough. The idea that gravitons may exist (as was discussed earlier) is just an extension of that, then?

    Again, I'm not knocking science or physics, as some people think. I just think we're face down in the grass trying to figure out the behavior of an ant, so to speak, without knowledge of the half-eaten sandwich a few feet away.

    Spoiler:
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, at least one reason the brane-theory of the universe came about was based on the idea that gravity is so weak because it "leaks" into a gravity only dimension outside our own, and so has to expand across a much greater surface area.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded.

    Also, <3 Apo

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • grendel824_grendel824_ Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Clearly, quite a few posters neglected to read my post, or are very poor readers. I checked, and it is quite clear from my post that I do not question the existence of the phenomenon we call "gravity," nor do I even doubt the applicability of the laws that have been discovered that seem to govern it.

    Hell, I didn't even question the existence of gravitons - I just asked if their existence was still validly questioned or if some significant new evidence had been discovered. From the remaining varied awesome and interesting responses, it seems that I can safely assume that they are still less definite than most other subatomic particles.

    @Qingu: I think I see where you were going with the "oxygen/phlogiston" analogy, but it's pretty flawed (though I can't come up with a good analogy for the graviton thing myself off the top of my head, since it's somewhat of a special case). There's also a point to going down the whole "signifier/signified" road, but I'm trying to address the harder science aspect here instead of the philosophy/language aspect. According to the standards I'm using, oxygen HAS been proven to be real. It has been directly observed. The atom and its makeup are, for these purposes, indubitably real (I know, nothing is "impossible" just siginificantly improbable enough that it's not prudent to consider, but down that road lies the "I doubt that I exist, therefore I exist and that's all I can say for sure" conclusion and that gets us nowhere).

    To "fix" the analogy (though it only makes for more confusion, thus defeating the purpose), we'd have to have entities representing:

    a phenomenon (gravity) [new analogy: "breathing"]

    something affected by that phenomenon (objects with mass) [lungs, maybe?]

    a widely accepted but in actuality less than definite classification of the phenomenon (gravity is a force) [breathing is a force, I guess]

    a theoretical messenger particle that must exist if the force theory is true (gravitons) [breathitons?]

    So the analogy would have to be: I'm not questioning that we breathe oxygen to live, nor am I questioning all the things we've consistently observed about breathing (like how lung volume works, how air moves, why its necessary to stay alive, etc.) (cue posters who didn't understand this saying things like "Oh yeah? Try not breathing for a few days and get back to us on whether breathing is real, smart guy!). But I do wonder why everyone seems to assume that breathing is a force with a messenger particle, the breathiton, and completely dismisses the idea that breathing is just a description of what happens when you take air into your lungs and absorb oxygen atoms into your bloodstream. Sure, "breathitons" fit the equations perfectly, but surprisingly, despite finding definite proof of all kinds of other particles, like photons and electrons and muons and such, not a single breathiton has ever been observed. When this became evident, it seems a little too convenient to assume that breathitons must be undetectable rather than admit that they might not actually exist.

    The reasoning is the same - so maybe it actually does help illustrate the point that if you think it's silly to question the classification of gravity as a "force," yet have no problem poking holes in the idea that "breathitons" must exist, then you're not applying reason consistently.

    I actually had mentioned the possible misleading assumptions about gravity as a force in an English class I was teaching, where the students assumed that people who believed in witchcraft during the time the Crucible took place were far less intelligent than people today. After boiling that POV down to "it's stupid to believe in things that you can't see or prove just because everyone else says so" I asked them if there was anything we believed today that they could see future students lauging about. Wanting to avoid debate about religion where possible, I broke out the whole gravity thing. It actually got them to pay attention and they remembered stuff about the play months later because of that. That felt pretty cool. 8-)

    It's kind of amazing how many physics theories I've seen shot down, often by those coming up with them, because some model that would demonstrate them wouldn't leave room for gravitons, so it "must be wrong." That strikes me as just as silly as some guy I heard dismissing parallel universes as impossible on the basis that if they were true, then that would mean somewhere in those infinite universes would be one where Jesus didn't die for our sins. And heck, even if you assume that as a condition for veracity, it makes less sense to claim that it proves that parallel universes don't exist than to claim that there simply would never be a parallel universe where that didn't happen - like, there might be dinosaur Jesus saving everybody, and robot Jesus saving everybody, just no "complete absence of Jesus doing his thing."

    Wow - I'm kinda impressed with myself, seeing as how I can concede the most insane assumptions and STILL make a more complete argument... I really should give law school a shot someday... :P

  • grendel824_grendel824_ Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Gravitation is true.

    The theories of gravity, however, are more myriad, numerous, and uncertain than the theories of evolution have ever been.

    Yes! Exactly my point but far more concise and not at all annoyingly meandering... you shall henceforth serve as my interpreter. Or rather, my "guy who goes around and turns my blathering into more useful and elegant prose. Your first official job: fix this post, too.

    For bonus points, you can point out that the theory of evolution doesn't do anything to disprove the idea that an intelligent designer (whether it be "God" or some aliens or a time-travelling Vin Diesel) could have been responsible for the way organisms changed over time, it just proves that an intelligent designer is not necessary in order to explain the process. And anyone who is so threatened by that that they have to start lying about the laws of thermodynamics should just hang up their scientist-cloak and jetpack and go home.

    lolscience + lollogic = 8-)

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It's not really meaningful to ask "do gravitons exist?" since the response is "by what definition?"

    Since by all accounts energy in the universe works in a quantized fashion, any apparently discrete carrier of gravitation is going to get termed "the graviton" regardless of its specific properties.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    @grendel

    I heard about a gravity wave testing facility being developed a few years back. Not sure when it was supposed to come on line, but this was about 5 years ago.

    Basically, the idea was in a stable place far underground in the Death Valley desert (why they didn't choose the much more stable and deserty continent of Australia is beyond me), a huge (kilometres long) L shape was to be built and to be at a perfect right angle, perfectly stable (or at least as close as was possible with current technology). They would then shoot a laser through it, and test for distortion from gravity waves. The idea being the laser and path would distort as a gravity wave passed through the L, but would distort it differently normal to the original trajectory. As such, distortions to the L-shape would be different for each arm, meaning the laser's trajectory would not be distorted in the same measure as the size and shape of the L.

    I have no idea whether it came to fruition, whether I have the desert right or whether I have the theory behind the experiment exactly right either. I do remember it being a rather revolutionary way to directly test for the existence of gravity waves at the time. The fact that it would be far underground and requires such precision in both construction and the mirrors and optics involved leads me to believe to things. It would have been hugely expensive (and may have been axed) and secondly, it would take hugely long to build (so, I imagine would not have come on line yet).

    ELM or tbloxham might know more. Or might not. I could be the only person who remembers it. Or made it up from a fevered dream.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The theory of gravity seems true. But there is no gurantee that the next time you drop an object it won't fall up or simply float inexplicably. Until that does occur it's wise to consider gravity a fact. Unless you're into quantum mumbo jumbo.

    steam_sig.png
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The theory of gravity seems true. But there is no gurantee that the next time you drop an object it won't fall up or simply float inexplicably. Until that does occur it's wise to consider gravity a fact. Unless you're into quantum mumbo jumbo.

    That's not what the theory of gravity is. Boo.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The theory of gravity seems true. But there is no gurantee that the next time you drop an object it won't fall up or simply float inexplicably. Until that does occur it's wise to consider gravity a fact. Unless you're into quantum mumbo jumbo.

    That's not what the theory of gravity is. Boo.

    On an exceptionally basic level that defines gravitation. I mean assuming that are no outside influences or you're not in the center of a la grange point.

    Just make my example an apple falling out of a tree if it simplifies the argument.

    steam_sig.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    No. Gravitiy is a figment of your imagination.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    The theory of gravity seems true. But there is no gurantee that the next time you drop an object it won't fall up or simply float inexplicably. Until that does occur it's wise to consider gravity a fact. Unless you're into quantum mumbo jumbo.

    That's not what the theory of gravity is. Boo.

    On an exceptionally basic level that defines gravitation. I mean assuming that are no outside influences or you're not in the center of a la grange point.

    Just make my example an apple falling out of a tree if it simplifies the argument.

    A theory of gravity is an explanation of HOW gravity works, not the fact that gravity happens/things fall/I cannot fly.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Gravity only exists if we believe in it.


    [tiny]Throw yourself at the earth and miss![/tiny]

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I remember hearing about a few gravity wave detectors over the years but I've yet to hear of any of them coming online. Last I knew I thought we were using satellites to do it now.

    EDIT: No I'm wrong (which makes sense now I think about it more)

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/other_gw/gw_projects.html

    There is in fact a project in Australia.

  • Deviant HandsDeviant Hands __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2007
    Whatever happened with the results of that experiment where they sent some perfectly shaped balls into space to test if relativity was true or something?

    I hope playing the Joker didn't have anything to do with this... I mean, I hope he wasn't driven to kill himself because of the role in some way. He was clearly taking the part pretty goddamned seriously.

    Why so serious?
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Whatever happened with the results of that experiment where they sent some perfectly shaped balls into space to test if relativity was true or something?

    A John Candy picture.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Didn't that get tested previously in an eclipse or something of the sort?



    E: Oh, This?

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Forget gravity...

    is GRAVY real???

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • HalberdBlueHalberdBlue Registered User
    edited December 2007
    I think trying to wrap a human brain around the concept of time not existing will end badly.

    Thats exactly what background-independent physics theories try to do, like loop quantum gravity. Except they go one step further and also do not assume that space exists as well.

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.


    Well, relative to the discussion of gravity, they are. When you don't have verifiable proof what the fuck gravity is other than a "force", you would have to speculate as to what causes that force, correct? Maybe conjecture is a better way to describe it.

    But it's not "a force". We know it's the curvature of spacetime as described by relativity. The question is what the curvature of spacetime is relative to the quantum mechanical model of the universe, summed up in many ways as "why is gravity so piss-weak to start with?"

    Oh ho, but we don't know it's the curvature of space-time; in fact, we know that it is NOT the curvature of space-time, or at least not solely the curvature of space-time. Keep in mind if that it were absolutely true that it was the curvature of space-time, then that model would work perfectly with quantum mechanics, which it most certainly does not. The curved space-time model presents a very accurate model of macroscale gravitational effects, but it cannot be the whole story and it may in fact just be a model that happens to work out and the underlying mechanics behave like curved space-time but are in fact not curved space-time at all.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A clue: Physics and science are not pure speculation.

    An addendum: Not all "possibilities" are equal.


    Well, relative to the discussion of gravity, they are. When you don't have verifiable proof what the fuck gravity is other than a "force", you would have to speculate as to what causes that force, correct? Maybe conjecture is a better way to describe it.

    But it's not "a force". We know it's the curvature of spacetime as described by relativity. The question is what the curvature of spacetime is relative to the quantum mechanical model of the universe, summed up in many ways as "why is gravity so piss-weak to start with?"

    Oh ho, but we don't know it's the curvature of space-time; in fact, we know that it is NOT the curvature of space-time, or at least not solely the curvature of space-time. Keep in mind if that it were absolutely true that it was the curvature of space-time, then that model would work perfectly with quantum mechanics, which it most certainly does not. The curved space-time model presents a very accurate model of macroscale gravitational effects, but it cannot be the whole story and it may in fact just be a model that happens to work out and the underlying mechanics behave like curved space-time but are in fact not curved space-time at all.

    Hence my "as described by relativity". Relativity describes a very specific, continuous model of spacetime and over macroscopic scales perturbations of that are gravity in the sense that the calculations are pretty damn accurate when we use it.

  • CojonesCojones Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I remember hearing about a few gravity wave detectors over the years but I've yet to hear of any of them coming online. Last I knew I thought we were using satellites to do it now.

    EDIT: No I'm wrong (which makes sense now I think about it more)

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/other_gw/gw_projects.html

    There is in fact a project in Australia.
    Indeed, I linked this earlier.

    These guys kick ass.

    exmac.png
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I remember hearing about a few gravity wave detectors over the years but I've yet to hear of any of them coming online. Last I knew I thought we were using satellites to do it now.

    EDIT: No I'm wrong (which makes sense now I think about it more)

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/other_gw/gw_projects.html

    There is in fact a project in Australia.

    I forgot about LISA. I was very excited when I heard about LISA. So very clever.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The whole deal of the Big Bang with the soup of all the energy of the universe and the eventual coalescence of matter makes sense to me.

    My question is... what mechanic or model is there to explain the massive expansion of space time?

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2007
    I thought gravity was the shape of space/time being distorted by mass.

    I'm a few decades behind, aren't I.

    Damn this humanities major.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Al_wat wrote: »
    The whole deal of the Big Bang with the soup of all the energy of the universe and the eventual coalescence of matter makes sense to me.

    My question is... what mechanic or model is there to explain the massive expansion of space time?

    Dark Energy and its repulsive force.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    The whole deal of the Big Bang with the soup of all the energy of the universe and the eventual coalescence of matter makes sense to me.

    My question is... what mechanic or model is there to explain the massive expansion of space time?

    Dark Energy and its repulsive force.

    In what manner does this actually act on space time?

    I understand this might be too complicated to answer in this thread.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    The whole deal of the Big Bang with the soup of all the energy of the universe and the eventual coalescence of matter makes sense to me.

    My question is... what mechanic or model is there to explain the massive expansion of space time?

    Dark Energy and its repulsive force.

    In what manner does this actually act on space time?

    I understand this might be too complicated to answer in this thread.

    I have hereby exhausted my knowledge of dark energy.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    The whole deal of the Big Bang with the soup of all the energy of the universe and the eventual coalescence of matter makes sense to me.

    My question is... what mechanic or model is there to explain the massive expansion of space time?

    Dark Energy and its repulsive force.

    Phazon. You need to absorb some with the proper suit and then shoot it back at your dopple-

    Wait, what thread am I in?

    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.